Speed Limit Enforcement: Setting an Example for Adherence to Laws

[Gokul43201]

A guy on the road for 12 hours is more likely to take more breaks.

I guess that's possible. Under good conditions, I will take a short break after every 4-5 hrs of driving.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yeah, also the one going 65mph also has to take breaks. You seem to have forgotten that part too.

I meant that if you go on a 12 hour trip and travel at 65 mph you will cover 780 miles. To do that in 10 hours you would have to go 78 mph. If you take 1/2 hour break, then you are only spending 11.5 hours out of the 12 actually moving. You would cover 747.5 miles. To do that in 10 hours with a half hour break, you would need to travel at 78.7 mph. The longer you break, the faster you must go to save 2 hours.

 

[turbo]

Are those the ones that also do 0-60 in 4s?

Yes, 0-60 in 3.9 sec, 220 miles on one charge.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

 

[JasonRox]

I meant that if you go on a 12 hour trip and travel at 65 mph you will cover 780 miles. To do that in 10 hours you would have to go 78 mph. If you take 1/2 hour break, then you are only spending 11.5 hours out of the 12 actually moving. You would cover 747.5 miles. To do that in 10 hours with a half hour break, you would need to travel at 78.7 mph. The longer you break, the faster you must go to save 2 hours.

Yeah, but under those calculations the 12 hour guy never took breaks and if he did, he did not cover 780 miles in 12 hours and so he TOO traveled 1/2 hour over.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yeah, but under those calculations the 12 hour guy never took breaks and if he did, he did not cover 780 miles in 12 hours and so he TOO traveled 1/2 hour over.

No. I meant that if he traveled over a 12 hour period and took a half hour break then at the end of his 12 hour trip he would have traveled for 11 and a half hours and rested for 1/2 hour. He would cover 747.5 miles in 12 hours and then his 12 hour trip would be finished. He would not go on, he would be done with his trip. If his competitor wanted to arrive 2 hours earlier, that is a 10 hour trip, also with 1/2 hour rest, then he would travel for 9.5 hours and rest for 1/2 hour. Then he would be finished. He would be done 2 hours earlier than the one who took a 12 hour trip with a 1/2 hour rest in it. He will need to go 78.68 mph in order to achieve it. The longer the rest, the faster you must go:

11.5 hours of actual travel time during a 12 hour journey at 65 mph is 747.5 miles.
9.5 hour of actual travel time during a 10 hour journey of 747.5 miles requires 78.68 mph.
The longer the breaks, the faster the speed.

 

[BobG]

I used the drive the speed limit or slightly over until I researched about speed and gas milage efficiency about three years ago. So on an interstate with maximum of 65mph, I'll drive 55 out of choice. I can drive the same distance (as those driving 65 and over) and reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per mile, while at the same time, save money at the pump. So I am lowering my 'carbon footprint' and pay less per mile for gasoline. Now that I have been driving this way for 3 years, my gas-pedal foot has been conditioned to go no faster than 55. I do stay in the slow lane to allow passing traffic to go by.

(footnote: In general, I find it safer to drive in one of the edge rather than center lanes, due to the fact that you have one less lane along side you to be aware of).

I meant that if you go on a 12 hour trip and travel at 65 mph you will cover 780 miles. To do that in 10 hours you would have to go 78 mph. If you take 1/2 hour break, then you are only spending 11.5 hours out of the 12 actually moving. You would cover 747.5 miles. To do that in 10 hours with a half hour break, you would need to travel at 78.7 mph. The longer you break, the faster you must go to save 2 hours.

1) You need to compare 55 mph to 65 mph, not 65 mph to 75 mph.

2) It's an approximation. You can't know how many breaks and how long the breaks for any given driver are.

The driver has to take at least one break, since very few cars can get 600+ miles on one tank of gas.

If the driver takes a break every 4 hours, he has to take 2 breaks whether he travels 10 hours or 12 hours. If the breaks are 15 minutes, then the driver driving 55 covers 632.5 miles. The 65 mph driver can cover the same distance with 2 15 minute breaks in 10.23 hours.

If the driver takes a break every 2 hours, he has to take 5 breaks in 12 hours and only 4 breaks in 10 hours. If the breaks are 15 minutes, then 55 mph driver covers 591.25 miles. The 65 mph driver covers the same trip in 10.1 hours.

If it's a family vacation and both drivers leave at 10 PM:

55 mph driver: The 55 mph driver can cover 426.25 miles with one 15 minute stop for gas by 6AM when the kids and the wife wake up. At 6AM, the kids and the wife wake up and he has to take a 30 minute break for breakfast, drives 55 for 15 minutes and 13.75 miles when the youngest kid informs the car that they forgot to use the bathroom, hence another 15 minute break. The 55 mph driver then drives 55 miles between 7 AM and 8 AM before the wife has to use the bathroom. The oldest kid suddenly remembers they have to use the bathroom as soon as the 55 mph driver starts the car. 5 minutes later the 55 mph driver starts to pull out of the parking space when the 2nd oldest screams that the dog is still leashed to the rear bumper. The 55 mph driver is finally back on the road at 8:30 AM and it's 9:30 AM before anyone else has to use the bathroom. Strong swear words can suppress the urge to urinate for at least 30 minutes, meaning the 55 mph driver can keep on driving, covering 82.5 miles over the last 90 minutes. Total distance covered: 577.5 miles.

65 mph driver: The 65 mph driver can cover 503.75 miles with one 15 minute stop for gas by 6AM when the kids and wife wake up. At 6 AM, the kids and wife wake up and whine about eating. While strong swear words can only suppress urination for 30 minutes, they can suppress hunger for one hour, 13 minutes and 43 seconds. The 65 mph driver covers the remaining 73.75 miles in 1 hour and 8 minutes, arriving at 7:08, more than 5 minutes before reaching the limit of appetite suppression. Total time saved: 2 hours 52 minutes.

The key difference: Driving at 55 mph when the family is asleep yields an average distance of 53.28 miles each hour. Driving at 55 mph when the family is awake yields an average distance of 35.35 mph, except on the last final burst to the destination when the average distance traveled once again increases to 55 miles over the last hour regardless of whether one of the kids pees their pants, the dog pukes, or the wife announces she's divorcing the driver.

Driving at 65 mph when the family is asleep yields an average distance of 63 miles each hour. Driving at 65 mph when the family is awake yields an average speed of 41 miles every hour except on the last final burst to the destination when the average distance increases to 65 miles over the last hour regardless of who died.

Edit: Sigh. Probably won't get there no matter how fast or slow we travel. http://www.xkcd.com/461/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

1) You need to compare 55 mph to 65 mph, not 65 mph to 75 mph.

BobG's message #38, the one I originally responded to spoke of the interstate hwy. I can't speak for the whole country, but that means 65 mph around here, that's why I chose it. Remember, we are speaking of a roughly 12 hour stretch of road. BobG's message also spoke of going 10 mph over the limit. However a 12 hour journey at 55 mph will go 660 miles. In order to cover that in 10 hours you would have to go 66 mph, still outside of the pale. If there are breaks, then you will need to go faster than 66 mph.

Edit: Sorry Bob, I thought I was responding to JasonRox.

 

[BobG]

BobG's message #38, the one I originally responded to spoke of the interstate hwy. I can't speak for the whole country, but that means 65 mph around here, that's why I chose it. Remember, we are speaking of a roughly 12 hour stretch of road. BobG's message also spoke of going 10 mph over the limit. However a 12 hour journey at 55 mph will go 660 miles. In order to cover that in 10 hours you would have to go 66 mph, still outside of the pale. If there are breaks, then you will need to go faster than 66 mph.

Edit: Sorry Bob, I thought I was responding to JasonRox.

Actually, my message spoke of an "extra 10 mph", not 10 mph over the speed limit. I would never encourage people to break the law.

Besides, if you go 10 mph over the speed limit, you're sure to rear-end Oubache who will be traveling 20 mph slower than you. That would drastically increase the travel time for both of you.

Additional besides, the original problem used speeds with only two significant digits. Whether you're traveling 75 instead of 65 or 65 instead of 55, the trip is still shortened to 10. hours.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Hurkyl]

I concur with Hurkyl. Left to themselves, SOME people in the group will consider themselves special (they already do) and tailgate, pass in the breakdown lanes, drive obscenely fast through a pack, etc. etc.

98% of any group is fine. They follow generally accepted rules of the road (official and unofficial). We absolutely need the laws that hold back the self-appointed "special people" among us.

By my casual observation in Maryland, 98% is far too high. Tailgating is the norm, even to the extent that they pack tightly together when merging onto a freeway, and they will not pass you until after they start tailgating you.

It's not that these people feel they're special. It's (most likely) that the popular opinion is that it's not something worth caring about, so they remain uneducated and unaware of their bad behaviors.

 

[Chi Meson]

By my casual observation in Maryland, 98% is far too high.

Well you know, 57% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (I heard that here some time ago). I agree that I was being a little too gracious.

 

[Cyrus]

By my casual observation in Maryland, 98% is far too high. Tailgating is the norm, even to the extent that they pack tightly together when merging onto a freeway, and they will not pass you until after they start tailgating you.

It's not that these people feel they're special. It's (most likely) that the popular opinion is that it's not something worth caring about, so they remain uneducated and unaware of their bad behaviors.

Hey, you leave me and my Murryland drivers alone! Slow poke...

Looks like YOU got schooled on how to drive in MD!

 

[Hurkyl]

Hey, you leave me and my Murryland drivers alone! Slow poke...

Looks like YOU got schooled on how to drive in MD!

Huh? This doesn't even make sense. Unless... you're not one of those people who haven't figured out how to pass someone without tailgating, are you?

 

[Cyrus]

Huh? This doesn't even make sense. Unless... you're not one of those people who haven't figured out how to pass someone without tailgating, are you?

This is why people tail gate and flip you off in MD...

Because people don't know what damn lane to drive on! I live next to a lot of old people. My god they are horrible. The speed limit on my road is 50mph. They *LOVEEEE* to drive side by side going 40mph. I have to ride their a** until a gap opens up so I can change lanes around them. Damn old people...

If someones going slow on the slow lane, I leave them alone. If they go slow on the fast lane, I am an absolute a-hole to them. I only cut them slack if they have kids in the back seat.

Most of the offenders are stupid middle aged people driving around 5-10 below the speed limit.

 

[Kurdt]

I call it slipstreaming not tailgating.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is why people tail gate and flip you off in MD...

People tailgate everyone in MD, not just me. Try actually paying attention to the other drivers on the road sometime.

If they go slow on the fast lane, I am an absolute [edited for content] to them.

If you ride my bumper while I'm in the fast lane passing a group of people, I'm probably going to slow down until I can get back over, so that's quite counterproductive.

(And I think the word you're looking for isn't 'slow', but 'legally')

 

[Cyrus]

People tailgate everyone in MD, not just me. Try actually paying attention to the other drivers on the road sometime.

Its hard to do that when you're too bussy tailgating!

I have a pet peeve of driving next to other people. I'll accelerate until I'm a good 10-15 car lengths ahead of you and then go the speed limit or match your speed so you never catch up to me. I can't stand being inside the pack of idiot's who are too indecisive to change lanes, slow down for no reason, or do various other stupid driving habbits.

Hey look at me, I've got my blinker on for 5 mins now and I STILL can't change a lane. Meanwhile, I could have driven a bus through there...

 

[ekrim]

Come to think of it, I drive as fast as I possibly at all times. But living in South Florida this turns out to be 10-15 mph below the speed limit.

 

[Cyrus]

Come to think of it, I drive as fast as I possibly at all times. But living in South Florida this turns out to be 10-15 mph below the speed limit.

HAHAHHAHAh...I know the feeling man... damn old people.

 

[turbo]

HAHAHHAHAh...I know the feeling man... damn old people.

My dad is a lead-foot and at 82 years of age, he just bought a 1997 Park Avenue Ultra with a 232ci V-6 that is supercharged and develops 240 hp and WAY more foot-pounds of torgue. If you're up here, he won't flip you the bird (he's too nice for that crap) but you will be looking at his rear bumper. I'm trying to slow him down, but it's tough.

 

[Cyrus]

My dad is a lead-foot and at 82 years of age, he just bought a 1997 Park Avenue Ultra with a 232ci V-6 that is supercharged and develops 240 hp and WAY more foot-pounds of torgue. If you're up here, he won't flip you the bird (he's too nice for that crap) but you will be looking at his rear bumper. I'm trying to slow him down, but it's tough.

Good for him! Let him drive fast. Hahaha, he's got the classic old's-man-mobile - nice. Old people are attracted to that car like white on rice.

 

[JasonRox]

My dad is a lead-foot and at 82 years of age, he just bought a 1997 Park Avenue Ultra with a 232ci V-6 that is supercharged and develops 240 hp and WAY more foot-pounds of torgue. If you're up here, he won't flip you the bird (he's too nice for that crap) but you will be looking at his rear bumper. I'm trying to slow him down, but it's tough.

How the hell does a Supercharged V6 only pack in 240hp? We really came a long way in 10 years.

 

[bassplayer142]

This is very true. A speeding person is can be more dangerous to their neighbors then someone who is drinking.

 

[redargon]

how accurate is a gps speed readout compared to the spedometer in a car compared to the actual speed of the car compared to the radar/laser gun that is measuring my speed?

An example I've noticed:When my spedometer says 120km/h, my gps usually says about 115km/h. Which is more accurate to my actual speed?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

how accurate is a gps speed readout compared to the spedometer in a car compared to the actual speed of the car compared to the radar/laser gun that is measuring my speed?

An example I've noticed:When my spedometer says 120km/h, my gps usually says about 115km/h. Which is more accurate to my actual speed?

Relative to the galaxy in Andromeda? 130 km/s.

 

[redargon]

Relative to the galaxy in Andromeda? 130 km/s.

ummmm thanks...

 

[turbo]

How the hell does a Supercharged V6 only pack in 240hp? We really came a long way in 10 years.

Can't say, for sure. Buick is known for smooth, quiet engines and that little push-rod mill is no exception. They might have been able to squeeze more performance out of it if they wanted, at the expense of fuel economy. Anyway, since it is supercharged, there is no lag in torque when you stomp on it, like there would be if it were merely turbocharged, like the Grand Nationals were.

 

[Moonbear]

I have a pet peeve of driving next to other people. I'll accelerate until I'm a good 10-15 car lengths ahead of you and then go the speed limit or match your speed so you never catch up to me. I can't stand being inside the pack of idiot's who are too indecisive to change lanes, slow down for no reason, or do various other stupid driving habbits.

Not driving next to other people isn't a pet peeve, that's proper defensive driving technique. You always want to leave at least a car length or two alongside you so you have room to quickly change lanes if something happens ahead that you can't brake in time for and need to maneuver around.

Which leads to my pet peeve...that slow person you start to pass who decides that's when they'll speed up and pace you so you can't get around them. If they just KEEP doing their slow speed, it's much easier to get around them and leave them alone. When they do that crap of speeding up when you go to pass them (and you know if you then drop back down behind them, they'll slow down again, so you don't want to do that option), that makes me WANT to tailgate them for hours.

 

[CPL.Luke]

I usually flash my brights when I want someone to move over, most people understand that and it is safer than tailgaiting. although I must admit if they ignore it I will push them a little bit to move over, and I try to move over when people want me to.

You know people are talking like lowering the speed limit will always result in increased safety, however hyway hypnosis and the like are equally dangerous. If anyone knows the history of highways in America they initially tried to make them all straight believing this would be safer compared to the German idea of making them elegantly curve (which was done for aesthetic reasons). They quickly discovered that the result was actually an increased accident rate due to drivers falling asleep, or becoming distracted as it wasn't expected that anything would change in the road ahead of them.

thats why most modern highways always seem to be curving, it reduces accidents. The problem with rigid speed limits is that as cars become capable of higher speed (a modern car of moderate means can easily do 90 with the same control that a car 20 years ago could do 75 at) if this trend continues and speed limits aren't ajusted upwards it will cause an increase in accidents.

 

[porums]

That sounds drammatic.

 

[BobG]

I usually flash my brights when I want someone to move over, most people understand that and it is safer than tailgaiting. although I must admit if they ignore it I will push them a little bit to move over, and I try to move over when people want me to.

This works in Europe. I think it's a standard signal, just like using your blinkers to indicate a turn. It's at least very common.

I think more people in the US understand this signal than used to (or, having spent 20 years in the military and even more living in military towns, I just see more American drivers that have lived in Europe), but there's still a lot that wouldn't have a clue why you flashed your brights.

 

[JasonRox]

Can't say, for sure. Buick is known for smooth, quiet engines and that little push-rod mill is no exception. They might have been able to squeeze more performance out of it if they wanted, at the expense of fuel economy. Anyway, since it is supercharged, there is no lag in torque when you stomp on it, like there would be if it were merely turbocharged, like the Grand Nationals were.

Yeah I know, but don't nationally aspirated V6 engines have over 200hp now?

I know the BMW's with I6's have up to like 230hp, and that's just engine.

 

[Alfi]

I can't help thinking that if the Government really wanted people to not drive faster than the maximum posted speeds ( 75 mph or whatever the fastest legal speed is anywhere ) for the pure reason of safety and protection, it would be the simplest thing to have the car manufacturers install a chip to limit the speed before the car is sold. As many of the commercial transports do.
Since they do not, I have to believe they ( police and government ) don't really have any true interest in speed limits as a protection for ourselves or others.

Acceleration ( zero to death in x seconds) is a major selling factor in some cars but they certainly don't tout in their advertisements that these cars have a maximum speed of double or triple the countries maximum speed limits.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I can't help thinking that if the Government really wanted people to not drive faster than the maximum posted speeds ( 75 mph or whatever the fastest legal speed is anywhere ) for the pure reason of safety and protection, it would be the simplest thing to have the car manufacturers install a chip to limit the speed before the car is sold. As do many of the commercial transports do.

It would be dangerous if you could not go faster than the limit too. Sometimes you need to accelerate out of a dangerous situation.

 

[rewebster]

It would be dangerous if you could not go faster than the limit too. Sometimes you need to accelerate out of a dangerous situation .

like...

Bond...James Bond

 

[turbo]

Yeah I know, but don't nationally aspirated V6 engines have over 200hp now?

I know the BMW's with I6's have up to like 230hp, and that's just engine.

I think that the point is that this simple push-rod engine (no OHC, timing chain etc, etc) is bulletproof. Buick was selling them to Jeep back when they were producing V-6 CJ5s in the 1960's, and they put them in all kinds of cars including the Skyhawk (THAT was a fun car to drive) and in their smaller luxury cars, too, as well as their Grand National muscle car. Those engines last a long time and they can produce some serious torque, even using regular unleaded, unlike engines that are so tweaked and high-compression that they must have premium gas. I think that Buick was smart not to try to engineer a brand-new V-6 when they could tweak an existing one with such a track record.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

like...

Bond...James Bond

Like Snyder, Jimmy Snyder. I have a license to drive.

 

[turbo]

Like Snyder, Jimmy Snyder. I have a license to drive.

It's even more important when you're on a bike. Even if you have all your marker lights and headlights on, drivers of cars and trucks pull out in front of you or try to make really stupid moves as if you don't exist. Strong acceleration on-tap is just as valuable as good braking in many situations.

 

[Alfi]

It would be dangerous if you could not go faster than the limit too. Sometimes you need to accelerate out of a dangerous situation.

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

 

[Kurdt]

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

You may have to accelerate out of the way of emergency vehicles. If someone was being particularly reckless with speeding I might imagine having to accelerate out of danger in that situation.

 

[edward]

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

The need for acceleration is a safety factor. Every time I have to access I-10 I am glad I can get up to 80 mph quickly so I can merge into traffic safely. People who get to the point where they need to merge and are only going 60 mph are sitting ducks for the big rigs.

The problem is that a car that can accelerate that fast is also usually capable of going well over 100 mph.

Some vehicles have electronic controls that keep the driver from over revving the engine. A control system for top speed could work the same way. It would still allow quick acceleration up to a set point. But let's face it people won't go for the idea.

 

[LowlyPion]

... it would be the simplest thing to have the car manufacturers install a chip to limit the speed before the car is sold.

I can't imagine any car manufacturer wanting to shoot themselves in the crotch like that. That's the kind of thing people tried with prohibition. Won't work.

At best such a thing as this would be a phased in roll-out because the new car sales represent a small percentage of the current rolling stock on the road. With older cars grandfathered in no one would ever buy a new car - I for instance would refuse and drive clunkers forever - unless the current ones disintegrated and even then they would buy another pre-mandated car.

Then there would be a market in upgrade kits putting old motors or old computers or old chips into new cars. No-limit makeovers. It would be an enforcement nightmare and it would be a law with such widespread violation that it would be a late night comedy bonanza.

Now that I think about it though it sounds like something Bush might think made sense.

 

[brewnog]

I think that the point is that this simple push-rod engine (no OHC, timing chain etc, etc) is bulletproof. Buick was selling them to Jeep back when they were producing V-6 CJ5s in the 1960's, and they put them in all kinds of cars including the Skyhawk (THAT was a fun car to drive) and in their smaller luxury cars, too, as well as their Grand National muscle car. Those engines last a long time and they can produce some serious torque, even using regular unleaded, unlike engines that are so tweaked and high-compression that they must have premium gas. I think that Buick was smart not to try to engineer a brand-new V-6 when they could tweak an existing one with such a track record.

What's the typical life (before rebuild/scrap) for an American built engine such as that Buick these days?

 

[JasonRox]

I think that the point is that this simple push-rod engine (no OHC, timing chain etc, etc) is bulletproof. Buick was selling them to Jeep back when they were producing V-6 CJ5s in the 1960's, and they put them in all kinds of cars including the Skyhawk (THAT was a fun car to drive) and in their smaller luxury cars, too, as well as their Grand National muscle car. Those engines last a long time and they can produce some serious torque, even using regular unleaded, unlike engines that are so tweaked and high-compression that they must have premium gas. I think that Buick was smart not to try to engineer a brand-new V-6 when they could tweak an existing one with such a track record.

You're right. Any engine built by BMW needs to be babied and taken care of.

The engine in my Neon takes a hard beating and same with the transmission, and it's running fine and the mechanic says it's still solid.

 

[turbo]

What's the typical life (before rebuild/scrap) for an American built engine such as that Buick these days?

That engine currently has over 200K miles on it and it purrs. I sold my Skyhawk (same engine, normally-aspirated) to a mechanic and he got over 250K out of it before the body wouldn't pass inspection without some major body-work (salt on the roads in winter is brutal). No engine rebuild - just normal scheduled maintenance.

 

[turbo]

I went to my father's today to help him siphon the gas out of his old Caprice before he junks it, and his mechanic is going over the Buick with a fine-tooth comb. He has already replaced the front right wheel-bearing (we knew about that one, as the previous owner had already bought a replacement and included it in the sale), and he's got some brake-pads on order for the front wheels as well as the 2 serpentine belts that run the alternator, power brakes, power steering, supercharger, etc.

 

[turbo]

You're right. Any engine built by BMW needs to be babied and taken care of.

And it demands to be fed T-bone steak, not hot-dogs. Feeding a high-compression engine regular unleaded can do a lot of damage. Pre-ignition (knock) places strain on engine parts, and the cumulative wear can greatly shorten the life of the engine. I had an old '86 HD Wide Glide with head work by Dave Perewitz (THE east-coast builder), fairly steep street-cams, S&S Super E racing carb and all kinds of performance mods, most of which I did myself, and that bike never got less than Super Premium. I would treat a high-output BMW engine the same way - the best available fuel, frequent oil and filter changes, etc.

 

[Moonbear]

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

You're doing the speed limit, and someone from the opposing side of the road loses control and starts to spin out toward your car...you're better off stomping the gas to get out of the way or at least have them only hit the rear of your car than braking and guaranteeing they hit you right in the side door, likely to cause injuries to you.

I'm guessing that those who think everyone should never have reason to drive faster than the speed limit haven't been driving very long?

 

[JasonRox]

And it demands to be fed T-bone steak, not hot-dogs. Feeding a high-compression engine regular unleaded can do a lot of damage. Pre-ignition (knock) places strain on engine parts, and the cumulative wear can greatly shorten the life of the engine. I had an old '86 HD Wide Glide with head work by Dave Perewitz (THE east-coast builder), fairly steep street-cams, S&S Super E racing carb and all kinds of performance mods, most of which I did myself, and that bike never got less than Super Premium. I would treat a high-output BMW engine the same way - the best available fuel, frequent oil and filter changes, etc.

Yeah, they need steak for sure. They actually don't need that many oil changes. The recommended number of them by BMW is every 15,000 miles.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm guessing that those who think everyone should never have reason to drive faster than the speed limit haven't been driving very long?

Or are just unimaginative. (IMHO) Too many people look only at the 'average case', and think that's all you need to plan for.

 

[tribdog]

there aren't that many cases where acceleration is going to be safer than braking or steering. Most cars don't have huge acceleration, so the times where you have enough time to accelerate out of danger you probably have enough time to find another solution. The only case I can see where you can accelerate out of danger is when you are driving over a collapsing bridge.