Me, passing dozens of cars trapped in traffic while coasting on my bike - I am the embodiment of excellence. Pure ambition. Completely free.
There is perhaps no greater feeling of power so readily accessible to the common folk.
I cried the first time I rode the subway in NYC. Not on the subway, but when I got back and was thinking about it. My car is such a money sink. I hate it. I loved the subway.
I used to ride a mountain bike to a job. Flipping on the shocks and riding over gravel mounds while the obscene level of construction kept drivers glued in one place for minutes.
You joke but you get one out of 100.000 libertarians who arrives at exactly this conclusion and they make up the weirdest macho bike subculture imageinable
I am willing to kill us all in a fireball if that's what it takes for me to drive more dangerously and shave 15 seconds off of my trip. You want to kill excellence
The good news is that if they ride a motorcycle like their pfp suggests and they think like this, they probably also refuse to wear a real motorcycle helmet
I think this guy simply wouldn't donate any organs because he thinks people with lazy slacker organs don't deserve handouts.
According to the nurse operating the dialysis machine when my partner had acute renal failure, hospital staff calls them "donor cycles".
I find his tweets kind of sad tbh, he goes on to talk about non-speeding drivers being grey people in grey cars with grey lives. The dude clearly sees how empty our lives are in the capitalist system and is terrified of being one of the 99%, so desperate to be special that he sees something as mundane as speeding as an escape from his fate. But in the end he's just another jackass who can't drive. There is no individualism for the people under capitalism.
Driving a car is actually much more dangerous than people realize. You know driving isn't even my job? And it's not working with cars either, which is a very common misconception. Actually my identity is just...car.
Between that and industrialized meat farming, the planet's burning down for staggeringly stupid macho shit. 
the staggering stupidity of the system is hard to even comprehend. Take for example the monarchy which is an objectively silly system
I hate driving so much. My first instinct is always to concede to other people (even when I technically have right-of-way) because there's always the possibility that they'll just ignore all rules and common sense due to impatience (like this guy). But then that leads to the truck-driving chuds behind me blasting their horns and trying to overtake me unsafely. Like, I know there are situations where being too slow can also be dangerous, but it's hard to make decisions quickly when every option feels potentially unsafe.
My first instinct is always to concede to other people (even when I technically have right-of-way)
Imo, you should almost always take the right-of-way if you have it. Politeness be damned, the safety of yourself, your passengers, and the other people on the road ought to be the highest priority. And the safest thing you can do on the road is be predictable, which means taking the right-of-way when you have it.
Yeah, I know. It's just that every time I arrive at an intersection slightly before the other person I'm doubting whether I was really there first and/or if the other person recognizes that. That and a bunch of other situations where I'm trying to process things and it feels safer to just wait (even if it isn't actually).
my reaction time is such that I never feel safe driving. I should not be allowed to do it and it's crazy that I'm expected to
the power to kill everyone around me by fucking up is more responsibility than I would willingly take on
We must cap all American vehicles at 100 mph, make them automatically print you a speeding ticket at 90, and make every lifted truck blow up fatally when the owner gets inside.
make them automatically print you a speeding ticket at 90
what is the point if you're already limiting cars
I actually like the idea of hard limiting the car above the speed limit, and also ticketing above the limit at a lower margin. It gives a behaviourally corrective ticket for infringements of the limit, but still allows for speeding for some hypothetical evasive manoeuvre (the associated speeding ticket for which could be appealed at a later date).
If you're already limiting cars what's the point of the "get ticketed" mode? Instead of corrective behaviour you could just not have them do that. I keep hearing the thing about hypothetical evasive manouevres here but it I gotta say it seems pretty damn hypothetical in a world where cars are speed limited
An example of an evasive manoeuvre: Say you’re passing through a junction at the speed limit, as you should be. A car approaching the junction crossing your path fails to stop and is pulling out of the junction and will t-bone you. If you slow down or apply brakes the crash happens, if you continue as presently at the limit the crash happens, if you accelerate over the speed limit, you clear the junction and hence the other car before it reaches you, and then you can reduce speed and continue driving back at the limit without incident.
The ticket provides a soft punishment for speeding without limiting mechanical potential for a lifesaving evasive use of speed and the hard limiter prevents all excessive speeding above what may be necessary for safety.
This example doesn't make sense. If the vectors intersect at the same time at constant speed, they can't also intersect at that same point when you slow one of them down (or speed up, for that matter).
Either the crash happens at a constant speed or one that's not constant speed, but then braking would get you out of it just as well as accelerating, considering a lot of cars brake a lot better than they accelerate
Get outa here, don’t talk as if these are infinitesimally small point objects from an idealised maths problem. Cars in the real world have 3 dimensions of space. Surely you can imagine a situation in which if travelling at the speed limit the rear of the car gets hit, and breaking to slow down would just cause the front of the car to be hit instead?
I’m not saying most evasive manoeuvres require speeding, speed should be the last choice, most problems are solved by slowing, however there are situations where speed is the only choice for avoiding accident.
Two cars (you may model them as point particles) travelling at 0.999c are about to collide at an angle of 90⁰. Car #1 swerves, calculate the bremsstrahlung
Surely you can imagine a situation in which if travelling at the speed limit the rear of the car gets hit, and breaking to slow down would just cause the front of the car to be hit instead?
Yeah, and it's not one I'd base any type of legislation on. I mean what if the inverse is true and somebody speeds up instead of braking because they can, and then they get hit? Good argument for limiters, there. Or what if you both accelerate and you now turned this 45mph t-bone into a 55mph t-bone
I’m not saying most evasive manoeuvres require speeding, speed should be the last choice, most problems are solved by slowing, however there are situations where speed is the only choice for avoiding accident.
And it absolutely pales in comparison towards how many people you'd save by having hard limiters. At it's core this is a very car brained argument to make in the sense of that it presupposes some absolute edge case hypothetical scenario as how a single person might be saved by speeding and and completely disregards any other consequences of this choice. Sure, thousands may get injured and die, but it'll have all been worth it for that one time one guy speeds out of a t-bone successfully.
Cars can slow down much, much faster than they can speed up. Look at any 0-60 and 60-0 times in car reviews.
If there is any situation when you can see a potential accident and speeding up "saves you", then you also have sufficient time to slow down and let the other vehicle pass in front of you.
If you are that close that rapidly slowing down doesn't help, your reaction time plus the relatively slow rate of acceleration means that speeding up won't help either.
(Disclaimer: this doesn't work with trains.)
This literally happened to me. The car ended up crashing into the passenger door- if I hadn't sped up, it would have crashed into my door and injured me
Being told to slow down slightly when driving and writing Atlas Shrugged as a response.
Atlas Shrugged was originally written as a seething decades-prepared tantrum because the commies took away a rich faildaughter's parents' mansion.
"Communism is when anti-drunk driving laws and mandatory speed limits" --Karl Mark (2 A.D. - 2 A.D.)
How about a monthly subscription to Toastr Plus? We send you a new type of bread each week and you send us back your filled crumb cartridges. With our proprietary toast safety system, your toast will be more even, will never burn, and will always leave your kitchen smelling like fresh bread. No more burning crumbs risking a kitchen fire like your old toaster. Start your free trial today!
I kinda love really tenuous connections between some mundane activity and grand societal aspirations. Like, there is a train of thought present, but it's definitely not how the speaker reached that conclusion, they're almost certainly thinking "I agree with these two things, therefore I must retroactively justify why one means the other".
One jumping off the top of my head is Ayn Rand saying she likes smoking because it signifies Man's mastery over fire and nature.
One jumping off the top of my head is Ayn Rand saying she likes smoking because it signifies Man's mastery over fire and nature.
The sheer fucking hubris of pretending all of that was somehow a thing while poisoning herself to a somewhat early grave with such pompous "mastery" was poetic, at least.
also tobacco had mastery over her when you become addicted you loose control and freedom over yourself
I feel like this is a condition brought on by conservatives hating all forms of art but then feeling left out when "artsy" folks to the left of center are able to ascribe meaning to things they might consider mundane otherwise. Because they can't bring themselves to find joy in the same things that the artsy libs do, they only have what's left, and those are often activities or habits which are straight up detrimental to your health. See also their association with red meat consumption and "healthy"/paleo diets, anti-mask-wearing and personal freedom, etc.
ambition and excellence is when you press a button to make a machine go fast
also anyone who thinks this about overtaking people in their car shouldn't be allowed to drive they clearly have some macho posturing element going on that has no place in operating heavy machinery at great speed
As George Carlin said, "Anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac"
if I can't vroom vroom in my big boy car and go faster than all the LOSERS in their little poor people mobiles, then why would I strive for excellence working at my dad's car dealership?
you can't spell American Excellence without Acceleration!
Anyone who self-identifies with driving down a busy highway is probably going to be coping.
THIS SHOULD BE AN EMPTY SCENIC ROAD LIKE IN THE COMMERCIAL THAT TOLD ME I AM THE MAIN CHARACTER FOR BUYING THIS WHEELED TREAT WHO ARE THESE NPCS ANYWAY 
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I mean it's a deranged post, but sometimes to make an overtake safely you need to go slightly over the speed limit for a short period of time, especially on single lane roads. It's safer to temporarily speed slightly and be in the oncoming lane of traffic for a shorter period of time, than to stick perfectly to the speed limit and be in the oncoming lane for longer.
The point is that, in that case, you should not be overtaking at all. There are three options, overtake without speeding, overtake with speeding, and don't overtake. In the specific example you've provided, the options ordered in level of danger are overtaking without speeding, overtaking with speeding, and just staying in your lane.
I mean it's a deranged post, but sometimes to make an overtake safely you need to go slightly over the speed limit for a short period of time, especially on single lane roads.
If you have to go over the speed limit to overtake there really isn't a good reason as to why you would be overtaking in the first place
People where I live speed up when you try to pass them. They could be going 15mph under the limit, dicking around on their phone, swerving wildly, but as soon as you start passing they realize they're going too slow and speed up.
I mean, not really. Not in a single lane rural road. I'll give an example that happened often when I used to drive.
You're on a single lane road in the middle of nowhere where the speed limit is 100kph. You're behind a 30 meter long truck on a curvy section of the road where it's rightfully illegal to overtake, and the truck is doing 50-60kph to negotiate the curves. The road then straightens out and it becomes legal to overtake, as indicated by the road markings. The truck, instead of maintaining its speed and letting you past, decides to speed up on the straight bit of road, to 80-90kph. If you were to attempt an overtake without going over the speed limit, you'd probably be in the oncoming lane for 10+ seconds, maybe more, making the overtake very difficult to pull off safely. If you don't attempt an overtake and just stay behind the truck, it will slow down again for the next curvy section and create a small traffic jam behind it, which becomes its own hazard. The safest option is just to pass the truck while going slightly over the speed limit momentarily, say 110kph. Then you only spend 5 seconds in the oncoming lane, get the pass done and can go back to driving at the speed limit. The obvious solution is just that the trucks maintain their speed and allow cars past, but that doesn't always happen. It's not a scenario applicable to city driving or driving on multi lane highways/freeways, but it's something that does happen on single lane roads.
Yes it does seem counterintuitive at first, and yes I hated making these kind of passes everytime, but it was the best option.
if someone is doing 40 in a 45 you spend less time in the pass lane if you overtake at 50 or 55, which makes it safer to speed under that circumstance.
you should operate any conveyance within the limits of the surface conditions and your own ability, from shoes to a space rocket, and generally a straight section of dry road is safe at a higher speed than the limit is set at because of how speed limits are determined.
One reason is you're behind a camper or truck on a road with bad visibility, with the vehicle in front of you obstructing even more visibility. You come to a designated passing section, and pass that vehicle.
Additionally, slow moving work trucks are always dropping shit. Gravel, dirt, leaves, tools, etc. You pass so you don't have your paint peppered with rocks that eventually turn into rust.
Passing in the oncoming lane in a city area? Psycho behavior. Passing in a rural area where there are exactly two vehicles, you and the person in front of you, who's obviously texting and veering in and out of the lane? Good time to pass.
So many of these opinions are rooted in a more urban mindset where these things do make sense, but in like most of the country there's basically nothing around and speed limits are still set for a time period where radial tire was a fancy new invention and going 60 mph was considered fast.
Full disclosure, I love operating vehicles, bikes, motorcycles, cars,(not SUVs they suck). No amount of logic and reasoning will take away my joy of levers, switches, knobs, and the ability to step into/onto a machine. I want public transport and bike infrastructure to improve so I don't need to drive my car for boring tasks, and can save it for driving out in the country side, on mountain roads, and various other twists and turns. Right now if I was to try to take public transport the 10 miles to work, it'd take roughly two hours between three busses. That blows. There's also no continuous bike infrastructure so I'd probably die via a big truck or suv going the speed limit but totally unable to see me.
Passing in the oncoming lane in a city area? Psycho behavior. Passing in a rural area where there are exactly two vehicles, you and the person in front of you, who's obviously texting and veering in and out of the lane? Good time to pass.
how the fuck is your first instinct to somebody wobbling all over the road to get closer to them. is this entire post a bit? I have bad visibility, time to speed up? These are all easily solved by the magic of "keeping a good amount of distance to the previous vehicle"
you dont understand im going to reach my destination 17.62 seconds slower!!!I don't even think it's that driving a car is just mind numbingly boring and driving slow is therefore deeply unpleasant
you're imagining a 30 mile commute, i'm imagining an 8 hour road trip in the midwest turning into a 9 hour road trip
it's the maximum speed not the minimum this seems to be a common point of confusion among drivers
Love to have my suspicions confirmed that some people literally see driving on the highway as a drag race and perceive me going too slow as weakness which must be vanquished
•
This was a thing I always questioned as a kid actually.
Surely if you don't want people breaking the speed limit, you could just make it so vehicles literally can't do that.
Limiting exactly at the max speed limit would make a lot of overtakes of slower vehicles more unsafe. Limiting the speed at slightly above the maximum speed limit is a good idea though. I know in Japan cars are usually limited to 112mph/180kph on public roads, though I think that's a bit too high. It's a good place to start though.
Limiting exactly at the max speed limit would make a lot of overtakes of slower vehicles more unsafe.
Alternatively of course people just wouldn't do that because they can't.
I feel like many people in this thread have 0 experience operating a vehicle that is not your standard issue car. I'm obviously coming at this from a cycling standpoint, with rather limited ability to instantly apply more speed once I've hit a certain one due to a factor known as "my legs", this just means you operate it differently though. Same would apply if you fundamentally changed how cars or traffic works.
I kinda want to let my car license expire and get a "motorcycle only" license, as a flex.