Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)



  • gene103gene103 Posts: 47
    Nothing wrong with your Utopia, if the drivers are skilled. Auto racing proves that. And boredom and fatigue definitely come into play which is why I agree that certain high speed roads may prove safer. You talk about optimal conditions, but the problem is you are never driving in optimal conditions because there are more drivers on the road driving at a lower rate of speed.

    You are right about proximity but it's in the wrong context. It's why you are not minimizing your chances of having an accident when you are speeding although it lessens your time on the road. you are putting yourself in proximity with more cars and pedestrians during that shorter period of time.

    As to you continuing to maintain that it is twice as likely to hit that deer if going 35 vs 70, well that's just not true. Ask your high school physics or math teacher. Under your premise, if a car was going one millimeter per hour, the likelihood of a collision is over 112 million greater than if going 70 mph. Does that still make sense to you? Do the math yourself.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    Assuming the deer is brainless and will cross at a set speed regardless of what is on the road or in its way (think of it as crossing a railroad track that lacks any kind of signals or cross bars for protection).

    Knowing that at least one train comes every day, would you want to cross those tracks at 1 mm/second, or 1m/second? If you go 1 mm per second you are certainly more likely to cause a collision with that train.

    I'm liking this example even better to illustrate my point of time being an important variable. That train will take a few minutes of each day to cross that track. Not being on that track when it is crossing eliminates your exposure.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    >>>>Nothing wrong with your Utopia, if the drivers are skilled. Auto racing proves that.>>>>

    I would bet a cup of top brand coffee that the vast majority of professional auto racers in the U.S. would not want to see roads with 100 mph allowed. They are well aware of the added risks at speeds well beyond posted limits on our interstates today where there is such a huge range from worst to best and most attentive drivers. And, a range of vehicle capabilities from big suvs and jacked-up pickups to bmw's and mercedes and similar good handling vehicles.

    In race series such as NASCAR and INDY, all of the cars are very close in safety, performance and capability. The drivers have all come up through the ranks in lesser race series and have proven their competence to be on a racetrack.

    On public roads, the driver population includes the oldest, the most inattentive who use cell phones, and the illegal and uninsured.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,008
    edited October 2013
    Kyle Busch being the exception. :confuse: (Yahoo - but he's in good company per

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gene103gene103 Posts: 47
    Assuming you are blind to the approaching train, I agree with you 100%, but you have changed the parameters. You have added a large mass that essentially is stationary at point X for several minutes. That's akin to being on a bridge that is about to collapse, of course I am going to speed up to get across.
    In the real world, we aren't blind to many potential dangers but you always ignore that fact. It's always one-sided regarding time. If I am not blind to that approaching train, I'd rather be going slower than faster and if I see the bridge is wobbling, I stop before it. Of course, if I didn't notice it, I would have preferred to be going fast like you. Sometimes your way will work out better but most often it won't, especially considering the severityof the crash.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    edited October 2013
    As to you continuing to maintain that it is twice as likely to hit that deer if going 35 vs 70, well that's just not true.

    You two are discussing two different things using the same example. It's actually quite funny from an observational perspective, even though it's enough to induce frustration that neither of you seem to address the other's topic.

    In your example, the topic is the likelihood of hitting the deer. In Andre3's example, the topic is the likelihood of seeing the deer. Neither of you are wrong when considering time and speed in those contexts.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    edited October 2013
    I think you explain it pretty well.

    The severity of the accident matters little if it's fatal or more fatal. Hitting someone head on at 55 each is likely just as fatal as hitting someone head on at 100 MPH each.

    While an accident at higher speeds is more severe, I'm finding it is less likely to happen in the first place.
  • gene103gene103 Posts: 47
    C'mon give me a break. There is so much anecdotal evidence about people surviving head on collisions at high speeds. I can't compete with someone who states opinion as fact.
    I do agree that a 100 mph head on collision would be fatal so I do believe you would cause less accidents during your lifetime than I would, simply because I have a greater chance of surviving my accident and living to be involved in another one.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    Today's two best phone users - woman in a Corolla going about 5mph around a corner playing with a phone, guy a jerky looking blacked out F-series sitting at a light and getting honked at because he's playing with the phone, and blonde woman in an H2 making an unsignalled turn and weaving around while holding a phone.

    Vehicles of the last two size ranges, especially the latter, need to be forced into obtaining endorsements for operating such things.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Did you miss this part:

    However, if you exceed the advisory limit and are involved in an accident, you could be held responsible for some of the damages even if you are not at fault.

    Why would a driver on a German autobahn be held responsible for some damages from an accident if not at fault... only because they exceeded the advisory speed limit? That tells me that the Germans understand there's a direct correlation between increased speed and the risk of an accident. Thus if you choose to go faster than advised, you contributed towards the accident even if not legally "at fault".

    While you're putting in that 80 mph speed limit (btw, 81 rounded isn't 85, but 80), be sure to also have all US freeways designed to the same specs as the autobahns, with the same rules, and also ensure all drivers on those roads drive like the Germans do.

    Good luck with that!

    BTW, the more gas we all use (which would happen if everyone drove 100 mph as you support), we all pay more gas tax but we also all pay higher prices per gallon due to increased demand. Not to mention higher insurance (you don't think insurers will hold rates where they are if speeds increased to 100 mph, do you?), higher maintenance costs (more wear and tear on cars at the higher speeds), and I won't even get into the higher costs due to an increase in accidents and fatalities.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,685
    You are in, around, and near mile marker X twice as long going 35 MPH as you are going 70 MPH. Therefore you still have twice the exposure to that deer causing you trouble by going slower or half speed.

    Since you are at the intersection point for only an instant either way you are not anymore likely to meet up with the deer going slower. However you are more likely to avoid the deer if you meet up if you were going slower.

    Pedestrians where people are going 100 MPH? Not likely. I wouldn't use that sidewalk even if they built it.

    So you admit that going faster is less safe, thank you.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,685
    Nothing wrong with your Utopia, if the drivers are skilled. Auto racing proves that.

    Auto racing where those highly skilled drivers are always getting into wrecks?

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    Oh that old link, the one that also tells about "coercion" from flashing lights - a claim that AFAIK is undocumented. You "could" be held responsible say if you were going 200 in a blizzard, but it doesn't usually happen for those going over 130 - which is the speed that slowpokes (non-trucks) there usually settle on.

    Does speed kill? (watch a couple of idiotic scaredy cats get demolished)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    ... but it doesn't usually happen for those going over 130 - which is the speed that slowpokes (non-trucks) there usually settle on.

    Link, please. (Since you didn't like my link.)

    And if higher speed isn't a problem... why does Germany penalize drivers involved in an accident, not at fault, who exceed the "advisory" speed limits?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,415
    the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not evidence.


  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    edited October 2013
    My link is me. I've driven thousands of miles on the Autobahn. And you? ;)

    Your link also says "could", while offering nothing in support, although some of the 25 year old pics of traffic are fun. And the "coercion" story...I've ran that one by locals, who just looked at me funny. Flashing lights on the Autobahn is like self-righteously LLCing on an American interstate, lots of people do it.

    The penalties are more along the lines of driving too fast for conditions, not for exceeding the "advisory" limit, which is usually only embraced by old people and the timid.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    And please tell us how your driving on the autobahn for a few hours lets you know how many drivers there have been penalized over the years for driving more than the advisory speed limit? :)

    I'm glad though that "me" (in my case with over 40 years of driving experience all over this country and in several foreign lands), is acceptable to you to back up anything I want to throw out in this discussion. I'll keep that in mind. ;)
  • gene103gene103 Posts: 47
    snakeweasel, first, I'm on your side, andres is way off base, but auto racers get into accidents because they are doing well over 100 mph, often inches apart. If the roads in your area were open only to NASCAR racers and they used them to get from one place to another where they wouldn't be performing racing maneuvers, there probably be a lower incidence of accidents than those same roads being driven on by you, me, and andres.
  • gene103gene103 Posts: 47
    sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. I wrote "anecdotal evidence", where does the plural of anecdote come into play?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    edited October 2013
    A few hours? I drive fast, but not that fast ;)

    There are virtually ZERO accounts anywhere of drivers either being charged with "coercion" like the link states, or being held responsible for anything when exceeding advisory numbers but not being at fault. Nothing. Take the link with a grain of salt, like anything else.

    Canuckistan isn't a foreign land :P

    Uugh it's going to be awful when these boomers get into their 60s en masse, become even more shrill and self-righteous, and start screaming about speed and danger, because their own abilities are failing.
Sign In or Register to comment.