Streetracing....why?

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

To assume that the risk of traveling 88 feet/sec is the same as 220 feet/sec (150mph) is nonsense. The energy of a crash is directly related to speed, that's why they engineer race cars to fly apart.

I would like to see a study comparing the risk of speed to the risk of time spent on the road.

For example: if you drive 30 miles at 60mph then you are on the road for 30 minutes. However if you drive 30 miles at 120mph then you are only on the road for 15 minutes. Therefore the chances of a deer or traffic bolting in front of you and causing an accident is reduced to half that of driving the slower 60mph.

I used 60mph and 120mph to make the math simple. Personally I feel 80-100mph is a safe speed for most interstate highways. The first thing everyone needs to learn however is...

SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT

 

[Bobpantax]

Wouldn't it in part depend on the density of the dear population and the behavior of deer crossing the road? Also, since you are going faster on the road, wouldn't the deer have less time to react if it is in the road?

 

[belair1957]

I would like to see a study comparing the risk of speed to the risk of time spent on the road.

For example: if you drive 30 miles at 60mph then you are on the road for 30 minutes. However if you drive 30 miles at 120mph then you are only on the road for 15 minutes. Therefore the chances of a deer or traffic bolting in front of you and causing an accident is reduced to half that of driving the slower 60mph.

I used 60mph and 120mph to make the math simple. Personally I feel 80-100mph is a safe speed for most interstate highways. The first thing everyone needs to learn however is...

SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT

I never took statistics but I don't think it works the way you described. The scenario fails to consider perception time and reaction time (two of the three components in stopping distance) and probably some other factors (Oklahoma Straight and flat v PA curved and hilly). While at the higher speed you have less road exposure, I believe the time on the road is at a higher level of risk. At 60mph you might be able to stop or avoid splattering Bambi but at 120mph the accident would be unavoidable.

I would agree that some interstates would be safe at 80-100 mph. At least in the rural areas. The PA turnpike might be another story.

The issue with street racing is the distraction caused by a second driver at speed presumably with the cars side by side or nearly so. I don't have time to research the issue but I do recall studies on how much sensory input the brain can handle. I believe the studies indicate that we don't truly mutli-task, we flit from one task to another while relying upon muscle memory and filing in blanks based on past experience. Thus, the brain may not immediately recognize a risk on a section of normally clear road. Thus, the risk perception time is increased.

It would be interesting if anyone has fact based answers to the above.

 

[Sellshomesdrivesviper]

Yes. My initial wording was a little imprecise. But note I used the phrase " within reach". The statute in Florida provides that the weapon can be carried inside the vehicle as long as it is "securely encased". So, subject to the admission that the original langauge was a bit sloppy, I stand by the assertion that it is illegal for the weapon to be in reach. It is sort of a two step rule to avoid emotional acting out.

Note the following from the State of Florida website FAQs:

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access."

So, while you cannot carry the weapon on your person, you can at least have it nearby in your vehicle while traveling.

Bob, this is if you do not have a license.

 

[Sellshomesdrivesviper]

I would not test the theory. One of the reasons for the "securely encased " rule is for the protection of police officers. Look at it from a Florida Highway Patrol officer's viewpoint. You stop a car without of state plates. As you come up to the car, you notice that the driver is wearing a gun. What would you do? I think a prudent officer would immediately call for back up.

QUESTION 6. I am planning a trip to Florida shortly. I do not have a permit from my home state nor do I want to obtain a Florida permit. However, I would still like to have a weapon with me for self-protection. What are my options?

Florida law does allow a citizen to transport a weapon in a private vehicle, even if that citizen DOES NOT HAVE a concealed weapon license. Note the following two key provisions in the law:
Section 790.25(5), which deals specifically with possession in a private conveyance states that "it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license,if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012." (Emphasis added.)

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access."

So, while you cannot carry the weapon on your person, you can at least have it nearby in your vehicle while traveling.

Bob, It says "without a license"

 

[Sellshomesdrivesviper]

QUESTION 6. I am planning a trip to Florida shortly. I do not have a permit from my home state nor do I want to obtain a Florida permit. However, I would still like to have a weapon with me for self-protection. What are my options?

Florida law does allow a citizen to transport a weapon in a private vehicle, even if that citizen DOES NOT HAVE a concealed weapon license. Note the following two key provisions in the law:
Section 790.25(5), which deals specifically with possession in a private conveyance states that "it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license,if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012." (Emphasis added.)

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access."

So, while you cannot carry the weapon on your person, you can at least have it nearby in your vehicle while traveling.

Bob, It says "without a license"

Therefore, because 99 R/T 10 is licensed, he has the right to carry it on his person, in the car and not have to abide with this provision.

 

[Bobpantax]

Therefore, because 99 R/T 10 is licensed, he has the right to carry it on his person, in the car and not have to abide with this provision.

You would be right if the following language was not in the same provision: Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person.

 

[Sellshomesdrivesviper]

You would be right if the following language was not in the same provision: Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person.

Lets just say I beg to differ, since there is no mention of "LICENSED" to carry a concealed weapon.
You are never authorized to carry a concealed weapon unless licensed, except the provisions relating to the transaportation of such, no?

 

[Bobpantax]

You may have the better position on this. The law is ambiguous at best. In order for it to meet due process requirements it must give adequate notice. I also did some more research in the past few minutes and many gun owner sites agree with your interpretation. If I have time Wednesday, I will call the State agency and find out what the official answer is and report back.

 

[Bobpantax]

Here is some reciprocity data for those who are interested:

FLORIDA'S RECIPROCITY STATES Alabama (1,3,5) Alaska (1) Arizona (6) Arkansas (1) Colorado (1,4) Delaware Georgia (1) Idaho (3,6) Indiana (1,3,6) Kansas (1,4) Kentucky Louisiana (1) Michigan (1,4) Mississippi (1) Missouri (1) Montana (3) Nevada (1,6) New Hampshire (1,3,4,6) New Mexico (1) North Carolina (1) North Dakota (3,6) Ohio (1) Oklahoma (1) Pennsylvania (1,6) South Carolina (1,4,6) South Dakota (1,3) Tennessee (1,6) Texas (1,3,6) Utah (1,6) Vermont (2) Virginia (1,6) West Virginia (1,4) Wyoming (1,3) (1) While Florida's law allows licensees to carry stun guns, knives, and billy clubs in a concealed fashion, the laws in these states allow for concealed carry of handguns or pistols ONLY, NOT WEAPONS IN GENERAL. Florida license holders are prohibited from carrying other types of weapons while in these states.

(2) The State of VERMONT is unique in that it does not issue weapon/firearms licenses. Florida licensees - indeed, licensed or unlicensed citizens from any state - may carry in Vermont. This presents a problem for reciprocity with Florida. Florida law provides that an out-of-state resident must have in his or her immediate possession a valid license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. Since Vermont residents have no such license, the right to concealed carry cannot be extended to them under Florida law.
(3) Individuals qualify for concealed weapon licenses in these states upon reaching 18 years of age. HOWEVER, any licensee of these reciprocity states who is not 21 years of age or older IS PROHIBITED from carrying a concealed weapon or firearm in Florida.
(4) These states will honor the Florida concealed weapon license ONLY IF the licensee is a resident of the State of Florida.
(5) The Attorney General's Office of the State of ALABAMA has indicated that Alabama will honor BOTH resident and non-resident Florida licenses. However, the Alabama Attorney General notes that there is some uncertainty as to the limits of Alabama's reciprocity law as it pertains to non-resident licenses. Pending clarification by the Alabama Legislature or a decision by an Alabama court, he urges non-resident Florida license holders to exercise caution. Refer to the Alabama AG's Web page for the latest information.
(6) These states issue concealed carry licenses to qualified individuals who are non-residents. These non-resident permits cannot be honored under Florida's reciprocity provision.

You must be registered for see images

Sorry for the diversion Chad. I hope that you do not mind.

 

[lankhoss]

Belair, you are still missing my point.

You are talking about things such as debris in the road, person broke down on the side, deer running across the highway, etc......as if racing makes these things happen more often. The traffic fatalities you listed are pathetic. 135 across the US in 1 year? That's nothing. And I'd imagine almost all of those were from LOCATION and not SPEED.

If a deer jumps out in front of you at 60mph, you're not going to be able to stop. I've seen people who were going 45mph and have a deer jump out in front of them, and it's DESTROYED the car. If you hit a deer or other big animal on an INTERSTATE it's going to be very bad news.

Other debris you could hit, who's to say that a higher speed wouldn't make it LESS likely for you to veer off the road while hitting it? Your car may take more damage, but I'm willng to bet you are going to "feel" hitting a piece of debris in the road more at 70mph than at 140.

I do agree.......faster speed = less time to react to danger and longer stopping distances, as well as a worse result IF something does go bad. But I do not believe it greatly increases the chances of all this terrible stuff happening like you say it does.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Wouldn't it in part depend on the density of the dear population and the behavior of deer crossing the road? Also, since you are going faster on the road, wouldn't the deer have less time to react if it is in the road?

LOL

If deer density is the same for each speed then the risk would be adjusted for both speeds equally.

Deer don't react in the road. They either dart across the road or just stand there staring, i.e. "like a deer in the headlights" so it really doesn't matter if you are baring down at 60mph or 120mph the stupid deer is just gonna stare at the headlights.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

While at the higher speed you have less road exposure, I believe the time on the road is at a higher level of risk. At 60mph you might be able to stop or avoid splattering Bambi but at 120mph the accident would be unavoidable.

I only used 60 and 120 for simple math comparisons. On the roads I am referring to the speed limit is 70 which means the average speeds are 75-80. I propose the speed limit be more like 90. I couldn't figure out the time spent on the road and percent of risk between a 20mph difference so I stuck with the 60-120 formula.

As for reaction time, nearly everyone will panic and overcompensate at 75mph anyway so we might as well enjoy our drive at a much more reasonable 95mph rather than falling asleep at 75mph.

BTW if stats don't work that way feel free to get a stats major to point out my logic flaw.

 

[Kevan]

A couple of quick notes about the Autobahn:
- Cops travel in pairs. They WILL get you.

- None of this "I'll out-run 'em!" BS either.
The pair of Autobahn patrol cars I first saw were 930 Turbos. I'm not sure what they run now, but I'll bet it's bad to the bone (but not a Viper...heh heh).

- They don't look for speed. They look for idiocy. On the Autobahn you *can* get a ticket for being stupid.

The first time I drove on the Autobahn I was 16, and I thought I was BillyBadass doing 100 mph in the hammer lane. I had grandmothers in Citroens flashing me the beams and honking horns for me to **** of the left lane. They blew by me like I was in P. My dad warned me about driving too slow in the left lane and that *I* could get a ticket!
Irony: We passed the parked pair of 930 Turbos on the way to the Zuffenhausen factory.

 

[BOTTLEFED]

Wouldn't it in part depend on the density of the dear population and the behavior of deer crossing the road? Also, since you are going faster on the road, wouldn't the deer have less time to react if it is in the road?

Now throw in the variable of Sellshomesdrivesviper shooting at deer in my backyard which is only 100yds from a major interstate and you don't need street racers to enjoy the carnage

BTW Sellshomesdrivesviper,
if you were shooting at a deer and it ran out in front of your wife driving your kids home from an NRA meeting and caused them to wreck, would you shoot the deer or yourself for killing them?


j/k

 

[BOTTLEFED]

To assume that the risk of traveling 88 feet/sec is the same as 220 feet/sec (150mph) is nonsense. The energy of a crash is directly related to speed, that's why they engineer race cars to fly apart.
You forgot to factor in weight.
Mrs. Soccermom and her 3ton SUV can cause just as much damage at 88ft/sec as our Vipers at 220ft/sec.
Do the math.

If you choose to ignore the risk or to accept it fine. Just don't harm anyone else while doing so. You can ignore the laws of man but not the laws of physics.
Why not, bumblebees do it everyday

I forgot two assumptions in the prior post, that the other driver has the skill to control their car and their car is in racing condition. Yes traveling at highway speed involves risk but at normal speeds you have the time to react and avoid.
Again, you are forgetting to account for all the variables. You are assuming every driver on the road has equal reaction time. You may be able to react and avoid at "normal speeds", but does grandma in her 78 LTD? If we are going to reduce risk then the "normal speed" should be the speed at which the slowest person on the road will have time to react and avoid any possible situation. So what is "normal speed" and does it truly eliminate the risks you are speaking of, or does it just make you feel safe?

As far as super rare, check out some of the threads on this forum discussing death due to street racing. I remember at least one thread from earlier this year. If you had taken the time to simply search this forum or Google "deaths due to street racing" you would have found the following:
blah, blah, blah... already been discussed

As far as living free, hey I scuba and will soon be purchasing a motorcycle. I have no problem with risk, but I choose not to expose third parties to my risk.

The surest way to lose the privilege of driving Vipers and Vettes is to behave irresponsibly on the streets. If you don't think this is a possibility, consider how much of the car is dictated by Federal regulations. As sports car drivers we are a minority without Consitutional protection.
Now you are taking a flying leap here. We are not going to lose our cars because of street racing. You are as bad as a politician trying to use scare-tactics on elderly voters. As with previous posters, you are relying on slippery-slope arguments to back your ideology.

You FAIL

 

[belair1957]

Mixing apples and oranges. The discussion was about an illegal activity and the risks, not about the legal activities of others. In a discussion about an illegal activity, the legal actions of another are not relevant.

Further, I was not assuming all drivers have the same reaction time. Exactly the opposite, you are assuming that the co-racer is equally skilled.

All your arguments are based on emotion because you want to do something. Typical when facts don't support a position argue emotion. The closest assumption you can find in my posts is a concern about third parties reacting to street racing imposing regulations on all of us. When seat belt laws failed, airbags were mandated. Why do politicians want to ban certain types of guns? Because people didn't act responsibly with them.

Like I said before, take the risk of the illegal activity if you want just don't expose third parties. We all accept the risk of the legal activities you described.

 

[Bobpantax]

LOL

If deer density is the same for each speed then the risk would be adjusted for both speeds equally.

Deer don't react in the road. They either dart across the road or just stand there staring, i.e. "like a deer in the headlights" so it really doesn't matter if you are baring down at 60mph or 120mph the stupid deer is just gonna stare at the headlights.

It makes a difference on how much of the road kill is edible and how much of the vehicle and the driver who hit the deer is left for the police and others to recover. Force equals mass times velocity. It's one thing to hit the deer at 60 MPH and another to hit the deer at 120 MPH - agree? Of course it would also, to some extent, depend on the size of the deer.

Discussing this reminds me of an old joke. What's the last thing a bird sees when it flys into your windshield while you are traveling at highway speed? Answer: Its a**hole.

 

[ViperTony]

It makes a difference on how much of the road kill is edible and how much of the vehicle and the driver who hit the deer is left for the police and others to recover. Force equals mass times velocity. It's one thing to hit the deer at 60 MPH and another to hit the deer at 120 MPH - agree? Of course it would also, to some extent, depend on the size of the deer.

Discussing this reminds me of an old joke. What's the last thing a bird sees when it flys into your windshield while you are traveling at highway speed? Answer: Its a**hole.

An assumption is being made that hitting a deer at these speeds will wreck the car. However, I beg to differ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvTGVCyBQbI

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

It makes a difference on how much of the road kill is edible and how much of the vehicle and the driver who hit the deer is left for the police and others to recover. Force equals mass times velocity. It's one thing to hit the deer at 60 MPH and another to hit the deer at 120 MPH - agree? Of course it would also, to some extent, depend on the size of the deer.

Yes. The splatter factor would be considerably different at those two speeds. But again, I only used those speeds to easily illustrate the risks factor.

Regarding the size of the deer then yes, to recover enough deer for a BBQ that feeds x number of people there would be a correlation between deer size and speed. But now we are adding the size of the picnic to the equation also.

 

[CitySnake]

This is an interesting (if lengthy) read. I'm not sure what the actual topic is, but it's clear to me that those claiming that street racing (or speeding for that matter) is reasonable under certain conditions are rationalizing a wrong. What we're discussing is basic human behavior. It's a discussion of rules and the human desire to break them.

We're all guilty of breaking rules (if not breaking them, we're at least intrigued with the desire to break them). It's all a question of "when" wrong becomes wrong and when we decide to own up to it.

 

[99 R/T 10]

It comes down to basic risk management/analysis. YOU have to decied as the driver what risks you are willing to take for the momentary bit of fun. Liken it to have unprotected sex. You know the risks, but could end up with a lifetime of trouble. But at that moment of "oragasmic fun/pleasure", you asked yourself, is it worth it? At that moment, most(95%) will say yes and most of the time you will be fine. Just be prepared for that one time it ain't.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Liken it to have unprotected sex.

??? I've heard that term before. Does it have something to do with wearing a safety harness?

 

[Kevan]

City- there are times when your theory doesn't work.
Here's the scenario:
- You're on the on-ramp about to merge with traffic.
The 53', fully-loaded semi is trying to get in the left lane to allow on-ramp traffic onto the highway.
Jimmy ******* is in the left lane with the ol' cruise control set at 64 mph.
Sure- he's being safe and obeying the speed limit, but he's not taking any of the other traffic into account.

The problem is that the semi now can't get left to allow space for the on-ramp vehicles to join the flow of traffic safely (99% of truckers are smart about on-ramps).

In that situation, you have two choices:
1. Hit the brakes and fall in behind the semi (if there's room and/or space available).
2. Romp on the gas- surpassing the speed limit- to get in front of the semi (with proper room to merge).
It's not racing, but it is speeding, which is technically breaking the law.

Depending on what traffic is behind me, hitting the brakes might cause a bigger problem than what's happening with the attempted merge (The Bims On Cell Phone Ratio must be at zero for the Hit The Brakes method to work without accident or injury).

In that scenario, I'll tell you ahead of time: I *will* break the law.
It sounds contradictory, but sometimes breaking the law makes it safer for everyone.
Even the stupid people.

 

[lankhoss]

Belair, I think quite the opposite. I don't believe people are arguing based on their emotions, rather trying to take a more logical approach to what society likes to convince everyone as "outrageously dangerous."

The facts are in this thread, there are VERY FEW fatalities each year due to street racing. My ASSUMPTION about the numbers, is that hardly any of that already small number happens on an open highway. I imagine that almost every street racing fatality is from people who decide to do it in a crowded area or places where there are intersections and/or pedestrians.

Recently a young man was killed here in Atlanta while street racing. Nobody else was injured, and he didn't have a passenger. The news reported the accident happened during the race, but eyewitnesses say he was being chased by the cops (which the law and media blatantly claim was not the case). People speculate he was pit manuvered, but no one actually saw the accident. Either way.....it was running from the cops that caused the accident, and not the race itself. Yet the story is printed that he "died during a street race."

 

[lankhoss]

City- there are times when your theory doesn't work.
Here's the scenario:
- You're on the on-ramp about to merge with traffic.
The 53', fully-loaded semi is trying to get in the left lane to allow on-ramp traffic onto the highway.
Jimmy ******* is in the left lane with the ol' cruise control set at 64 mph.
Sure- he's being safe and obeying the speed limit, but he's not taking any of the other traffic into account.

The problem is that the semi now can't get left to allow space for the on-ramp vehicles to join the flow of traffic safely (99% of truckers are smart about on-ramps).

In that situation, you have two choices:
1. Hit the brakes and fall in behind the semi (if there's room and/or space available).
2. Romp on the gas- surpassing the speed limit- to get in front of the semi (with proper room to merge).
It's not racing, but it is speeding, which is technically breaking the law.

Depending on what traffic is behind me, hitting the brakes might cause a bigger problem than what's happening with the attempted merge (The Bims On Cell Phone Ratio must be at zero for the Hit The Brakes method to work without accident or injury).

In that scenario, I'll tell you ahead of time: I *will* break the law.
It sounds contradictory, but sometimes breaking the law makes it safer for everyone.
Even the stupid people.

Kevan, you bring up a very good point, and one I argue with people all the time.

Speeding is not what is dangerous on a highway, going at a DRASTIC DIFFERENCE IN SPEED FROM THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC is what is dangerous.

If the speed limit is 55, but it's heavy traffic and everyone is doing 35....then 55 is a rather dangerous speed. If you're in Atlanta, and the speed limit is 55.......everyone else is doing 80, and 55 can be a dangerous speed.

 

[lankhoss]

Here's a little something for people who think street racing is more dangerous than old people:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQACJpZ7dU[/media]

 

[belair1957]

City- there are times when your theory doesn't work.
Here's the scenario:
- You're on the on-ramp about to merge with traffic.
The 53', fully-loaded semi is trying to get in the left lane to allow on-ramp traffic onto the highway.
Jimmy ******* is in the left lane with the ol' cruise control set at 64 mph.
Sure- he's being safe and obeying the speed limit, but he's not taking any of the other traffic into account.

The problem is that the semi now can't get left to allow space for the on-ramp vehicles to join the flow of traffic safely (99% of truckers are smart about on-ramps).

In that situation, you have two choices:
1. Hit the brakes and fall in behind the semi (if there's room and/or space available).
2. Romp on the gas- surpassing the speed limit- to get in front of the semi (with proper room to merge).
It's not racing, but it is speeding, which is technically breaking the law.

Depending on what traffic is behind me, hitting the brakes might cause a bigger problem than what's happening with the attempted merge (The Bims On Cell Phone Ratio must be at zero for the Hit The Brakes method to work without accident or injury).

In that scenario, I'll tell you ahead of time: I *will* break the law.
It sounds contradictory, but sometimes breaking the law makes it safer for everyone.
Even the stupid people.

I agree with your answer to the situation but your scenario doesn't describe street racing.

 

[CitySnake]

City- there are times when your theory doesn't work.
Here's the scenario:
- You're on the on-ramp about to merge with traffic.
The 53', fully-loaded semi is trying to get in the left lane to allow on-ramp traffic onto the highway.
Jimmy ******* is in the left lane with the ol' cruise control set at 64 mph.
Sure- he's being safe and obeying the speed limit, but he's not taking any of the other traffic into account.

The problem is that the semi now can't get left to allow space for the on-ramp vehicles to join the flow of traffic safely (99% of truckers are smart about on-ramps).

In that situation, you have two choices:
1. Hit the brakes and fall in behind the semi (if there's room and/or space available).
2. Romp on the gas- surpassing the speed limit- to get in front of the semi (with proper room to merge).
It's not racing, but it is speeding, which is technically breaking the law.

Depending on what traffic is behind me, hitting the brakes might cause a bigger problem than what's happening with the attempted merge (The Bims On Cell Phone Ratio must be at zero for the Hit The Brakes method to work without accident or injury).

In that scenario, I'll tell you ahead of time: I *will* break the law.
It sounds contradictory, but sometimes breaking the law makes it safer for everyone.
Even the stupid people.

I can't disagree with you Kevan, but your argument can be made with regard to most laws. Laws are black and white, whereas the issues to which they apply tend to have "gray" areas....such as the one you described. In a perfect world, in the exact situation you described, one would presume that the LEO watching the entire scene would not ticket you due to the extenuating circumstances. Certainly our laws allow for that.

Maybe I can offer an alternative scenario. If the State of Florida one day came to finally realize the brilliance of one of its renown (pectoralis major adoring, 2 viper owning) citizens and decided to raise the highway speed limit to 90 MPH, don't you think that those drivers presently comfortable driving 10 miles over the limit would then continue to drive 10 miles over the new 90 MPH limit? It's a bit too hypothetical a scenario, but the point I'm trying to make is that most everyone is wired to a certain extent to resist another's authority (in this case governmental). IMO, it's all about where you draw the line of resistance.

With regard to street racing, I choose to draw the line based on the chance (any chance) of injury to others. But that's MY judgement and I'd have to admit to being on the wrong side of that line myself on occasion. But that still does not make it right.

 

[gb66gth]

Just roll down your window and say, "Hey, Nick Hogan, let's take it to a real race track and see how big your balls really are, or are you afraid of wadding up that piece of crap!"