# GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone



## LIL RAJA (Feb 27, 2002)

I got pulled over doing 80mph on a 45mph zone. Damn I am .... 
This morning I was going to the Social Security offfice to get my replacement SS ID. From Fairfax county pkway, i took router 50 east and was driving in my spirited mood. I saw another fellow s2k owner in his red s2k and he gave me thumbs up. That's very nice of him. I continue driving on my own course and right before the 66 exit. I needed to pass a whole bunch of cars, so I hit it hard and speedometer goes to like 80 something. I am like nice, this car is stable at 80+. Next i see red and blue lights flashing behind me. Oh shit. and damn he's not trying to pass me. The last I recall the speed was 80. I am screwed. I pull over immediately and the cop comes over and asks for license and registration. Registration is somewhere in my room with the rest of my mess. it's a temp. one anyway. He asks me if I had any valid excuse. i told him no I do not have any reason to be going that fast. Next he is like sit tight and I will be back. He walks back to his car and makes me sit in my car for god knows how long. So while I am waiting, i am make prayer to Allah to save me. Then I think about my insurance and then I am like I am screwed. While I am still waiting in the car, i see state trooper pull up, does this mean my offense is that bad that he needs the state trooper to come?? The trooper talks to the cop and then leaves with giving me a nod. Like I need a nod right now. Finally the cop comes over and tells me what I was doing was very dangerous and driving without a registration is a crime. I told him sir this is new car and registration is in mail. i still have my 30/60-day tags. The he tells me I was putting people's life in danger. After that he asks me what kind of car this is? I tell him s2000, then he's like is this turbo charged? I am like no sir. Then he asks if it front or rear wheel drive. I am like rear. Then he tells me the reason he is asking this is for the tow truck. I am like holly shit, tow truck. My new car can't be impounded. and I can't go to slammer? who is gonna pick me up. The M3 and the 330ci at home is stick and my mom can't drive, more than that she wouldn't know where to go even if I told her the location. Next he goes, step out of the car sir. I AM LIKE I AM DONE!!!!!!!!!! He asks me a last question, if I have anything illegal in the car? I tell him no and he take a peak at the roof!? I guess checking for radar detector. Finally he goes, i am gonna give you a break. I am like sir, how am i gonna get home if my car is impounded. He goes I am letting you off with a warning. I was like what? really. I was telling him this would never happen again and I would obey all the rules. Oh my god, what a scare that was and embrassement when all the cars were passing by looking at my loud yellow car. 

I am so greatful to God(Allah) for saving me. There is a god for all of those who don't think so. 

ufff. i am gonna eat lunch and not think about this for the rest of the day. 

LIL Raja


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

You lucky bastard  

I can't even slowly accelerate an M5 to 20mph without getting pulled over and verbally abused by a cop on horseback


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2002)

Knock on wood, but my M3 has so far been my "Get out of Jail Free" card.

I've been pulled over 2 times and my wife once in the M3 since we got it in October. No tickets. And each time the speed was quite excessive.

Each time, the officer made a comment along the lines of "I know it's a fast car, but..." or "If you didn't have such a capable car...".

And I'm not making a word of this up.

My wife was on Rockville Pike (a 35 MPH zone, I think) doing 65+ while I got pulled over both times on I-270, one time doing over 90 during rush hour and the other time for well over 100 early on a Saturday morning (~6 am).

Screw god, bless the //M.


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

TD said:


> *Screw god, bless the //M. *


This is the most sensible thing I've ever heard you utter TD. 

There is no god, and I know this because I just had a ticket from 2 years ago resurface and the DMV has screwed me ONCE again! I love calling them. :bawling:


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

Oh and Lil Raja, you are one lucky son of a b!tch. You better be driving like a granny for the next couple of weeks!  Glad to see you got out of that mess too, we wouldn't want anyone to go through what I've had to go through.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Lucky bastards. 

As I said, one of the lovely things about my touring is that everyone ignores me.  I haven't been pulled over, or even been followed since I got it.


----------



## in_d_haus (Jan 2, 2002)

LIL RAJA said:


> *
> ufff. i am gonna eat lunch and not think about this for the rest of the day.
> 
> LIL Raja *


I think you need to think about this everyday, that was very irresponsible. As the cop mentioned you endangered not only yourself but everyone around you with this little stunt. They should have hauled you off! 35 mph over is reckless driving and carries a heavier penalty than simple speeding. You break the law and pray to god to bail you out? :tsk: You could have easily killed yourself or someone else! :thumbdwn:


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone*



in_d_haus said:


> *
> 
> I think you need to think about this everyday, that was very irresponsible. As the cop mentioned you endangered not only yourself but everyone around you with this little stunt. They should have hauled you off! 35 mph over is reckless driving and carries a heavier penalty than simple speeding. You break the law and pray to god to bail you out? :tsk: You could have easily killed yourself or someone else! :thumbdwn: *


Not another one... 

Let the guy bask in his glory ok? We've all done it, speeding that is, and it's nice when you actually get to walk away from it if you get caught. Loosen up!!


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

The speed limits are designed for old gannies driving Geo Metros. Sheesh. Be nice.


----------



## LIL RAJA (Feb 27, 2002)

*Yeah i know. i should not be speeding.*

I am usually a speedlimit follower. But once in a while we all get a little out of hand. i have been driving like a grand-grandma for the lat 24 hours and will continue to do so for who knows when.
i had no excuse for driving that fast in that area and I admit to my guilt.  back to work....

LIL Raja


----------



## JD (Dec 20, 2001)

*I know that area pretty well...*

sometimes its tough to get over to the left lanes of 50 to hit the 66 exit.....sometimes you have to GUN it 

I feel for you


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2002)

*Re: I know that area pretty well...*



JD said:


> *sometimes its tough to get over to the left lanes of 50 to hit the 66 exit.....sometimes you have to GUN it
> 
> I feel for you  *


Hey JD-

When are you coming out to autox?


----------



## Ack (Mar 16, 2002)

LIL RAJ, you are one lucky SOB!  I have only been pulled over a couple of times since getting my licence but each time I got a ticket (in my car at least). I have gotten out of two tickets with my motorcycle.

As for speeding, who doesn't? I routinely notice that when I'm on the highway going either with the flow of traffic, or trying to pass people, that I can easily be doing 80-85. These cars accelerate so quickly that they don't feel as though they are doing this speed. It's also very hard to do the limit w/o checking your speed all of the time. 

Most accidents are usually caused when someones not paying attention to the road (cell phone yackers, stereo station changers, people who find a need to put makeup on WHILE driving!!, etc.) not just from someone driving fast.


----------



## in_d_haus (Jan 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone*



webguy330i said:


> *
> 
> Not another one...
> 
> Let the guy bask in his glory ok? We've all done it, speeding that is, and it's nice when you actually get to walk away from it if you get caught. Loosen up!! *


Webguy, go ride with a cop on a Friday night sometime... watch the DUIs and the fatal accidents and THEN make this statement. Yes, we all speeed or have sped.... doesn't make it right or less dangerous. :tsk:


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone*



in_d_haus said:


> *
> 
> Webguy, go ride with a cop on a Friday night sometime... watch the DUIs and the fatal accidents and THEN make this statement. Yes, we all speeed or have sped.... doesn't make it right or less dangerous. :tsk: *


Who ever said it was right or less dangerous to speed? Not me.

All I'm saying is that you don't have to come off like such a prick about it especially when the guy is obviously sorry he did it and is counting his blessings for not going to jail. He's lucky, plain and simple!


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

What does DUI have to do with speeding? Was he drunk?
As far as fatal accidents go... There are a number of factors involved there. a) Following distance. b) Inattention. c) Lack of lane discipline. Alcohol aside (and believe me, I think Drunk drivers should lose their licenses. And if they're caught again, they should have their cars impounded for the duration of their suspension/revocation), these three reasons are the cause of virtually all accidents. Speed is not a major cause, IMHO.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone*



webguy330i said:


> *
> All I'm saying is that you don't have to come off like such a prick about it *


Way over the line...


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone*



atyclb said:


> *
> 
> Way over the line... *


Really? I thought it was quite appropriate.


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

Perhaps I should have used the word "condescending" rather than "prick".

"You don't have to come off sounding *so condescending* about it."

Yeah that probably works a bit better.


----------



## in_d_haus (Jan 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOT clocked doing 80mph in 45mph zone*



webguy330i said:


> * He's lucky, plain and simple! *


Ok, I'll agree with that one.

Peace!
Haus


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

in_d_haus said:


> *
> 
> The State Patrol here will write you for 3 over, the County cops will write you for 5 over.
> 
> Don't even try to argue "Speeedo error" or "Different tire size", they don't want to hear it. *


It's unfortunate because I could have avoided using a Prayer for judgment (it's a freebie here in NC you can use once every three years). But the county I was in has very strict speeding regulations, and I was just about to cross the border:thumbdwn:


----------



## LIL RAJA (Feb 27, 2002)

*KP - i think ur car looks really nice.*

with the pedals, navigation and the alum. trim looking really sweet.

I initially wanted silver, but ended up getting black, sold it to my sister. Then my brother got a silver one and we sold it with only 4000miles on it cuz it was automatic. So I ended up getting a white one. if i happen to sell this for M3, i will make sure to get the Silver one. Looking beautiful.

LIL raja


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

*Re: KP - i think ur car looks really nice.*



LIL RAJA said:


> *with the pedals, navigation and the alum. trim looking really sweet.
> 
> I initially wanted silver, but ended up getting black, sold it to my sister. Then my brother got a silver one and we sold it with only 4000miles on it cuz it was automatic. So I ended up getting a white one. if i happen to sell this for M3, i will make sure to get the Silver one. Looking beautiful.
> 
> LIL raja *


Thanks . Looks like you have a e46 family growing there . I only have the matte trim on the center, the armrests are too expensive:thumbdwn: . Silver is mundane for BMWs, but it's easy to maintain and hides scratches well . Carbon Black is a very nice color for M3 too


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

Btw, did you switch out your headlight trim? I know the sedans received black trims for a few months before the 02 model came out, but didn't think it applied to the coupes. Your interior looks familiar


----------



## BS' Bimmer (Jan 30, 2002)

clyde325xiT said:


> However, speed alone *NEVER* caused *ANY* crash. OTOH, speed + inattention, speed + distraction, speed - ability, speed - quality sleep (notice a pattern here?) has caused more crashes than we will ever know. You can't test someone's system to see if any of those things applies at the time of the crash like you can for drugs/alcohol.
> 
> The problem is that the posted limit is not set with reference to reality. In most places, it's not even set to the 85th percentile. For those that don't know, the 85th percentile rule is what traffic engineers like to see used for posted limits. The 85th percentile is the speed that 85 percent of drivers will drive at or under in the absence of a posted limit. Numerous studies have borne out that setting limits at the 85th percentile result in the fewest crashes (there are no accidents) per mile driven.
> 
> ...


Obviously differences in opinion won't get us anywhere . . . I say speed is the key factor, you say "inattention" is. Whatever, speed plays a role either way.

As for the 85th percentile stuff, what a joke. Let's set the limit to what 85% of the people drive . . . great! If we can enough folks to drive 100mph in a school zone, then that's the speed limit! :tsk: You might disagree, but in most cases speed limits were based on safety data. Have some locations started to drop the limits to earn more $? Sure, and that sucks. But you cannot simply say all limits are not safety based -- that's just wrong.

As for your disappointment in my driving habits, I think the point here is that lil Raja's posts make it sound like he thinks what he did was maybe not the smartest thing (he is after all still driving like a granny). I would tend to agree with that -- 40mph+ over the speed limit in traffic simply to pass a few cars just isn't smart. there are too many variables in that situation outside of your control to make 40+ a smart decision.

As for "reckless driving", the reason that the term is thrown around is that in most states, X mph over the limit is defined as reckless driving (e.g., here in WI reckless driving is +20mph over). The fact that the cop was talking arrest indicates that 40mph was enough to be reckless. It's not simply "self-righteous huffing".

Finally, even if there is no reckless driving definition in that jurisdiction, I return to my argument above that there are too many variables in this situation. remember that even in racing (with "professional" drivers), speed differential = problems. That's why you see most lapped cars moving out of the way (usually to the same direction every time)as faster cars approach. Its an attempt to take as many of the "unknowns" out of the equation. However, on the highway with inattentive (or just plain dumb) drivers . . . no thanks!


----------



## BS' Bimmer (Jan 30, 2002)

EdCT said:


> *
> 
> Yep, from righteous indignation to right-wing indignation.
> 
> ...


:lmao: So true!


----------



## BS' Bimmer (Jan 30, 2002)

Ackster said:


> *The truth about speeding is this; if states wanted to stop speeders they could/would. The technology is there: photo radars, video cameras, lasers, etc. Hell, if I got a few tickets in the mail over the course of a week, I would be sure not to speed. There is also the low/no-tech approach; have cops drive around in unmarked cars all day with calibrated speedometers matching speed with drivers and pulling them over. A single cop could easily bust 10,20,30 speeders a day. This would also slow my driving down if I couldn't tell if the car behind me was a cop.
> 
> . . . Speeding could be stopped, but the economics of it don't warrant this *


Yep, you're right . . . the economics don't warrant it. However, its not the revenue that's the key . . . its the expense of the solution. Each of your solutions involves both real and opportunity costs. We could have a cop bust speeders all day . . . but that'll stop as soon as other crimes increase because that cop is no longer doing that part of his job. Photo radar? Sure, but its not perfect (e.g., "It wasn't me driving"). So we have more contests of these citations which further backlog our already jammed court system. Hire more judges? More cops? And you think taxes are high now! Screw personal liberty? I've grown to like mine . . . how about you? :dunno:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

BS' Bimmer said:


> *
> 
> Obviously differences in opinion won't get us anywhere . . . I say speed is the key factor, you say "inattention" is. Whatever, speed plays a role either way.*


Originally you said that, "many cases where *speed alone*&#8230;resulted in tragic results." That is what I took issue with. If you would care to relate some of those, I'd love to listen.
*



As for the 85th percentile stuff, what a joke. Let's set the limit to what 85% of the people drive . . . great! If we can enough folks to drive 100mph in a school zone, then that's the speed limit! :tsk: You might disagree, but in most cases speed limits were based on safety data.

Click to expand...

*What "safety data" would that be? If you look, you will find that "safety data" _is_ 85th percentile speed studies. As I said earlier, there are possible exceptions, and I specifically indicated school zones. Maybe next time I should use a large and bold faced font on the subtle points to make sure they stand out. 
*



Have some locations started to drop the limits to earn more $? Sure, and that sucks. But you cannot simply say all limits are not safety based -- that's just wrong.

Click to expand...

*In most cases, when limits are not set to the 85th percentile they are not being set with regards to empirical safety data. It is that simple, and if you were willing to look at the studies and data, you would see that. Instead you seem more inclined to go with your gut feelings, which appear to be heavily biased by sensational anecdotal stories.
*



As for your disappointment in my driving habits, I think the point here is that lil Raja's posts make it sound like he thinks what he did was maybe not the smartest thing (he is after all still driving like a granny).

Click to expand...

*After a whole day&#8230;and I believe that he said something like, "I can't afford to get a tkt. My record is clear, but the tkt and insurance increase will cause a problem for me as I just got laid off. I think I will need to control my temptations." Maybe you interpret that differently than I do?
*



I would tend to agree with that -- 40mph+ over the speed limit in traffic simply to pass a few cars just isn't smart. there are too many variables in that situation outside of your control to make 40+ a smart decision.

Click to expand...

*40mph over? I'm sorry, not 40 over, but 40+ over&#8230;I guess if we give it another couple days it'll be 100mph + over.  Regardless&#8230;I'm not narrow minded enough to say that 35(or 40+, if you insist) over a posted speed at a location that I'm unfamiliar with is reason enough to condemn someone for driving recklessly. Did he say how much faster than the other traffic he was going? If he did, I honestly missed it. For argument's sake in the absence of that info, can we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the speed differential wasn't great enough to get anyone's panties into a wad? If so, we get back to original argument&#8230;actual speeds vs posted speed limits. If not, we're just spinning our wheels.

*



As for "reckless driving", the reason that the term is thrown around is that in most states, X mph over the limit is defined as reckless driving (e.g., here in WI reckless driving is +20mph over).

Click to expand...

*As far as the state of VA is concerned, failure to use a turn signal is just as reckless as driving 20mph over. Is failing to use a turn signal a bad thing? I suspect that we would agree that it is. Do you think that not using a turn signal one time, when there is no traffic visible in any direction is worthy of the reckless driving label and carry the same penalty as something like driving 20, 35 or 40mph over a posted limit?

*



The fact that the cop was talking arrest indicates that 40mph was enough to be reckless. It's not simply "self-righteous huffing".

Click to expand...

*I ask you to go back and reread Raja's post. Please point out the section where "the cop was talking arrest." Specifically, please point out the section that indicates that any talk of arrest had anything to do with Raja's speed. You won't find either. You will find the cop saying that driving without registration is a crime. You will find Raja commenting about his fear of going to jail. You won't find an indication that the cop was talking about arresting Raja because of his speed.

Again, the cop was there and saw what happened. In his judgment, Raja didn't do anything that warranted any further action. That says something to me. For someone who isn't familiar with the location and didn't see what happened to say that what Raja did was reckless is huffing with self-righteousness, IMO, but we don't have to agree.

*



Finally, even if there is no reckless driving definition in that jurisdiction, I return to my argument above that there are too many variables in this situation.

Click to expand...

*FWIW, VA is in agreement with WI&#8230;20 over is reckless driving. See my above point about turn signals. WRT the variables in this situation, I agree that there are too many&#8230;too many for me to make any pronouncements about what happened. As I took pains to point out in my previous post, I wasn't there and I don't know what the exact situation was. Based on the information available to me and the parts that I know are missing, I don't feel like I can, in good conscience, condemn Raja for reckless driving. Regarding this specific case, all I ever said was that using an arbitrary amount over a posted speed limit to justify condemning Raja was a mistake. I never said that what he did wasn't wrong, dangerous, or anything else. I did say that the actions of the cop who was there and saw what happened said something to me.
*



remember that even in racing (with "professional" drivers), speed differential = problems. That's why you see most lapped cars moving out of the way (usually to the same direction every time)as faster cars approach. Its an attempt to take as many of the "unknowns" out of the equation. However, on the highway with inattentive (or just plain dumb) drivers . . . no thanks!

Click to expand...

*I never said that speed differentials don't cause problems. We agree on this. However, if you are trying to tie this to Raja's situation, keep something in mind&#8230;Raja never indicated what the differential was between his speed and the others. It appears that you have assumed that the other traffic was going much slower than him. I'm not saying that it wasn't, only that I don't know that it wasn't. And you don't either.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

BS' Bimmer said:


> *
> 
> Yep, you're right . . . the economics don't warrant it. However, its not the revenue that's the key . . . its the expense of the solution. Each of your solutions involves both real and opportunity costs. We could have a cop bust speeders all day . . . but that'll stop as soon as other crimes increase because that cop is no longer doing that part of his job. Photo radar? Sure, but its not perfect (e.g., "It wasn't me driving"). So we have more contests of these citations which further backlog our already jammed court system. Hire more judges? More cops? And you think taxes are high now! Screw personal liberty? I've grown to like mine . . . how about you? :dunno: *


Amazing what some people can agree and disagree on at the same time, isn't it?


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

EdCT said:


> *
> 
> Yep, from righteous indignation to right-wing indignation.
> 
> ...


Considering the section that you quoted...I don't care much for people judging others in a knee-jerk, reactionary way based on their preconcieved notions when they have little to no (and certainly not enough) information about the event(s) in question. If that puts me into the indignant right-wing camp, so be it.

Loved the line though


----------



## LIL RAJA (Feb 27, 2002)

*clyde325xiT - a few answers to your questions.*

Well maybe I have not done a good job telling my story. It was long and full of errors . To just complete the details. Most of the people on that road were doing something in the 60 range. I was a bit faster than most of these people and having a yellow car does not help. Yes, I did hit 80 and right when I looked at the clock showing 80, next I looked at the rear view mirror - I know that he was coming for me not to bypass me or anything.

Jail- the cop mentioned such violation he could just arrest me on the spot and car would be impounded. Not to mention the fact driving without a registration is a crime also. Without the registration there was really no way o knowing who this car belongs to. So he questioned me a little about what the name of the car was what kind of specs it had. Obviously he knew a little about the car.

Last but not least- i am driving more sensibly. In fact obeying the speed limits etc. Last night I am coming home from Seqouia/Georgtown I was drivng 60mph on 66 and cars were passing me along and making signs to tell me to faster. i realized one thing of this car is that the color stands out like nothing you would imagine. If there were 5 cars going in a group all speeding about 10 mph- and the cops see them, the first thing he is gonna see me. it's 2 obvious. However, I still love the car. I am having too much fun with it. I am getting girls number just sitting on traffic with top down. When is the last time it happened on my 330ci?! LOL. It's just really fun to drive around because people tell you it's a nice car and seems like everyone is nice to you. Whereas in the BMW - i sometimes get the feeling people are jealous and pissed at you for driving such a fine machine while they are driving around in a junk. <personally, I don't car what others think of my car, I bought it because I enjoy the drive and look of BMWs, not the new 7 series though>. I guess everything has positive and negative. I just need to find my equilibrum and be settled. 

LIL Raja


----------



## CD-55 (Dec 19, 2001)

LIL RAJA said:


> *I am so greatful to God(Allah) for saving me. There is a god for all of those who don't think so.
> *


I am glad you got off(!!!), but wouldn't you agree that God or Allah has more important problems to fix than saving your butt from Fairfax jail?

I think that when the Fairfax County cop that pulled you over left and let the State Trooper take over, they had already made up their mind to cut you a break. Since the State Trooper never saw you speeding, I am not sure he could have written you a ticket even if he wanted to?

The state trooper did a good job trying to scare you, I only hope the same will go for me if I am ever caught.

You are going to take me for a ride sometime, so don't do it (80MPH) again, unless I am riding shotgun.


----------



## BS' Bimmer (Jan 30, 2002)

clyde325xiT said:


> *
> Originally you said that, "many cases where speed alone&#8230;resulted in tragic results." That is what I took issue with. If you would care to relate some of those, I'd love to listen.*


I guess the point is that to me speed plus inability or speed plus bad conditions means the speed is the problem. To you, the inability or conditions are the problem (or part of it). For example, my brother told me once about a kid (17 I think) who had taken his dad's Mustang Cobra out for a ride. A great ride until he missed a turn and nearly lost his life when he slammed into a brick subdivision entrance sign. Based on witness reports and calculations on the skid marks (etc.), they estimated he was doing 90-95 in a residential area (25mph limit). To me, that's speed being the cause of the accident (I don't care how experienced you are, a stunt like that is never smart) . . . to you that's inexperience plus speed. We agree here . . . just focusing on different parts of the equation I guess.



> *What "safety data" would that be? If you look, you will find that "safety data" is 85th percentile speed studies. As I said earlier, there are possible exceptions, and I specifically indicated school zones. Maybe next time I should use a large and bold faced font on the subtle points to make sure they stand out. *


I guess so, I still don't see a reference to school zones in your post. Anyway, most (if not all) of the 85% studies I've read only deal with crashes between cars. I was refering to the other potential hazards and the studies on them. I agree with you . . . on an open highway I'm all for the 85% limit. In towns or other places where other hazards are more frequest (cross traffic, children, etc.), I find the other data more persuasive. Moreover, a number of these studies campare fatality rates from the 1970s to current rates. A bit misleading given that cars today are safer then they were then.



> *
> In most cases, when limits are not set to the 85th percentile they are not being set with regards to empirical safety data. It is that simple, and if you were willing to look at the studies and data, you would see that. Instead you seem more inclined to go with your gut feelings, which appear to be heavily biased by sensational anecdotal stories.*


Huh? You argue above that the safety data is the 85% data -- it would seem self-evident that if a limit is not set to the 85% standard, that the limit is not set to your safety data. :dunno: Anyway, I've looked at the studies. This isn't "gut feelings."



> *
> After a whole day&#8230;and I believe that he said something like, "I can't afford to get a tkt. My record is clear, but the tkt and insurance increase will cause a problem for me as I just got laid off. I think I will need to control my temptations." Maybe you interpret that differently than I do?
> 
> . . .
> ...


You're right, I took some liberty with Raja post . . . maybe it was wrong to do so. However, my (and I can't speak for the others here) interpretations were based on my knowledge of the law, my relationships with cops, and my experience with traffic offenders. As it turns out though, raja's latest post makes it clear that my interpretation of the situation wasn't that far off from reality.



> *
> Again, the cop was there and saw what happened. In his judgment, Raja didn't do anything that warranted any further action. That says something to me. For someone who isn't familiar with the location and didn't see what happened to say that what Raja did was reckless is huffing with self-righteousness, IMO, but we don't have to agree.
> 
> FWIW, VA is in agreement with WI&#8230;20 over is reckless driving. See my above point about turn signals. WRT the variables in this situation, I agree that there are too many&#8230;too many for me to make any pronouncements about what happened. As I took pains to point out in my previous post, I wasn't there and I don't know what the exact situation was. Based on the information available to me and the parts that I know are missing, I don't feel like I can, in good conscience, condemn Raja for reckless driving. Regarding this specific case, all I ever said was that using an arbitrary amount over a posted speed limit to justify condemning Raja was a mistake. I never said that what he did wasn't wrong, dangerous, or anything else. I did say that the actions of the cop who was there and saw what happened said something to me.
> *


Yep, that's the point . . . raja got lucky. For whatever reason the cop let him go. For all we know he received a more important call while he was running raja license and was simply trying to scare the crap out of raja before he left. I'll say it again . . . the ONLY REASON I threw out the word reckless is because by statute his actions were reckless. If that's huffing . . . so be it. BTW, reckless driving for no turn signal?!?!?  WTF?



> *I never said that speed differentials don't cause problems. We agree on this. However, if you are trying to tie this to Raja's situation, keep something in mind&#8230;Raja never indicated what the differential was between his speed and the others. It appears that you have assumed that the other traffic was going much slower than him. I'm not saying that it wasn't, only that I don't know that it wasn't. And you don't either. *


My bad . . . although as it turns out, 20mph faster than others is still going to draw some attention & increase the risk of accident.

Anyway . . . we're all good. I think we agree on the basics! :thumb:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

BS' Bimmer said:


> * A great ride until he missed a turn&#8230;
> 
> SNIP
> 
> To me, that's speed being the cause of the accident (I don't care how experienced you are, a stunt like that is never smart) . . . to you that's inexperience plus speed. We agree here . . . just focusing on different parts of the equation I guess.*


For me to buy into speed alone, something like this would have to happen&#8230;He was traveling at approximately XX mph and then, all by itself, the car started to cartwheel&#8230;But even then, I'd have a hard time with that. Maybe I would say that it was a speed too fast for that particular car (ie lousy aerodynamics let too much air get under the front combined with a driver who didn't know enough to keep the car within its limits). So, yeah, I guess it's different icing on the same cake.
*



I guess so, I still don't see a reference to school zones in your post.

Click to expand...

*Damnit! Damnit! Damnit! 

I used invisible type damnit&#8230;when I was first writing that post, Explorer crashed. When I rewrote it, it looks like I forgot to put that part in. My apologies.
*



Anyway, most (if not all) of the 85% studies I've read only deal with crashes between cars. I was refering to the other potential hazards and the studies on them. I agree with you . . . on an open highway I'm all for the 85% limit. In towns or other places where other hazards are more frequest (cross traffic, children, etc.), I find the other data more persuasive. Moreover, a number of these studies campare fatality rates from the 1970s to current rates. A bit misleading given that cars today are safer then they were then.

Click to expand...

*I don't know how misleading comparisons to older data might be. There's a number of things that could skew the results in either direction. Roads are more crowded today but cars have improved safety features. There are more in vehicle distractions but more people wear seatbelts and little ones are in car seats. Etc. Not to mention the fact that using fatality rates as a primary gauge is inherently flawed when what we would like to see is how often cars hit other cars, peds, trees, objects, etc. If a particular crash would kill someone not wearing a seatbelt gets included in a study but won't include a belted person who walks away, we're missing something.

The 85th percentile studies that I've read have taken the other factors that you mention in account. Or rather, that driving speeds tend to reflect those things _provided that signs are clearly and adequately posted._

*



Huh? You argue above that the safety data is the 85% data -- it would seem self-evident that if a limit is not set to the 85% standard, that the limit is not set to your safety data. :dunno:

Click to expand...

*That's what I said. Maybe I thought I needed to be more clear. Maybe I was wrong 
*



Anyway, I've looked at the studies. This isn't "gut feelings."

Click to expand...

*"Lies, damn lies and statistics." A shining example of how anyone can twist numbers to support their arguments. The question, then, is which of us is the one doing more twisting? 
*



As it turns out though, raja's latest post makes it clear that my interpretation of the situation wasn't that far off from reality.

Click to expand...

*The specifics don't really matter to me. What ticked me off was that Raja was being condemned by a number of people that aren't familiar with the area based on very sketchy and incomplete details (not to mention a unique manner of writing that this old fogey had difficulty understanding  )
*



Yep, that's the point . . . raja got lucky. For whatever reason the cop let him go. For all we know he received a more important call while he was running raja license and was simply trying to scare the crap out of raja before he left.

Click to expand...

*Absolutely. From the description that Raja gave (after running his license the cop asked a lot of questions, checked out the convertible top area, etc and then saying that he going to let him go with a warning) it appeared that the cop was not in a hurry (ie no important call). Maybe that was reading too much into it?

*



I'll say it again . . . the ONLY REASON I threw out the word reckless is because by statute his actions were reckless. If that's huffing . . . so be it. BTW, reckless driving for no turn signal?!?!?  WTF?

Click to expand...

*So, let me see if I have this straight&#8230;Are you saying that not using a turn signal being called reckless driving is wrong? That's the statute in VA. Just the same as going 20 over. What makes one different from the other?

I'm just trying to say that using a blanket speed of a posted limit + XX to determine reckless driving is a flawed approach.
*



20mph faster than others is still going to draw some attention & increase the risk of accident.

Click to expand...

*I don't think I said different except that there are no accidents, just crashes.
*



Anyway . . . we're all good. I think we agree on the basics! :thumb:

Click to expand...

*Good enough


----------



## BS' Bimmer (Jan 30, 2002)

clyde325xiT said:


> *
> I used invisible type damnit&#8230;when I was first writing that post, Explorer crashed. When I rewrote it, it looks like I forgot to put that part in. My apologies.
> *


Ahh . . . the MS curse! No problem! 



> *So, let me see if I have this straight&#8230;Are you saying that not using a turn signal being called reckless driving is wrong? That's the statute in VA. Just the same as going 20 over. What makes one different from the other?*


Not wrong, it's just the last thing you'd think about if you were to name "reckless" driving traits. :dunno:


----------



## allani (Apr 29, 2002)

*I remember a statement from the "NTSB" a few years ago....*

"More than 90% of all traffic tickets given are for speeding but less than 10% of accidents are caused by speeding" Why you ask....because it is easier for a lazy cop to run radar than to go get the real dumb asses that can't drive. It's easy money....


----------

