Michael Valentine powered a lot of transcontinental runs (Cannonball) including Ed Bolian's landmark 28:50 run.
He will be missed; he's a hero in my social circles.
He will be missed; he's a hero in my social circles.
They say speak only well about the dead, I'd say speak of them as they deserved, each of us builds our own legacy.
You pitch 10mph speed difference as if Louis Hamilton is out on the road flipping cars left and right.
Doing 95 in Oakland? Take the car and crush it for all I car. Doing 95 out in the middle of nowhere with no one or nothing but yourself to hurt? Don’t let me stop you.
I know you only drive highly focused, and don't e.g. eat food or drink or adjust your radio (go look at the numbers!), so you certainly have the right to say this.
Because if you did, you'd be more dangerous than these "childish racing games".
Yes I normally do, I have laser projection on windshield in BMW of all info I need, rest is on steering wheel. The fluent connection with environment around car is worth every penny and less tiring. The only time I look elsewhere in the car is when stationary, and not many reasons to do so.
Anyway what does this has to do with breaking the law? Its the same vein as not paying taxes, 'I am better and above the rules'.
Also, to be clear, I don't "normally" Cannonball across the country, I only do it under special circumstances. But I understand that you make the choice to drive inattentively even though it's a moral wrong and endangers others.
It's no different than sight, just in a different wavelength.
It's what we choose to do with that knowledge is the subject of the law.
We have a right to detect what is bring radiated at us.
I dont believe that some humans have rights others dont.
Estelline, Texas is one.
Brookside, Alabama another. https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/08/05/i-was-cash-cow-i...
I know a section of 322 in PA was once so abused, that the local police lost jurisdiction and the State Police took over patrolling that strip.
They got 85% of the town’s revenue from speeding. There was a drop from 55 to 45 well away from anything where there was any obvious reason to slow down. If you were doing 46 when you passed that sign, you got a ticket.
Not trying to diminish the consequences of said risks.
A successful strategy probably involves accounting for and maybe even improving the competing economic interests rather than picking one and stifling it.
About 10-15 years ago when everyone got cameras was when it changed in my mind from something you heard about too often, but randomly, to seemingly every freaking day with hard evidence to prove it.
I know it’s been going on a lot longer than 10 years. I think it’s kind of like rogue waves. The people involved had been telling stories forever about the things they’d seen. Now that we have recordings everywhere, what do you know, rogue waves all over the place. And people who’d experienced them are like, yeah, we’ve been trying to tell you for ages.
Intentionally driving slower than traffic flow, causing impediments and angry drivers to pass you on the left and right is far more dangerous. E.g. the left lane campers and road vigilantes.
> and pollutes.
You can't speed in an EV?
As for pollution from burning fuel, yes EVs are much better, but there's still some fuel involved upstream in many cases, and the drag from high speed results in less range which means more fuel for a given distance.
OK. I have a 1.5 hour drive. I leave on time. I run across a driver doing 10mph under the speed limit. I'm late.
OK, I leave 10m early. I run across an accident. I'm late.
OK, I leave 15m early. I run across a surprise document check and the officer is extra chatty. Combined with the traffic choke point I'm late.
OK I leave 30m early for everywhere I go. I'm still late or early and never on time because I can't moderate my speed because someone thinks its 'risky'.
Finally, the pollutes more argument doesn't hold up. Just because you have an 'eco' car doesn't mean its economical at traffic speeds. The safest way to drive is maintain the flow of traffic and be predictable (i.e. not slow and no unsafe hyper-mileing maneuvers), and suddenly cars that aren't underpowered microboxes are using less gas anytime you aren't doing 30mph in a city at constant speeds.
> the pollutes more argument doesn't hold up
The amount of energy required to travel the same distance increases with speed. This effect, I believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power.
> The safest way to drive is maintain the flow of traffic and be predictable
True, in which case a radar detector is no use, but rather dangerous.
Power from engines is not linear. Volumetric efficiency (engines are air pumps!) is not linear.
The efficiency of a transmission is not linear.
The amount of energy required to travel the same distance is not linear to speed, at all.
Go 1 MPH somewhere, you'll have terrible gas mileage. This is precisely the exact opposite of what you're describing.
If it were linear, speed would have no effect on efficiency.
> Power from engines ...
But their efficiency can't improve with v^-3, so air friction wins. Just check the consumer reports on cars' fuel efficiency. Optimum efficiency is around 80km/h for most cars.
Which hyper-mileing maneuvers are unsafe other than going too slow? I assume there are some or else you wouldn't need to mention it following "not slow."
Personally, I sometimes try to use just the right amount of fuel on an uphill such that once I crest the hill, I can maximize the duration/distance that I'm in complete overrun (fuel cut) before my speed drifts too far from the speed limit, and then I correct my speed at that point. Coasting to even lower speeds would improve MPG, but unsafe when followed, so I definitely avoid that. Cresting the hill well below the speed limit, knowing that the downhill will swiftly correct for that, isn't too risky in most situations.