[macintologist]

Basically, a group of Georgia State University students get five cars and go on the perimeter in Atlanta, which has varying lanes, but mostly fewer than five lanes. Essentially, what they do is they all line up and slow down to 55 miles per hour, to show just how slow 55 MPH actually IS on an interstate. They succeeded in blocking off an entire section of the interstate, with hilarious results

A Meditation on the Speed Limit

[Albert Pujols]

college students are lame.

[Doofy]

I thought you chaps got rid of the double nickel a while back?

[macintologist]

Civil Obedience. I love it!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I thought you chaps got rid of the double nickel a while back?

Well, kinda. 55 is always legal on the interstate and freeways. In California, anyway, it's actually the maximum speed limit for 18-wheelers and any vehicles with a trailer.

I think California freeways were raised to 65 sometime in the 1980s. On rare occasions (such as I-5) the speed limit is up to 70.

I actually think that raising the speed limit to 80 and really enforcing the speed limit would be fine. Going fast isn't necessarily the problem, it's people doing varying speeds. I think what the kids were getting at was that someone could legally be doing 55 while other people would be doing probably 70 (in a 65). That's a pretty big speed difference and causes a lot of trouble. The other problem is people not using their turn signals. The last problem is the Kamikaze, the f*ckers that wait until the last second while in the passing lane, then scream across 5 lanes traffic to their exit.

[rickey939]

Awesomenesses.®

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Well, kinda. 55 is always legal on the interstate and freeways. In California, anyway, it's actually the maximum speed limit for 18-wheelers and any vehicles with a trailer.

I think California freeways were raised to 65 sometime in the 1980s. On rare occasions (such as I-5) the speed limit is up to 70.

I actually think that raising the speed limit to 80 and really enforcing the speed limit would be fine. Going fast isn't necessarily the problem, it's people doing varying speeds. I think what the kids were getting at was that someone could legally be doing 55 while other people would be doing probably 70 (in a 65). That's a pretty big speed difference and causes a lot of trouble. The other problem is people not using their turn signals. The last problem is the Kamikaze, the f*ckers that wait until the last second while in the passing lane, then scream across 5 lanes traffic to their exit.

I think police should just punish bad drivers and leave good drivers alone. Just one factor alone like speed is not enough to determine lack of reason and prudence.

[Albert Pujols]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Well, kinda. 55 is always legal on the interstate and freeways. In California, anyway, it's actually the maximum speed limit for 18-wheelers and any vehicles with a trailer.

I think California freeways were raised to 65 sometime in the 1980s. On rare occasions (such as I-5) the speed limit is up to 70.

I actually think that raising the speed limit to 80 and really enforcing the speed limit would be fine. Going fast isn't necessarily the problem, it's people doing varying speeds. I think what the kids were getting at was that someone could legally be doing 55 while other people would be doing probably 70 (in a 65). That's a pretty big speed difference and causes a lot of trouble. The other problem is people not using their turn signals. The last problem is the Kamikaze, the f*ckers that wait until the last second while in the passing lane, then scream across 5 lanes traffic to their exit.

The min on most highways up here in NH/MA is 55 mph. The max is almost always 65, I've never seen it higher than that.

What those kids did was stupid and annoying. Just because they want to prove a point doesn't mean they have to block traffic for miles. What if there was an ambulance back there?

[Dr Reducto]

A traffic engineer told me that the safest possible speed for a road is the 85th percentile of speeds of an unimpeded driver on the road (no traffic, no speed limits, etc)

Anything less/more is dangerous, and when speed limits are set lower, it is generally to collect income, as people will generally gravitate towards higher speeds than the limit.

[Albert Pujols]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_l..._United_States

[Stratus Fear]

They chose the best (or actually the worst, I'm being sarcastic) interstate to do that on. I-285 already has horrible traffic when not artificially constrained to 55mph I'm just glad I wasn't out there that day...

[RGB]

Going fast isn't necessarily the problem, it's people doing varying speeds.

Bingo. Too many people fail to realize this. Artificially low speed limits create tension between those who follow the speed limit, and those who drive an appropriate speed for conditions.

Two cars each travelling in their own lane doing the same speed cannot collide.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The other problem is people not using their turn signals. The last problem is the Kamikaze, the f*ckers that wait until the last second while in the passing lane, then scream across 5 lanes traffic to their exit.

Originally Posted by macintologist

I think police should just punish bad drivers and leave good drivers alone. Just one factor alone like speed is not enough to determine lack of reason and prudence.

Amen to that. How many time do you see a young and otherwise safe driver being ticketed for merely going fast, while the old lady on the other side of the road is not being bothered for braking for nothing, not putting her flashers on, changing lane a lot without any logical explanation, "forgetting" to stop at red lights, and so on. It is perfectly feasible to drive fast and safely at the same time.

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

A traffic engineer told me that the safest possible speed for a road is the 85th percentile of speeds of an unimpeded driver on the road (no traffic, no speed limits, etc)

Here in Québec, a civil engineer for the Transportation Ministry (your DOT), publicly said that for a given road with a posted speed limit of 90 kph (55 mph), the road is conceived for a safe driving at 120 (75).

Last year, I had the chance to travel across the US from Detroit to L.A, and during the trip, I encountered many different legislations and speed limits, and I found that roads with limits of 75 mph were not more dangerous or fast than the other highways.. It just happened to be legal at this given place and people were not driving differently.

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

What those kids did was stupid and annoying. Just because they want to prove a point doesn't mean they have to block traffic for miles. What if there was an ambulance back there?

Well, I think the point of this exercise was to prove that the speed limit is too slow, by forcing everybody to abide to it. It was sure annoying, but their point is well proved: almost everybody drives above it, otherwise it wouldn't be that frustrating to be blocked at 55 on this particular day. About the ambulance concern, it's a good point to bring, but on the video, you can see they didn't block the two emergency lanes available on both sides of the highway; plus, these roads are meant to be usable by emergency vehicles even during rush hours.

[macintologist]

They didn't block the emergency lanes, so what are you complaining about?

This was a wonderful form of civil (dis)obedience. Kudos to them.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The last problem is the Kamikaze, the f*ckers that wait until the last second while in the passing lane, then scream across 5 lanes traffic to their exit.

That's what they're called, eh? I like it, actually.

Next time I see someone doing that, I'll wave my fist in anger and scream "You f***ing kamikaze!"

[krillbee]

only college students, only college students would do something like this, LOL.
God bless the college students!

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by FireWire

About the ambulance concern, it's a good point to bring, but on the video, you can see they didn't block the two emergency lanes available on both sides of the highway; plus, these roads are meant to be usable by emergency vehicles even during rush hours.

About the ambulance concern,
hey all these guys were doing was obeying the law . not their fault if ambulances cant get through, its the state's fault for the stupid limit!! Besides, emergency vehicles should know how to navigate through rush hour traffic jams.

I go by the speed limit almost all the time, or within 5 miles, even if that means people have to merge to the left to avoid me. Theres no chance in hell I'm risking getting another ticket, the last one was dang expensive. My state can kiss my arse if they want me to fund their "needy" budget, so that they can pay their officers more and have them drive better/newer squad cars.

Besides, by obeying the limit always, I'm just being a good citizen. Right?

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by krillbee

About the ambulance concern,
hey all these guys were doing was obeying the law . not their fault if ambulances cant get through, its the state's fault for the stupid limit!! Besides, emergency vehicles should know how to navigate through rush hour traffic jams.

^ Good example of someone who ignores personal responsibility.

Although legal, the prank was reckless.

I am disappointed of them, and also of the laws because you cannot throw the book at them.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Although legal, the prank was reckless.

How is it reckless? They were simply obeying the law, as they are supposed to do.. They drove at the posted speed limit, to demonstrate that it is in fact an inappropriate and maybe even dangerous limitation. Okay, personally, I hate the drivers who think they are The Police and decide that since they are going at the legal speed, nobody should pass them. But their "prank" was not reckless in any way, not more than the sunday's mom and pop who are quietly driving at the speed limit.

And as it has been pointed out, ambulances and other emergency vehicles have two full lanes to circulate, and they are trained to get through any kind of traffic they may encounter. The only word that can describe the event it "frustrating". It should not be repeated too often, but their initiative is a good one to demonstrate the bureaucrats that certain laws are not appropriate, in a in-your-face manner (often the only way to make a politician move).

[The Godfather]

They were reckless because they encouraged other drivers to be reckless.

In the video, the kids realize that cars behind started to pass on the shoulder. They laughed and continued their trick, knowing that an accident was likely to happen.

The recklessness of the car passing on the shoulder was worse, but the kids were inciting the behavior on everyone.

I am not saying CAUSE, I am saying INCITE, ENCOURAGE.

Would you have done it? No. Because you know better than that.

[FireWire]

I understand your point, but I cannot see how obeying the law can incite other to be reckless.. I have a hard time picturing how would this come out in the news in the event an accident did occur... "Dangerous drivers going at the speed limit cause serious crash on I-285. Apparently, alcohol and excessive speed were not involved in the accident. The vehicles were travelling in straight line at the posted speed limit without quitting their respective lines. We must urge our readers to drive carefully and with respect, unlike these criminals".

[The Godfather]

Newstitle: "Law abiding retards incite another retard to break the law and crash into the trees"

Easy!

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Civil Obedience. I love it!

Err, no. The left lane is for passing, and you are not supposed to just drive in it.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Err, no. The left lane is for passing, and you are not supposed to just drive in it.

Exactly. If they had been in Illinois, the people driving in the passing lanes would have been breaking the law.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The 55 mile an hour is essentially an exercise in political hypocracy. It was originally created as a fuel saving measure in the 1970s. Over time, the theory morphed to safety. Both are bogus arguments given the technological changes since the 1970s.

Politicians who imposed this speed limit are responding to two pressures. One is the financial, the other is the demogoguery of safety pressure groups. It's the "won't somebody please think of the children" syndrome. And since they want to be reelected, it is hard to buck those pressures. That is why when a few years ago, the limits were raised, they were not raised in urban areas. And still safety pressure groups reacted like the world would end if people could drive in third gear on a highway designed to be driven safely at 75 mph.

The thing is, nobody -- and I mean absolutely nobody -- obeys this law. That includes the very community leaders who imposed it, and the police who enforce it. This is why I thnk it is actually harmful to society, and not just annoying. When you have a law that is laughable, and which all the role models in society -- parents, teachers, police, government officials, and everyone else -- routinely violate, you teach society that the law is arbitrary, and can be ignored. When you do that, it is then hard to convince people that other laws should be obeyed.

This is not an argument for no laws. This is an argument for laws that reflect the average sense of what is sensible. I have driven in 13 or so countries -- including on highways with no speed limit. My observation is the overwhelming majority of people will not exceed a safe speed. That speed is typically around 85 or 90 mph. That is where the speed limit should be set, subject to local engineering differences.

If we did that, then most people's internal sense of what is a safe speed and society's statement of what is a safe speed (declared in the speed limit) would be aligned. Then the message would be sent that those who go significantly faster than that speed are really reckless.

Doing this would also cut down on popular cynicism and distrust of law enforcement officers. When a cop pulls over a person for exceeding an arbitrarily slow speed limit, the cop becomes an antisocial element. He is calling someone a criminal who in reality is not a criminal. The person pulled over is in reality just the unlucky one of us who is caught for doing what we all do. This is very largely why cops are not liked even by people who generally follow all laws to the letter. Cops should not be put in the position of arresting basically law-abiding citizens, and they certainly should not be so enthusiastic about it (speed traps, and the like). It drives a wedge between society and its guardians. That is also not a smart message to send.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by FireWire

How is it reckless? They were simply obeying the law, as they are supposed to do..

They were not obeying the law.

Gergia Code 40-6-40
(d) No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.

[NYK Ace]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Err, no. The left lane is for passing, and you are not supposed to just drive in it.

i dunno the rules in GA (i assume this is where they shot the video) but here in NY the left lane is also for driving and not simply passing, so again they could of been completely within the bounds of the law

[NYK Ace]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58

They were not obeying the law.

Gergia Code 40-6-40
(d) No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.

so basically, if everyone in theory were to drive the speed limit it would be "legal" but if you are blocking other people from breaking the speed limit (and in theory breaking the law) then you are in fact breaking the law for following the posted speed limits?!

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by NYK Ace

so basically, if everyone in theory were to drive the speed limit it would be illegal but if you are blocking other people from breaking the speed limit (and in theory breaking the law) then you are in fact breaking the law for following the posted speed limits?!

I don't really know how this is enforced. But it's pretty clear. Don't drive side by side if you don't have to. I don't see were there's an exception for breaking this law because it keeps someone from breaking another law. It's not the responsibility of the typical motorist to enforce the laws.

Everybody going the speed limit does mean everybody has to drive side by side. You could easily slow down a bit until you are no longer next to another vehicle.

[tooki]

I like how the Autobahn in Germany is policed: no speed limit, but severe penalties for bad driving, such as tailgating, passing on the right, and even road rage. They reduce highway fatalities (their rate is lower than ours!!) by stopping bad drivers, rather than stopping fast ones.

tooki

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The 55 mile an hour is essentially an exercise in political hypocracy. It was originally created as a fuel saving measure in the 1970s. Over time, the theory morphed to safety. Both are bogus arguments given the technological changes since the 1970s.

This is not true. I'm not sure about the safety argument, but fuel economy is still much better at 55 mph than 75. At 55 mph, my car gets about 42 mpg, and at 75 it gets about 32. That's a pretty big difference.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

This is not true. I'm not sure about the safety argument, but fuel economy is still much better at 55 mph than 75. At 55 mph, my car gets about 42 mpg, and at 75 it gets about 32. That's a pretty big difference.

The fuel economy argument is no longer widely cited as the justification for the 55 mph speed limit. It was the justification back in the 1970s but that was a temporary concern connected to the oil shocks of that decade. These days, fuel economy is, frankly, of concern to nobody -- as the plethora of SUV's amply testify. When people argue against increasing speed limits, it is almost invariably on the basis of safety, whether not not there is in fact a basis for doing so.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by tooki

I like how the Autobahn in Germany is policed: no speed limit, but severe penalties for bad driving, such as tailgating, passing on the right, and even road rage. They reduce highway fatalities (their rate is lower than ours!!) by stopping bad drivers, rather than stopping fast ones.

tooki

Yes, I agree, although in my experience, you rarely see a cop on the Autobahn (but you do have speed cameras where there is a limit). Cops police the US interstate so aggressively principally for revenue generation purposes. Speeding tickets are lucrative.

Personally, I have only had one speeding ticket, and it was a few weeks after I got back from being stationed in Germany for 3 years. The cop was nice and only wrote me up for 15 over the limit. In reality, it was more like 30 over. I had to carefully keep a straight face when he lectured me on how dangerous 85 mph was, to me it only felt like 3d gear.

[Chuckit]

I've always said that if they'd get rid of speed limits and just ticket people who tailgate and other unsafe things, you'd have safer roads and no loss of revenue.

[SVass]

Once upon a time some cars were unsafe at higher speeds. Cheap tires would disintegrate on a hot day at high speed. Some cars would roll over if required to do an avoidance maneuver. Guess what, this is still true in this country. Tires do NOT have their maximum safe continuous speed inscribed on them or advertised. SUVs still are subject to rollover. Gas mileage was used to convince the majority to endorse a safety requirement. sam

[Chuckit]

It's still safe to drive a lot faster than the speed limit in most cases. My tires have yet to disintegrate due to my OMGUNSAFE!!!1! 75 mph driving. The speed limit is just there to give cops something to ticket for.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Civil Obedience. I love it!

[davesimondotcom]

Well, here we are with another speed limit thread, and here I am explaining the Montana situation again... where are Montanan and BRussell to do this for me? LOL

In the 1970s, as Simey pointed out earlier, the Feds required the states to lower speed limits to 55 MPH to conserve fuel. So, Montana did so, but instead of issuing a speeding ticket for those breaking the law, they issued $5 tickets for "failure to conserve natural resources." I have heard that the 55 MPH speed limit actually increased deaths in Montana due to the long drives, long stretches without much to do, people fell asleep.

This was eventually raised to 65 on Interstates. (I, myself, recieved a $5 ticket on Highway 212 to Red Lodge when I was 18, and a couple of them in the Big Timber area on I-90.)

Denis Leary actually had a joke about this law in his routine where he got caught speeding in Montana and the cop told him it was a $5 fee payable at that time. He joked that, "I gave the guy a $20 and told him I was going to be speeding all the way through his crappy state."

This lasted until the mid-1990s, when the Legislature reacted to the lack of a Federal limit (it expired after 20 years) by eliminating the set speed limit on Montana highways.

The reasonable and prudent speed limit had several advantages and several disadvantages. Amongst the advantages were that travelling the fourth largest state became much easier. I was dating my wife at the time, she was going to school in Bozeman while I was still living in Billings. I would make that 150 mile journey in my Chevy Cavalier going roughly 90 the whole time.

However, I also slowed down in rain, snow, or other conditions (like traffic.) I also knew places on the road where it was prudent to slow down - such as the large "ripples" in the pavement in the Big Timber area.

The disadvantages (in my view) were that many out-of-staters heard there was "no speed limit" and they started blasting through Montana at 100 MPH. The problem with this was that it wasn't guys in sports cars, it was things like Geo Metros. Not cars made to go that fast.

Another disadvantage was that I was never quite sure if I'd get pulled over at a particular speed. It depended too much on a cop's mood at the time, I think. And the tickets would not have been for speeding, but for reckless driving.

Trucks were still limited lower speeds, but cars were only limited (in the daytime) to the basic driving rule of "reasonable and prudent speed."

Since the speed limit was re-instated as 75 on Interstates and 65-75 on most highways, I don't get there quite as fast. But it's reasonably known in Montana that someone with a Montana plate won't get pulled over for anything less than 85 during the day.

The Legislature struggled with putting together a speed limit because those in the eastern part of Montana - where there are wide open spaces - wanted a faster speed limit than those from the east, such as the Kalispell area where towns are closer together, wanted a slower limit.

It is part of Montana culture to go fast. It always has been. It always will be. And the highway deaths haven't significantly gone down since the speed limit was re-installed. I would prefer that it be raised to a solidly enforced 85 or 90 MPH, but I'm ok with it now as it is.

[davesimondotcom]

During the all-too-brief time I had a Passat, it was hard for me to go under 90... can't wait to get another German car.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I've always said that if they'd get rid of speed limits and just ticket people who tailgate and other unsafe things, you'd have safer roads and no loss of revenue.

Exactly my feelings -- and that's what they do in Germany, with a resulting lower highway fatality rate than the U.S.

Originally Posted by SVass

Once upon a time some cars were unsafe at higher speeds. Cheap tires would disintegrate on a hot day at high speed. Some cars would roll over if required to do an avoidance maneuver. Guess what, this is still true in this country. Tires do NOT have their maximum safe continuous speed inscribed on them or advertised. SUVs still are subject to rollover. Gas mileage was used to convince the majority to endorse a safety requirement. sam

Some types of cars aren't designed for speed. But that's no reason to lower the speed limit. Should we have all roads limited to 15mph because that's the fastest a disabled car can go safely? Hardly.

The Germans have been building cars for high speed since around 1930. Almost any car made today is safe at fast highway speeds, provided it's being driven properly. (That last part is usually what's missing.)

As for tires... even cheap tires are rated to speeds well above what's legal in the U.S. I don't think you can get tires (other than the donut spares) that aren't safe at well-above-legal speeds. And the speed rating is part of the tire's specification, and is most certainly printed on the tire (not in mph or km/h, but as a code that any tire shop employee or car buff will know.

tooki

[lothar56]

All these kids proved is that people often go over the limit...which they could have done standing on a bridge with a radar gun. There is a reason that road is 4 lanes wide. Those that want to go the limit can hang out on the right without impeding anyone. Those that go a bit faster can pass in the other three lanes. :shrug:

[Y3a]

Lemme, see.. Forcing folks to obey the law that they weren't actually breaking is prior restraint.

This nonsence was tried in the middle to late 90's by a local police force in Maryland(Land of horrid driving) but the STATE police stopped that crud.

I think they should raise the bar to PASS a driving test, so you put more folks onto public transportation so we don't have to subsidize it, and remove the "Failure to use turnsignal" laws, replacing them with "Weaving in traffic" which is a 3 point offense.

Any police officer caught forgetting the turnsignal gets fined and demoted. Any public official caught doing wreckless or no turnsignal looses parking place, or right of free parking.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's still safe to drive a lot faster than the speed limit in most cases. My tires have yet to disintegrate due to my OMGUNSAFE!!!1! 75 mph driving. The speed limit is just there to give cops something to ticket for.

Exactly. You can always make an argument that slower is safer. When automobiles first came out, England passed a statute requiring horseless carriages to be proceeded by a man on foot carrying a red flag. It effectively limited cars to 4mph. The argument was safety, but even 4mph is much more dangerous than travelling at 0mph.

So I am quite sure that 75mph is marginally more dangerous than 55mph. The problem with that theory is that in reality, few, if any, actually drive at 55mph. Most drive quite close to 75mph no matter what the statute says. This brings us back to my hypocracy argument. What is the point in arguing for a law if you know nobody will follow it?

The answer is money. It's a convenient source of revenue for local and state governments.

[DekuDekuplex]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58

Gergia Code 40-6-40
(d) No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.

They were not obeying the law.

Strange law. So it's legal for the police to use the speed limit virtually only to raise revenue by ticketing people who go at the same speed as other people, but it's not legal for regular citizens to demonstrate that this is the case?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that kind of thinking sounds like doublethink to me.

That law reminds me of a similar rule that somebody I know was "required" to follow at a prep school: Employees who came in late to work were "required" to report this tardiness on a form, and to make up the time within the next three working days, excluding lunch time. This person dutifully followed this rule, and reported every incident of any accidental tardiness on this form. However, one day, his colleague came in late instead. He noticed that, unlike himself, his colleague didn't follow this rule.

He reported this incident to the supervisory staff, who cautioned the employee who had been late. That employee eventually figured out that he had reported it, and refused to speak with him anymore. His boss asked him why he had difficulty in getting along with this employee, and he replied that this person had broken the office rule on reporting tardiness, and that when he had reported this incident, the offender had stopped speaking with him.

Now the story gets interesting:

The boss then sighed, and actually wrote him up for "not using enough 'people-skills.'" The next day, he received a written warning stating that his "work performance was not satisfactory." Two weeks later, he received another written warning, identically stated. Two weeks after that, the principal called him into the office to notify him that he now officially had one month's notice to leave the school, but that he would not be allowed to enter the school grounds, effective immediately.

If that isn't doublethink, I don't know what is.

-- DekuDekuplex

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58

They were not obeying the law.

They weren't impeding the flow of traffic — they were going the full 55 mph speed limit, so no car could legally go faster even if the driver wanted to. That's the point. The law is out of synch with what actually impedes traffic. The Department of Transportation told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "They didn't do a thing wrong."

[SVass]

Tooki is wrong for once. Tires can overheat. Yes, you can drive 90 mph in Montana. No, you can not in Florida unless your tires are both properly built and properly inflated. They will fail after an hour or two on a hot day! Their State Police tested tires at Daytona Speedway to establish guidelines. And the code was INTENTIONALLY made obscure to keep people confused. Lobbyists know how to "convince" Congress to establish phony ratings. Rollover as I said is also a problem with improperly built vehicles. sam

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They weren't impeding the flow of traffic — they were going the full 55 mph speed limit, so no car could legally go faster even if the driver wanted to. That's the point. The law is out of synch with what actually impedes traffic. The Department of Transportation told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "They didn't do a thing wrong."

They were impeding the flow of traffic. There is no doubt about that. I don't think it matters if they were going 53, 55, or 65. The law doesn't state "unless the cars impeding traffic are going the speed limit". I doubt the rule is enforced very often though.

Whether or not it was illegal, it was a stupid stunt that only served to point out something that everybody already knows. There is no good reason to drive side by side with another car if you don't have to. All it does it create dangers and does not add to anybody's safety. It limits options if one of the drivers has to make an emergency maneuver. Plus it usually causes other idiot drivers to bunch up behind them in dangerous packs. Sure the people stuck in the pack share a big portion of the blame but that's no excuse for the drivers up front to act stupidly.

I think that most people that get on the interstate and drive side by side (or pass really slowly) are oblivious to the dangers they are creating. But to go out and do that on purpose is just dumb.

[Chuckit]

You're just making their point for them, Monty. That's what they say at the end of the video: "Wow, that was dangerous. And the scary part is, the danger came from obeying the law. Maybe that law needs to be changed."

Also, I really hope nobody over the age of 16 believes these people are responsible for illegal and dangerous things the idiots behind them did. These filmmakers are not your mommy. You are solely responsible for your own actions.

[itistoday]

We need more people like these guys. Absolutely brilliant.

BTW, I didn't read this entire thread, but I am shocked to see that some of you think what they did was wrong. You need to seriously reevaluate yourself. You know how 95% of the planet is brain-dead? Well you're one of those people.

[ASIMO]

Originally Posted by itistoday

We need more people like these guys. Absolutely brilliant.

BTW, I didn't read this entire thread, but I am shocked to see that some of you think what they did was wrong. You need to seriously reevaluate yourself. You know how 95% of the planet is brain-dead? Well you're one of those people.

Shocking, no? Of course not. Critical thinking is too difficult for those 95-ers.