In Reply to: Re: Rudy's comment - "speed doesn't kill" (long) posted by V on October 05, 1999 at 21:11:31:
I now live in NYC. There really isn't any road I use on a regular basis that I would feel is capable of sustaining triple digit speeds with any kind of reasonable safety. This is mainly because they have traffic that ranges from bumper to bumper down to merely heavy, and no lower. There are a few hidden away, little used ones that can be use as 'test tracks', but that's a different post.
However, I went to college in Syracuse, NY, which is about 250 miles from my parents' house on Long Island. I made this trip every few weekends for a couple of years. The roads I traveled were all interstate highways or major state highways (I80 in NJ and PA, I380 in PA, I81 in PA and NY, or NY 17 west of Harriman). In the rural areas these roads go through, I have no question whatsoever that they can be traveled safely a 100+ MPH during the day, in good weather. I380 in particular was know for being a high speed road, since it was flat, straight, with good sightlines, and little or no traffic. On NY 17, I used to hit speeds of 90 + (this was in the days of the legally mandated 85 mph speed), and never encountered a situation where this became a problem. All this in a car that was much less of a performance car than any E46. On any of these roads I would feel perfectly safe at 100+ under good conditions in an E46.
Let's not forget the fact that in Germany, these cars routinely travel at triple digit speeds.
: Rudy, ok.. let's try this again.
: The article proves NOTHING. The article is about raising the speed limit up 10mph and the highway death rate after that. It has nothing to do with what you were doing. You were driving 100mph, that's not even close to the raised speed limit on the article. Why the hell are you using the article to back yourself up? The only conclusion you can draw from the article is - There isn't a direct correlation between raising the speed limit from 55mph to 65mph and the highway death rate. Besides, maybe we can't even draw that conclusion, since there are too many variable that needs to be taken into account, for instance, the cars have improved over the years(DSC, AST, better stopping distance, maneuverbility, lighting). The road's are getting safer, too. More signs are installed at dangerous corners. How do you do an accurate compensation for all these effects over the years? You can't.
: Ok, so let's do a simple test that's not subject any of these uncertainties.
: You, Rudy, a self-proclaimed "cautious driver", drive at 100mph.
: You, again, Rudy, a self-proclaimed "cautious driver", drive at 50 mph.
: Suddenly, two cow run in front of you, a 747 falls out of the sky, and the 18 wheeler in the opposite lane crosses the central divider coming right at you.
: Which one of the Rudy above has a better chance to:
: 1) stop the car to avoid the accident. Or
: 2) maneuver the car around to avoid the accident. Or
: 3) do any other maneuver to avoid the accident.
: I hope your answer is the 50mph Rudy. Speed does matter. A safe driver driving at a safe speed can only make him a even safer driver (a safe driver drving 100mph can still be safe, but not as safe as when he's driving 50mph). Think about it Rudy.
: P.S - If your answer to the above question is not the 50mph Rudy. I am not going to say anything anymore, please just continue to drive cautiously at 100mph.