| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2007 01:28:56 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by crayon:
OT - if a person ran 20mph at a 10mph limited street, will he be legally against the law? |
Not for long. Don't know many people who can run on foot at 20mph for more than a couple of minutes.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:36:30 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by crayon:
OT - if a person ran 20mph at a 10mph limited street, will he be legally against the law? |
Possibly if he were fleeing the scene of a convenience store robbery.
A better question is: If a driver is doing 100MPH through a 25MPH zone, but there is nobody around to see it, is he breaking the law? Or what is the sound of one horn honking? These questions have bewildered mankind since the invention of velcro.
edit to ask: how can you be "legally against the law"???
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 02:37:13. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:40:35 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
edit to ask: how can you be "legally against the law"??? |
when you're the defending lawyer |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:46:06 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What if it were a skate board? |
I knew people who were awarded skateboarding under the influences, for trying to ride their skateboards drunk in the street, and Biking under the influence too. So I would say you could get a speeding ticket. When I used to ride my longboard we used to pile in a van and go up and down the longest hill we could find and and the van trailed me and I topped out at 30 mph. Those were the days... |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:48:54 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by crayon:
OT - if a person ran 20mph at a 10mph limited street, will he be legally against the law? |
Not for long. Don't know many people who can run on foot at 20mph for more than a couple of minutes. |
I don't think anyone can run at 20mph for more than a few seconds.
Michael Johnson ran the 200M in 19.32sec at Atlanta, an average speed of 23.15 mph.
The fastest reliably measure instantaneous speed of a running human was 26.6 mph, and that was only for a moment.
These are the top speeds of elite athletes, most mortal humans aren't going anywhere near that fast, no matter how hard we try.
Running 20mph means running a 3 minute mile which would beat the World Record by over 43 sec.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 02:50:51.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:54:14 AM · #56 |
| I can run a 20 minute mile! |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 03:19:34 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by crayon:
OT - if a person ran 20mph at a 10mph limited street, will he be legally against the law? |
Not for long. Don't know many people who can run on foot at 20mph for more than a couple of minutes. |
I don't think anyone can run at 20mph for more than a few seconds.
Michael Johnson ran the 200M in 19.32sec at Atlanta, an average speed of 23.15 mph.
The fastest reliably measure instantaneous speed of a running human was 26.6 mph, and that was only for a moment.
These are the top speeds of elite athletes, most mortal humans aren't going anywhere near that fast, no matter how hard we try.
Running 20mph means running a 3 minute mile which would beat the World Record by over 43 sec. |
Spazmopedia? :) |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 05:27:48 AM · #58 |
Hmmmm..... Must be guilty of something...
Afraid of consequences...
Perhaps thats all it takes is seeing order to be in order.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 06:48:19 AM · #59 |
-
Message edited by author 2007-05-03 06:57:17. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 08:52:39 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by SkyNevada:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by SkyNevada:
Drive safe and hopefully you'll see this...
It's that simple. As long as the 'Other Guy' cooperates! |
You'll have to define what's driving safely. As Bear pointed out if everyone else is driving 10 miles over and you're driving 10 miles under that's not safe. Actually, the latter wouldn't be an issue and the former not much of a problem if we simply took driving privileges away from the elderly and those who are incapable of multitasking (i.e. driving and talking at the same time). |
You hit the nail on the head - driving is a Privelege and not a right. My point is, that if people obeyed the laws there would be no need to have people to enforce them - especially when it comes to driving or concerns having to do with Law Enforcement. You can't single out elderly - that's profiling and predjudiced - people incapable of multi-tasking - yes. Yes, accidents do happen - there will always be the need for Medical Personnel as far as vehicles go and for Police to investigate. Most 'Accidents' though (imho) are caused by carelessness/unintentiveness, alcohol/drugs (impaired driving or under the influence) or neglect of the maintenece of their vehicle - all of which could be avoided. |
What I want to know is, why can't the elderly be targeted? At least the incompetent ones. My grandfather often got confused and disoriented and even after getting several tickets, for driving in the middle of the road, driving erratically, driving the wrong way down a one way street, failure to yield and so on, the state would not revoke his license. WTF? On several of those occasions, he almost killed people. Finally, we had to disable his car.
I remember a senior condo complex out in CA where the accident rate at the exit was abnormally high. It was right off of a major street (three lanes plus turn lanes in both directions) The police would sit across the street and watch as residents would exit while failing to stop or yield and would consequently get ticketed. The accident rate at the intersection dropped. The vast majority of these lunatics were senior citizens. They petitioned the judge that since the majority of the tickets were being given to senior citizens, the police must be unfairly targeting seniors. The judge agreed and put a stop to it. The accident rate climbed again.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 09:32:16 AM · #61 |
The only speeding ticket I have in the past 15 years was in New Zealand, One of those speed cameras mentioned earlier in this thread. I hate those things. I also hate roads with electronic speed limit signs because the limit changes with the road conditions. Speed limit was 100K when I went through first time. On the way back they had lowered it to 80K I didn't realize it til after the flash went off on the camera.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 09:55:07 AM · #62 |
| I've only had one speeding ticket ever, 47 in a 45. So lame. |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:16:33 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
One of those speed cameras mentioned earlier in this thread. I hate those things. I also hate roads with electronic speed limit signs because the limit changes with the road conditions. |
An admitted lawbreaker... Ideally, speed limits shouldn't have to change with changing weather conditions. It should be left to the driver to slow down. Unfortunately, most people think they are immune to accidents. I, personally, don't worry about my driving...it's what I do for a living. I worry more about some idiot that thinks he/she 'knows how to drive' slides through a red light/stop sign into me. I've avoided a LOT of accidents being a bit more cautious. I have had 2 accidents in 21 years of driving. 1 with a lady that t-boned me after she went through a stop sign and the other slid through another stop sign in the snow (though, admittedly, I MAY have been able to avoid that 2nd one).
Bottom line: Speed limits are there for a reason. Whether you like them or not, if you break it, you deserve a ticket. The excuse, 'Well, that other car was speeding', is just that....an excuse. Fact is, you were speeding, doesn't matter what the 'other guy' was doing.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 14:17:47.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/13/2025 08:38:21 AM EDT.
