1) “Slower cars in the right lane have trouble judging closing speeds of really fast-moving cars because they have not experienced them — 250 km/h (155 mph) maybe, but not 320 (199 mph). … Truth is when approaching at 320 km/h, you close on a car traveling 160 km/h as if you’re doing 160 km/h and he’s standing still!â€?

Lynx and others no doubt realize that this is a hazard for much smaller closing (relative) speeds when in traffic, too. A maximum of 30 mph differential is probably desireable and a 20 mph differential is better.

2) I’ve always wanted to see high-speed rail with the Greyhound bus’s dog on the locomotive…

As I mentioned high-speed rail as a possible substitute (if one really wants to travel fast on land — to the point where you start describing speeds in meters per second), here is the latest news from Alsthom.

(Not that this is a suitable city pair for high speed rail, but) imagine going this fast from Newark to Cape May.

“The V150 trainset reached 574,8 km/h ” [357.16 mph, 159.67 m/s]

“V150 is the code name for the event organised by Alstom and its partners, the SNCF et RFF. It refers to the expected speed of 150 metres/second.”

“AGVâ„¢ (Automotrice Grande Vitesse), the fourth generation of very high speed trains, independently developed by Alstom Transport, should allow a commercial speed of 360km/h to be attained.” [223.69 mph, 100 m/s]

http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/news/Hot_events/v150/frontiers/28714.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/home/news/Hot_events/v150/frontiers/

Also –

“Except when increasing the speed to 405 km/h during the car body performance tests, in principle the maximum speed during the running tests will be between 275 km/h and 365 km/h.”

http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/press/20050302/

In any case lets hope the pilots don’t fly recklessly through their airspaces- I’d have to make a note of it if any GOP legislator was injured because of it.

“Evil, wealthy Republicans” are flown, not driven. Heh.

In no way has this been an issue of a lack of compassion, and that so many people are being childishly emotive as well as inaccurate about this has already begun to be annoying.

The same BS could be said about what’s commonly said about JFK, Jr., that he was another Kennedy who thought what applies to ordinary people didn’t apply to him.

We are not gloating over either Governor Corzine’s critical injuries or over JFK’s death, or saying we don’t feel bad for either. THAT IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE HERE, ANYWAY.

Those of us with an intelligence quotient above the dullard level merelyly have been made aware once more about how authority (and celebrity) figures practice a double standard, and as normal, intelligent people, of course we are going to remark about that fact, WHICH IS THE REAL ISSUE HERE. And yes, it does, to normal, intelligent people, moderate sympathy or what you demand constitute a (not reasonable) amount of “compassion.” (What do you want, to see Obama cry for him on TV?)

grrr

> in the US you aren’t going to be
> costing the taxpayer serious cash

Oh, yes, you frequently are.

Example:

“Researchers who studied 105 injured motorcyclists in Washington State have found that public money was used to pay for 63 percent of their care even though they were not receiving public assistance at the time of the accidents. …”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0D9143DF937A25754C0A96E948260

> One word for people who would
> double speed limits.

Please note that I would raise them from the current de facto standard of 80 mph (90 in the desert and other open parts of the West, and parts of the South) only if the highway design speed were suitable, i.e., if we upgraded thousands of miles of Interstate highway, and only to the 110-125 mph range. (That is not merely a cost-benefit trade-off but has other reasoning behind it, why I would only elevate to that range rather than to a higher range.)

> The problem is that you are not
> ALONE on the highway. Elderly
> grannies are out there, pimply
> teens are out there, they can
> barely drive as is, they are
> bound to make mistakes.

I’m aware of that. Part of the solution is to remove the slow and the incompetent from high-speed roads, of course. Note that even those of us who are perfect (thump, thump) would still face traffic in the form of other perfect (thump, thump) drivers.

And then you have to contend with other hazards like animals (hit a deer at N miles per hour and effectively it hits back at the same speed!). Truly high-speed highways, in addition to having other improvements made to them, would have to be fenced (and likely have motion detectors alongside the roadways as a defense in depth). Obviously this is too expensive (as are fuel costs for high speed, and frontage service, emergency, and slow-vehicle roads alongside the main highway) to make sense for the population at large.

It might be cheaper in the long run to build a high-speed rail line where higher land speeds were most suitable (city pair connecting routes).

> If you raise the speeds too much on the highway,

and do everything else related to that, including build much longer entrance and exit ramps, and other little non-cheap trivia like that,

> you practically prohibit unexperienced drivers
> from using them, for fear of encountering a torpedo.

bwahahahaha

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Medium/EC65-884.jpg

Traffic typically moves at 65-75 miles an hour if there isn’t congestion>

and there are a fair number of cars going 80-85. I traveled the parkway between Atlantic City and Ocean City every day this past summer for work, as well as other trips to visit friends and what not, and I was always right around 80 and in a line of 4 or 5 cars. I was passed by cops many times, and they were usually going much faster than me. Now make it the governor’s motorcade and not just a police car… can only imagine how fast they were going.

Hope the guy recovers, but I’m really no fan of him. This is just emblematic of the bigger picture of all jersey politicians (republican and democrat)… they believe they can just flaunt the law. The law doesnt really apply to them, so they can have corruption and all that but not worry bout getting caught because every other politician is doing it.

Now then, I can see it as pretty logical that, especially in the case of less serious crashes, the driver wearing or not a seatbelt can mean the difference between controlling your car and losing control entirely…which can mean a lot to the other car, and especially to your passengers (y’know, people like your kids). If that’s the case then not wearing a seatbelt seriously endangers the lives of others and is therefore highly irresponsible. Doesn’t mean plenty of people don’t do it, they do, and they all know they shouldn’t.

One word for people who would double speed limits. I understand that there are people who drive a great deal, who are used to driving and can control their car to perfection even at high speeds. The problem is that you are not ALONE on the highway. Elderly grannies are out there, pimply teens are out there, they can barely drive as is, they are bound to make mistakes. Mistakes can be rectified at certain speeds, but not at others. If you raise the speeds too much on the highway, you practically prohibit unexperienced drivers from using them, for fear of encountering a torpedo.

at least until the *** STUPID *** toll booths are reached.

(No modern highway should have any obstacle on it or require stops.)

But yes, despite the denials of the dishonest, there is such a thing as going too fast for the road’s design speed as well as for other circumstances, like weather and … traffic (such as in New Jersey) and slower vehicles?

“But extreme speeds, even on the Autobahn, present their own problems. A slight curve that seems straight at 160 km/h (99mph) becomes quite challenging at twice that speed. Second, no matter how well-behaved German drivers are, there is traffic. Slower cars in the right lane have trouble judging closing speeds of really fast-moving cars because they have not experienced them — 250 km/h (155 mph) maybe, but not 320 (199 mph). A driver may glance in his rearview mirror, see you as a dot in the distance and then leisurely pull into your lane to pass the car in front of him, thinking he has ample time. Truth is when approaching at 320 km/h, you close on a car traveling 160 km/h as if you’re doing 160 km/h and he’s standing still!”

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/driving-the-autobahn/20060817155409990001

Your friend’s account jives with my own experience as a fellow . . . er, frequent traveler on the Parkway. Traffic typically moves at 65-75 miles an hour if there isn’t congestion, and that is true from Cape May all the way to the New York state line. Official vehicles move much faster.

Besides, he noted a trooper car behind him that also took off behind the SUVs. You can’t tell me that the troopers on the scene would allow a hit and run to get away form that scene.

For interested readers:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1127572

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/320/7243/1160.pdf

> but at this point everything but
> the seat belt part seems to be
> speculation.

That it’s against the law not to wear the belt?

http://www.state.nj.us/oag/hts/seatbelts.html#2

Is the Governor officially exempted?

> DLS- are you trying to say that you’ve
> never gotten into the car and gone over
> the speed limit or not worn your seatbelt?

I’ve exceeded the speed limit (on the highway, not in town), but not failed to wear my belt. (And no, I don’t drive at a grossly excessive speed. I stay with the traffic flow and let other people get the tickets.)

I believe Austin Roth, who mentioned red-light running by police, could also mention (as could anyone else) that it seems that being a police officer grants one “license to speed” given how much speeding by police we see all the time.

> speeding certainly endangers others

Yes, it does, and I have encountered tiresome arguments from people who deny speed does not kill, that they have a right to decide for themselves what speed they can (i.e., wish to) travel, and so on. There’s nothing wrong with setting some absolute speed limits on the highway (even on the Autobahn), in the 110-125 mph range and installing speed limiters in vehicles with reasonable absolute speeds. The last two vehicles I have owned have fuel cutoffs to accomplish this function (not advertised in the poorly-written owners’ manuals, but they are there, all right, as I have confirmed. The newer cutoff is more troublesome than the older model, but both accomplish what is intended.) Nobody deserves to be able, much less needs, to drive 140-150+ mph with other vehicles on the road.

In addition, the activist movement you’ve seen in Europe to reduce in-town vehicle speeds in some places from approximately 30 mph to 20 mph is perfectly reasonable where collisions with pedestrians and cyclists are particularly likely. There is a huge difference in fatalities vs. survival between being struck at 20 mph and being struck at 30 mph by a motor vehicle.

I have never seen a civilian convoy with police escort EVER travel at anything remotely near the speed limit, nor individual vehicles with police or “homeland security” plates. This is illegal, plain and simple. Arguably, it might be legal if the roads are closed, as they are for presidential convoys, but not for your garden-variety politicians.

*The news reports state that Corzine “bounced around like a ping-pong ball”, which makes me wonder if he bounced into the driver along the way, preventing him from maintaining control of his vehicle. It’s possible that Corzine’s choice not to wear his seatbelt was also responsible for injuries suffered by the other members of his party.

> DLS- Your compassion for the guy is
> overwhelming-

I have contempt for his contempt for the law, but have not wished that he were injured. Don’t accuse me of doing what I have not done at all.

> is permanent injury enough of a
> consequence for “gasp� failing to
> buckle up-

Well, he hopefully learned a lesson from his negligence.

> or do you really need
> to pile on and point out how he
> arrogantly believed he was above
> the law……

I wasn’t piling on, K. Take another look at the original article: This above-the-law point was the original point raised by the article and is the main subject here.

> wait that sounds like the current
> occupants of the WH!

No, if anything, more like the Kennedys. Laws of the land, laws of nature, even (flying beyond your abilities).

Being Dick Codey means never having to be elected governor