85 MPH: Texas considers highest speed limit in nation

wrote:
> Birds have brought down a lot of Airplanes before.How about high speed
> Railroad Trains.Japan Earthquake caused a high speed Japanese Railroad
> Train a Lot of damage.They wrote that Train off, I think.
> cuhulin
>

We used to say, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

http://www.upiasia.com/Business_News...6411302755363/

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Apr 15, 1:29*pm, wrote:
> Birds have brought down a lot of Airplanes before.How about high speed
> Railroad Trains.Japan Earthquake caused a high speed Japanese Railroad
> Train a Lot of damage.They wrote that Train off, I think.
> cuhulin

it's a shame, glad I got to ride the Shinkansen last year before all
this happened. Really was pretty uneventful as far as rides go, other
than the scenery scrolling a bit faster than usual. I suppose that
that was teh effect that they were going for, and they achieved it.

nate

On 19/04/2011 3:31 a.m., N8N wrote:
> On Apr 15, 1:29 pm, wrote:
>> Birds have brought down a lot of Airplanes before.How about high speed
>> Railroad Trains.Japan Earthquake caused a high speed Japanese Railroad
>> Train a Lot of damage.They wrote that Train off, I think.
>> cuhulin
>
> it's a shame, glad I got to ride the Shinkansen last year before all
> this happened. Really was pretty uneventful as far as rides go, other
> than the scenery scrolling a bit faster than usual. I suppose that
> that was teh effect that they were going for, and they achieved it.
>
> nate

My experience of the speed of the Shinkansen was, I noticed a helicoptor
ahead, traveling in the same direction. In a very short time we had
caught up to and passed it and it was fast disappearing behind us.

--
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

If a Helicopter is hovering above me when I am driving, I can leave that
Helicopter in my dust.
cuhulin

On 19/04/2011 10:21 a.m., wrote:
> If a Helicopter is hovering above me when I am driving, I can leave that
> Helicopter in my dust.
> cuhulin
>

I'm sure you could because as you said, it would be hovering, so it
wouldn't be going anywhere. But these trains are travelling at about
185mph which puts it in front of most helicopters and small aircraft.

--
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:19:10 -0500, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"Brent" > wrote in message ne
>
>> Most rural interstate in the USA should have no speed restriction.
>
>We have some pretty good highways in Texas, and a lot of them could
>support higher speeds with no problem.
>
>Trying to cross this state in a day, or even two days depending on
>the route, can be hard.
>
>If you have ever driven on Houston's beltway 8, you may have
>seen people driving 90 mph or more. It isn't legal, but is not as
>enforced as it could, or perhaps should, be. People seem to have
>the attitude that if we have to pay to use this tollroad, we should
>be able to drive any speed we wish.
>
>If we are going to be allowed to drive at near autobahn speeds,
>we will probably have to tighten up the safety inspections. I am
>afraid there are places you can still pay your $15 and get a safety
>sticker on a deathtrap.

There has never been any evidence I've run across that shows "safety
inspections" increase safety. If they do it's by a trivial amount and
is far outweighed by the cost (RIPOFF) of the inspections. They are
another "feel good" law that makes legislators wet their pants that
they are "saving the children" or similar idiotic feeling.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

>"That Tune" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Tegger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My province, like most jurisdictions, keeps detailed statistics on
>>> automobiles and collisions involving them. Among those statistics are
>>> figures for the percentage of collided vehicles that turned out to
>>> have mechanical defects.
>>>
>>> I'd like you to guess what that percentage is (hint: it was 55%
>>> higher in 1985 than in 2005).
>>> --
>>> Tegger
>>
>> The issue isn't whether a vehicle involved in an accident
>> had mechanical defects, but instead whether such defect
>> was a proximate cause of, an exacerbating, or even so
>> much as a contributing factor to the incident or injuries.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>In that case, the number I'm looking for would be EVEN SMALLER than it
>actually is, since it would stand to reason that a portion of the defects
>would have had no bearing on the collision.
>
>Go on, guess. Remember, it's been asserted that people disregard the
>behavior and capabilities of their cars when they drive.


Hmm, seven days and no one has made a guess??? It's around 2% I'd say
and that's probably overstating things since cops always want to be
able to check the "accident caused by" box to show something specific
caused things.

Ashton Crusher > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
> wrote:
>

>>
>>In that case, the number I'm looking for would be EVEN SMALLER than it
>>actually is, since it would stand to reason that a portion of the
>>defects would have had no bearing on the collision.
>>
>>Go on, guess. Remember, it's been asserted that people disregard the
>>behavior and capabilities of their cars when they drive.
>
>
> Hmm, seven days and no one has made a guess???



Telling, isn't it?



> It's around 2% I'd say
> and that's probably overstating things since cops always want to be
> able to check the "accident caused by" box to show something specific
> caused things.
>


The official figure for my car-unfriendly area is 1.2% (2005 stats; the
number was 2.2% in 1985). And that's just the percentage of involved
vehicles that were found to have some sort of mechanical defect, not the
subset of those where the found defect was determined to have actually
contributed to the collision.

Two simple facts: 1) Most people are not suicidal. 2) Most people adjust
their driving-style to a very great degree when piloting a vehicle that
does not behave as they wish it to.
This is why government "safety" inspections have no effect on "safety".

In case anybody's interested... my area's stats show bald tires and bad
brakes to be--far and away--the most common mechanical defects found on
collided vehicles where a defect of some sort was found.

--
Tegger