Had some fun last night

[Diego440]

I think it's quite tragic how people usually realize they've done wrong after they've had a near-miss or an accident, involving themselves and most of the time, others.

skylineGTR_guy, the more you speed, the higher the chances you'll hurt someone and yourself. I hope nothing happens, but if it does, I'd like to see you come back into this forum and justify all your actions over and over again.

Until then, leave it out of here.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's lame because the link was removed for no real reason. No major automotive site condones street racing - That's why they have disclaimers stating the fact. But removing links to videos? That's a whole other level. You better find the thread with the videos of me revving my car in my driveway. My muffler was breaking a county noise ordnance at the time and I could've been fined had anyone cared.

Being illegal is the only real reason I need to justify removing the link, being also hugely irresponsible and dangerous are two more in reserve...

If you want the rest of your video links removed, I'd be more than willing to oblige - but I'd rather use a modicum of common sense and only remove the ones that are inappropriate... so your noisy muffler can stay

Get one of those green boxes below your avatar, and maybe you will too.

He he.... the point being, if you have a reputation as a quality poster, you are very unlikely to post the sort of stuff that will need to be removed by a moderator 💡

How is it "off-topic" when it's a direct response to your post? Would that not imply that your post was off-topic in order for my reply to be? You were commenting on the reaction of the members/staff of this site to your post which breached the ToS/AUP you agreed to when you signed up. If you don't like the rules, then you shouldn't have agreed to them in the first place rather than complaining after-the-fact.

Fact is, you agreed to the ToS/AUP when you signed up. Posting a video of yourself doing 150mph+ on public roads is right up there. They also say that moderators can remove any message or part of message for any reason...

Well said... and though it is true that moderators can modify messages for any reason, it is important to stress that we do endeavour to leave as much alone as possible.

 

[Driftster]

To take the choice of what risk to take away from even ONE person is immoral, not least for some puerile willy-waving competition. If YOU can be on the highway then someone else can be. You've chosen to take the risk of your excessive speed - they have not.

Alright then, from now on. No one is allowed to smoke because Second hand smoke kills, therefore you're putting someone else at risk and it's immoral.
No one is allowed to drive on the highway, because the fact that you're in a 2 ton piece of metal going 65+Mph puts everyone around you in jeapardy, and that's immoral.
No one is allowed to merge in traffic because that might impede someone elses car, which could cause premature tire wear, which could lead to a blowout...Which puts their life at risk..and it's immoral.
No one is allowed to STOP at a red light
Because the person behind you might be intending to run that red light, and if you stop infront of them you're putting their life in jeapardy.
No one is allowed to drink any liquids while driving, because light can hit the liquid and momentarily blind another driver causing his or her life to be at risk.

There is a time and a place. That place is a track - with an heightened level of risk agreed to by ALL attendees and emergency services in place to deal with it.[/color]

Technically you could call Emergency services out there ahead of time I mean..if you KNOW you're gonna get in an accident.

Call me crazy though, am I the only person that has gut feelings that I listen to?? Or am I a giant puzzy for not driving my car at full speed towards the end of a cliff and seeing who chickens out first.

 

[Kylehnat]

Drifster, you should go to law school. You'd be great.

 

[Poverty]

When I was driving in france I was doing 130mph+

In germany most people will do about 130 in the fast lane too. And many much faster than that.

 

[Famine]

To take the choice of what risk to take away from even ONE person is immoral

Alright then, from now on. No one is allowed to smoke because Second hand smoke kills, therefore you're putting someone else at risk and it's immoral.
No one is allowed to drive on the highway, because the fact that you're in a 2 ton piece of metal going 65+Mph puts everyone around you in jeapardy, and that's immoral.
No one is allowed to merge in traffic because that might impede someone elses car, which could cause premature tire wear, which could lead to a blowout...Which puts their life at risk..and it's immoral.
No one is allowed to STOP at a red light
Because the person behind you might be intending to run that red light, and if you stop infront of them you're putting their life in jeapardy.
No one is allowed to drink any liquids while driving, because light can hit the liquid and momentarily blind another driver causing his or her life to be at risk.

At least try to understand the point being made before you come up with silly exemplars.

SHS - Never proven to have a deleterious effect. That aside, someone who knowingly goes into a place where smoking is allowed has chosen to take that risk. Choice of what risk to take.
Driving - Someone who uses the road has chosen to take the same level of risk as everyone else, by adhering to "x" set of regulations, standardised across everybody. Choice of what risk to take. Any deviation from these rules (running a stop light, for instance) increases the risks for everyone else without their consent. If you merge incorrectly and do impede someone else's vehicle then you ARE breaking the law (in the UK) - Driving Without Due Care and Attention. And it is illegal, in the UK, to partake of food/drink whilst driving.

Do you see? Everyone is aware of the risks and agrees to them. Anyone who breaks the rules increases the risks for everyone and no-one but the rulebreaker has opted for that increased level of risk. They are taking the choice of what risks to take away from everyone else.

This is not to say that the rules are necessarily correct, but it does not fall on any one individual to decide the risks for everybody without their consent. As Poverty points out, 130mph+ is not unusual - and in fact totally legal - in certain areas of Germany. But it's legal because the rules say it is. If the rules say it is then everyone is aware of them and, by choosing to adhere to them they are choosing the level of risk they take.

 

[Casio]

Found this cool site. Let see how fast your reaction time really is.

Plugging in 160MPH, With all the other values stardard, it took me 347m to stop.

I still can't see how you can persist to argue that you have a reaction time of 0.013. It's not humanly possible. Every single study shows the average reaction time for a human is between 0.5(Optomistic) and 1.5(pessimistic). Are you trying to say that your reaction time is between 39 and 115 times better then average. Please.

As for people driving slow cars being against speeding. Maybe it's because people with slow cars know there is no point having a car that goes 200mph, if the speed limit 99% of time is about 70.

My car was a massive 80hp and tops out apparently at 120. I don't know its Drag coefficient, but it's hardly a box. The only way a Storm will go 138 is falling off a rather tall building, even then I have my doubts.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

This is not to say that the rules are necessarily correct, but it does not fall on any one individual to decide the risks for everybody without their consent.

Right but the fact of the matter is that we dont live in an ideal world where that occurs, people are killed, injured and put in risky situations both intentionally and unintentionally with or without their consent.

I never debated that going 160 was dangerous, but I do believe I took some precautions I did go out on a long stretch of road, I did make sure no cars were in front of me that would get in my way, I did wear my seatbelt, the tires were rated for that speed and it was at midnight on a road that even during broad daylight has no pedestrian traffic and has no intersecting roads or turnarounds for miles and miles and I'd driven the route before the run so I knew there were no debris or abandoned cars in the road. You're all reacting like I did this in a school zone with little children running about.

 

[Famine]

No, we're reacting as if you drove nearly 3 times the speed limit for "fun".

Then posted a video of it here, presumably as some ill-conceived attempt at boasting.

 

[DQuaN]

[off topic] Hockey eh? Cheeky bugger![/off topic]

Hmmm Yes, street racing. Bloody stupid.

 

[nightwalker888]

Damn this site is full of tight wads. Rip it up SkylineGTR_guy.

seriously....you gotta have fun man, you only live once, so live to the fullest

"link removed by moderator"
why? cause it involves speeding

send me the video i wanna see it

 

[Driftster]

At least try to understand the point being made before you come up with silly exemplars.

SHS - Never proven to have a deleterious effect. That aside, someone who knowingly goes into a place where smoking is allowed has chosen to take that risk. Choice of what risk to take.
Driving - Someone who uses the road has chosen to take the same level of risk as everyone else, by adhering to "x" set of regulations, standardised across everybody. Choice of what risk to take. Any deviation from these rules (running a stop light, for instance) increases the risks for everyone else without their consent. If you merge incorrectly and do impede someone else's vehicle then you ARE breaking the law (in the UK) - Driving Without Due Care and Attention. And it is illegal, in the UK, to partake of food/drink whilst driving.

Do you see? Everyone is aware of the risks and agrees to them. Anyone who breaks the rules increases the risks for everyone and no-one but the rulebreaker has opted for that increased level of risk. They are taking the choice of what risks to take away from everyone else.

This is not to say that the rules are necessarily correct, but it does not fall on any one individual to decide the risks for everybody without their consent. As Poverty points out, 130mph+ is not unusual - and in fact totally legal - in certain areas of Germany. But it's legal because the rules say it is. If the rules say it is then everyone is aware of them and, by choosing to adhere to them they are choosing the level of risk they take.

All I have to say to that..

Is there is a certain level of risk involved in Walking your dog on the highway at 2AM in "non reflective clothing" or with any sort of lighted indicator..

Meaning "Random guy walking his dog number 1" accepted that risk, that risk being "i'm on the highway walking my dog at 2AM wearing non reflective clothes where people could and most likely would be speeding at this time a night....Man I'm stupid, maybe i should just walk my dog in my neighborhood as apposed to going to a highway to get fluffy killed"....just like the person who walked into the smoke filled room, or the person hopping on the freeway....

If someone skydives with a bicycle and video tapes it technically he's breaking a law, and he puts people below him in jeapordy if someone walks beneath him and he happens to drop the bike.

"random guy walking his dog at 2AM on the highway" is relevant along the same lines as "random guy who needs to cash his check, so he gets an airsoft gun and walks into a bank vault"

Someone should blame the bank guard who will gun him down...He was being a fool!!!

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

No, we're reacting as if you drove nearly 3 times the speed limit for "fun".

Then posted a video of it here, presumably as some ill-conceived attempt at boasting.

A stock 350Z can do 160, I was hardly boasting, but you can view it however you wish, nothing I say to you will change your mind nor anything anyone says to me will change my mind, so save you're breath.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Hmm...

I'd say that while street racing isn't a good thing to do, it does have a allure between teenagers and young adults alike. I've always dreamed of street racing when I was younger, primarily because its precieved as "cool" until you develop morals and sense of good and bad. But even then many of us can't simply resist the urge to speed a bit, since it adds to the fun of driving. If we couldn't drive with speed, then what would be left of driving? It wouldn't be fun anymore.

I think all those games and commercials add to the street racing allure as well. Just play NFS Underground 2 like I do and you'll be tempted to do it in real life also. Those commercials that show drivers speeding and racing in open stretch of road with no one but themselves, shifting through gears in manual 'box and revving the engine till the redline makes us all envy them and want to try doing it. That's probably why theres so many street racers and many crashes caused by them.

p.s. I noticed a trend...at least in Greater Vancouver region, most of the street racers seem to be driving imports - such as Civics (the most popular import here), Accords, 350Zs, etc. I rarely see a domestic street racer - like Mustang GT or Camaro SS. When I see a street racing crash in the paper, its almost always involving a import. Maybe people who buy Honda Civics and other sporty imports are the one to blame for majority of the crashes.

 

[Ghost C]

Found this cool site. Let see how fast your reaction time really is.

Plugging in 160MPH, With all the other values stardard, it took me 347m to stop.

I still can't see how you can persist to argue that you have a reaction time of 0.013. It's not humanly possible. Every single study shows the average reaction time for a human is between 0.5(Optomistic) and 1.5(pessimistic). Are you trying to say that your reaction time is between 39 and 115 times better then average. Please.

First attempt, after trying (And failing. I should've read the whole thread.) to set it to 160mph. Not that it matters, as the point of the test was my reaction time to the light changing.

0.05, not 0.5.

 

[Jay]

The light changes red in the same spot everytime, I set it to 160mph (correctly) and managed to get a reaction time of 0.00 seconds, and with the default 20.0m/s and yellow light its easy to get low reaction times in that test.

 

[Ghost C]

There's a yellow light?

 

[Jay]

Yeah if you click on the link to open a new page, then just press 'start' and run it without reseting the first shot will have a yellow light.

 

[Ghost C]

Oh. I hit the reset trying to get it to accept the 160mph.

 

[Casio]

First attempt, after trying (And failing. I should've read the whole thread.) to set it to 160mph. Not that it matters, as the point of the test was my reaction time to the light changing.

0.05, not 0.5.

First up, press enter after plugging in 160mph. 160mph is not 20m/s, rather 71.52m/s

Now it is 0.5, not 0.05

Normal reaction time is between .75 second and 1.5 seconds, on average

The perception time for an alert driver is about 3/4 second

Reaction times vary greatly with situation and from person to person between about 0.7 to 2.5 seconds or more. Some accident reconstruction specialists use 1.5 seconds as average driver reaction brake time. However, a controlled study by the University of Iowa published in 2000 ([SIZE=-1]IEA2000_ABS51.pdf[/SIZE]) found average driver reaction brake time to be 2.3 seconds. Some state (such as California) DOT's (Department of Transportation) use a driver reaction time of 2.5 seconds for calculations.

Driver reaction time;
0.7 seconds -- about as fast as it can get,
1.5 seconds -- very good (fast) reaction time,
2.3 seconds -- average,
2.5 seconds -- slightly longer than average.

​

Now if 0.7 is about as fast as it can get. I see no way you can have a reaction time of 0.013

 

[Ghost C]

First up, press enter after plugging in 160mph. 160mph is not 20m/s, rather 71.52m/s

Now it is 0.5, not 0.05

Does it really matter? My reaction time doesn't get slower the faster the car goes.

Let me guess, the results are skewed this time because I've already taken the test?

Now if 0.7 is about as fast as it can get. I see no way you can have a reaction time of 0.013

So I take your stupid test, I prove I can react as fast as I say I can, and I'm still lying?!

FFS, I'm done with you.

 

[Casio]

Does it really matter? My reaction time doesn't get slower the faster the car goes.


Let me guess, the results are skewed this time because I've already taken the test?

So I take your stupid test, I prove I can react as fast as I say I can, and I'm still lying?!

FFS, I'm done with you.

I posted the test originally because I thought it was interesting on how long it took to stop from 160mph.

The difference obviously between this and real life, is that in these tests, you know when you have to react, that light always goes at the same time. If you're driving along a dark road at 160mph, you have no idea on what could come out from in front or next to you.

Lets say the Geo Storm had it's hyperdrive fail, and it's on the side of the road. Guy walks crossing the road while he walks to the nearest petrol station, you come roaring by at 160mph. He's dead. Even with your ultra-human reaction time.

Nice way to choose to ignore the evidence on reactions times I posted too.

 

[Kylehnat]

A stock 350Z can do 160, I was hardly boasting, but you can view it however you wish

Tell us, then. What was the point of posting that? It was nothing more than a camera pointed at a speedometer on a straight stretch of road. Hardly interesting footage.

So that's it - There is no possible way to do anything upon seeing someone or something in the road except to begin braking and stay headed straight. Awesome, I thought most roads here in the US were 2 lanes, with highways being 3+ in one direction usually. I guess that's just an East Coast thing...

I'm sorry, I just have to comment on this. You think it's possible to change lanes when you're going that fast? Let's bring our good friend, physics, back into this. Same 500' headlights (don't reply with your "quarter-mile" light story. The lights on the car in the video weren't shining anywhere near that far, so it's irrelevant). So, you must get your car completely into the other lane within 500 feet. Drawing a scale diagram, I estimate that turn to have a 900 foot radius. Centripetal acceleration is equal to v^2/r, where v is the speed, and r is the radius of the turn. 160 mph is 235 ft/s. So a = (235)^2/900. Work this out, and your lateral acceleration is nearly 2g. Can your car pull that off? A Lotus Elise cannot, a Ferrari Enzo cannot, and a Corvette C5-R cannot. Now throw in that split second reaction time, and your turn becomes much sharper, increasing your lateral acceleration further.

And about reaction times: your "OH, ****!!!" reaction time is much longer than your "I'm ready to hit the button!" reaction time.

 

[Famine]

All I have to say to that..

Is there is a certain level of risk involved in Walking your dog on the highway at 2AM in "non reflective clothing" or with any sort of lighted indicator..

Meaning "Random guy walking his dog number 1" accepted that risk, that risk being "i'm on the highway walking my dog at 2AM wearing non reflective clothes where people could and most likely would be speeding at this time a night....Man I'm stupid, maybe i should just walk my dog in my neighborhood as apposed to going to a highway to get fluffy killed"....just like the person who walked into the smoke filled room, or the person hopping on the freeway....

Stupidity is not - and should never be - illegal. Unless of course you break the law in order to perform your stupid act.

 

[Driftster]

Stupidity is not - and should never be - illegal. Unless of course you break the law in order to perform your stupid act.

You have your opinions, I have mine.

 

[Ghost C]

I'm sorry, I just have to comment on this. You think it's possible to change lanes when you're going that fast? Let's bring our good friend, physics, back into this. Same 500' headlights (don't reply with your "quarter-mile" light story. The lights on the car in the video weren't shining anywhere near that far, so it's irrelevant). So, you must get your car completely into the other lane within 500 feet. Drawing a scale diagram, I estimate that turn to have a 900 foot radius. Centripetal acceleration is equal to v^2/r, where v is the speed, and r is the radius of the turn. 160 mph is 235 ft/s. So a = (235)^2/900. Work this out, and your lateral acceleration is nearly 2g. Can your car pull that off? A Lotus Elise cannot, a Ferrari Enzo cannot, and a Corvette C5-R cannot. Now throw in that split second reaction time, and your turn becomes much sharper, increasing your lateral acceleration further.

So now if I'm doing 160 I'm limited to two options, hit the brakes or switch lanes? I'm capable of doing both at over 100 in my car - I don't see why it would change at 160. I've personally witnessed 350Z's at 140+ slow down and dodge traffic on the highway, they were hitting their brakes WHILE changing lanes.

And about reaction times: your "OH, ****!!!" reaction time is much longer than your "I'm ready to hit the button!" reaction time.

Unless you're a total idiot, you don't have an "OH ****" reaction time at 160. You have a "I'm doing 160 and I'm ready to hit the brakes five seconds ago" reaction time. Stop trying to argue about it - I have a faster reaction time than you, quit crying.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm capable of doing both at over 100 in my car - I don't see why it would change at 160.

Because the lateral acceleration is 3 times higher at 160 than at 100. If you can't see the difference, go try it, and when you get back from the hospital, let us know how it went.

Unless you're a total idiot, you don't have an "OH ****" reaction time at 160. You have a "I'm doing 160 and I'm ready to hit the brakes five seconds ago" reaction time. Stop trying to argue about it - I have a faster reaction time than you, quit crying.

I'm not crying. In fact, I'm laughing.

 

[Ghost C]

Because the lateral acceleration is 3 times higher at 160 than at 100. If you can't see the difference, go try it, and when you get back from the hospital, let us know how it went.

So hitting the brakes and changing lanes at 160 is impossible and I'd just instantly be sent to the hospital? I'm glad someone told me this, because otherwise I would've known better from things like personal experience.

I'm not crying. In fact, I'm laughing.

What exactly are you laughing at? The fact that I've proven you wrong, repeatedly? That you're grasping at straws? I don't know, maybe you can explain it to me, because I don't see what you would be laughing at.

 

[luftrofl]

So hitting the brakes and changing lanes at 160 is impossible and I'd just instantly be sent to the hospital? I'm glad someone told me this, because otherwise I would've known better from things like personal experience.

Quit splitting hairs, you know damn well what he means.

 

[Kylehnat]

Ghost C, what exactly have you proven? All of your arguments begin with "I've seen" or "I can". All you've proven is that we will read your obituary, which will end with "Speed was determined to be a factor." It is obvious that you still feel invincible behind the wheel, which means you can't be more than 18 years old. You're arguing with many people who have way more experience than you, and have since lost that feeling of invincibility, which tends to cloud judgement and logic.

Let's try one more time to get this through to you. If you lose control of your car at 160 miles per hour (and who knows how that might happen; you certainly don't seem to think it's possible), the best thing that can happen is that the car will be totalled, and you will be seriously injured, if not dead. The more likely thing to happen is that they'll have to identify the car by the number stamped on the chassis, and identify you from dental records.