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.)

1721722724726727756

Comments

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,789
    Backy, don't even try to argue with him on this. He thinks he is right and that's all that counts with him. Would you believe that he once told me he was safer driving faster as it means that he is on the road a shorter amount of time and therefore less likely to be in an accident?

    Of course you are right that as speed increases it takes longer to stop a car (by the square of the increase of speed) and it increases the force of an impact if the accident cannot be avoided. And while you can steer around an object the faster you are going the harder it is to move a vehicle out of a straight line and increases the likelihood that such an action could cause an accident.

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

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,578
    snakeweasel! Good to see you around! ;-)
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,747
    Would you believe that he once told me he was safer driving faster as it means that he is on the road a shorter amount of time and therefore less likely to be in an accident?

    You know, I can actually see some logic in that. Taken in isolation, no other factors considered, the shorter a time you are on the road, the less chance you have to be in an accident. Similar to, the less you fly, the less chance you have of being in an airplane accident.

    Unfortunately, there ARE other factors to be considered. Otherwise we'd all drive at 100+ mph to spend as little time on the road as possible. ;)
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,371
    >Backy, don't even try to argue...

    Right spot on. Great post.

    >as speed increases

    May I add that the distance covered during the reaction time also increases in addition to the stopping distance for the vehicle once the braking is invoked.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    edited October 2013
    There was more to it then that. For example, you are less likely to be rear-ended going 100 MPH than you are going 55 MPH.

    Also, you are less likely to have someone camping in your blind spot at 100 MPH than you are at 55 MPH; so therefore if you make a smooth lane change even if someone was in your blind spot by the time you complete the lane change your a safe distance in front of them.

    The fact is, most accidents are not from objects suddenly darting out in front of you (especially in controlled access freeways where high speeds are more likely).

    Also, an emergency avoidance maneuver could never be the cause of an accident, unless it was performed in a negligent manner. The person or object forcing the emergency maneuver in the first place is the cause of the accident, the speed is irrelevant. I don't cut off vehicles as a pedestrian going 10 MPH, nor 100 MPH. In either case, the pedestrian is the one flinging themselves in front of the car.

    If I throw my body in front of a car going 10 MPH; I'll probably live.

    If I throw my body in front of a car going 100 MPH I'll likely die.

    Neither result changes the cause of the accident. I don't understand why this simple logic escapes some of you.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,830
    Why don't you see if you can get your case transferred to Judge Judy?
    Then you can make that argument and we call all watch it on youtube.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,789
    Even in isolation I would find that not to be the case. I am out on vacation right now (a family reunion of sorts) and I took a back road way in. One road I took was rather rustic, narrow hilly and lots of curves but absolutely no traffic on it for the 8 or so miles it ran. It was a beautiful road. Now I could have driven that road at maybe 10 MPH or so faster but it would have left no room for error. Just one misjudged curve and I would have been in trouble.

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

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Just what is this infatuation with speed? Seems immature and infantile? Why not just obey the speed limit and not have to worry about police and tickets and going to court? What is the reason, rationale for wanting to break speed limits? And by more than just 5 over? Is there a thrill? A high? Like on a drug?
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,789
    you are less likely to be rear-ended going 100 MPH than you are going 55 MPH.

    And you are less likely to rear-end someone going 55 MPH than you are at 100 MPH.

    Also, an emergency avoidance maneuver could never be the cause of an accident, unless it was performed in a negligent manner.

    You go right ahead and go on believing that but the fact of the matter is that the faster you are going the harder and more dangerous avoidance maneuvers are.

    If I throw my body in front of a car going 10 MPH; I'll probably live.

    That's because that at 10 MPH the driver can better stop or avoid you. Say you jump out 25 feet in front of the car the 10 MPH car has 1.7 seconds to react and can stop the car or turn in that distance. The 100 MPH drive has only 0.17 seconds before hitting you. That means that as soon as he realizes you are there he hit you. Even if his reactions were instantaneous he wouldn't be able to stop or avoid you.

    I don't understand why this simple logic escapes you.

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

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,956
    edited October 2013
    What's the fear of speed? Seems immature and infantile. I can look back and find roads that my grandfather was driving on 60 years ago that carry the same limits now. The speed limit system in the US must be 90% for revenue. What's the reason to blindly conform and submit to arbitrary, obsolete, and asinine regulations created and enforced by groups with no accountability? Is it a warm feeling, patriotic to the ignorant? There needs to be more widespread questioning and disobedience - as it took an eon to do away with 55 when it became irrelevant. Oh yeah, think of the children!
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    I'll concede that you may be better able to avoid an accident that is someone else's fault in certain circumstances under certain specific conditions by going slower. The key here is that the accident is not your fault. Insurance rates won't rise. Tickets can't be issued.

    In the real world I've been going nearly 20 years without an at-fault accident, so my methods must be working. You go slower where it is needed; where it is not needed; you go faster.

    However, you can't twist my example to fit your ill-conceived logic.

    I'm flinging myself into that car at 10 MPH so that they have virtually no time to react or avoid me. I'm not giving them 25 feet. I'm causing the accident and therefore there is nothing the car can do short of going 0 MPH.

    He will have zero chance to avoid me just as the guy going 100 MPH will have no chance to avoid me; it's all in the timing.

    For example, why did you choose 25 feet? Why not 2,500 feet?

    At 2,500 feet the guy going 100 MPH might not even see the person at first, but certainly they will see them in time to stop. At 2,500 feet, the guy going 10 MPH won't be able to see the person blocking their lane for some time, but they will still have time to get out of the way or avoid the collision.

    The only difference is the amount of time it takes them to get from one place to another.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    I find obeying unjust laws to be wrong. I find disobeying unjust laws to be ones duty and the right thing to do. It is correct and efficient for drivers to ignore the speed limits in CA. If everyone went the speed limit I'd imagine gridlock would be 10X worse.

    By the way, you can go the speed limit and still be falsely accused of speeding and given tickets. Also, there are at least 40,000 other Vehicle Codes for which they can cite you.

    If they raised the speed limits then maybe I could go within 5 over.

    No thrill, no high, I'm not a teenager anymore; that was a long time ago.

    Yes, driving fast on a twisty canyon road is very fun in a suitable car, but on my way to get lunch on a work day having fun while driving isn't at the top of my mind; just getting from A to B safely and as efficiently as possible.

    Never got a ticket carving up canyon roads though; seems to only happen when I let my guard down.

    Let's be real here, I wasn't caught tripling the speed limit like some race car drivers have been caught doing on public roads. I was merely going 15 over in an under-posted by 10 zone.

    Went back to the scene yesterday; the road does actually have a few side driveway/parking lot entrances/exits, but it's a long stretch of road between lights, but in addition to that, there's actually a 5th center shared turning lane. It's not 4 lanes, but 5 wide!, with the middle being used as a turning lane. The speed limit could easily be 50 here; which was basically the speed I'm accused of going.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    An old lady who probably has caused more car wrecks in the last 10 years than I will in my entire lifetime is the last person I'd want as a judge.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    edited October 2013
    Less likely to rear-end someone going 55 than 100 MPH? Let's think about that for a moment.

    That requires another driver to be on the road, in your way, and going slower than you are. Seems to me the problem is the guy going 55 not 100. If everyone went 100 then they would have nothing to worry about. Seems like you've made a good case as to why speed limits should be set realistically and not artificially (for some Satanic purpose such as revenue enhancement; for instance).

    There's a thing called a windshield and there's no reason the guy going 100 can't slow down for the guy going 55, of course the guy going 55 should move right first.

    No, I don't see rear-end collisions going up mainly because you only drive 100 when it is safe to do so. If traffic does not allow it, then you can't drive 100 MPH safely even if the speed limit is 1,000 MPH.

    How come airplanes don't have more rear-end collisions, they go over 500 MPH? Shouldn't they have exponentially more accidents since some of you say "speed" is so dangerous.

    Surely I can brake my car faster than a 747 from equal speeds. But faster is less safe, so if planes could find a way to fly at 100 MPH should they?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,747
    edited October 2013
    If everyone went 100 then they would have nothing to worry about.

    Actually, you would... there would go your idea about driving 100 reducing the chance of being rear-ended by someone! Except everyone would have less reaction time, driving at 100, than driving at a slower speed.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    I don't think it is about reaction time at all. I would venture to guess that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all rear-enders were caused by either Car A or Car B not paying attention or being situationally aware.

    But if everyone drives the same exact speed rear-enders theoretically don't happen.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,747
    But if everyone drives the same exact speed rear-enders theoretically don't happen.

    And if everyone drives perfectly all the time, there's no accidents ever, no need for collision insurance, and... no need for this discussion!

    Theoretically.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,789
    I'll concede that you may be better able to avoid an accident that is someone else's fault in certain circumstances under certain specific conditions by going slower.

    Sorry but accidents are easier to avoid under most, if not all, conditions if you are going slower.

    The key here is that the accident is not your fault.

    The key here is not who is at fault, the key here is avoidance regardless of who is at fault.

    Insurance rates won't rise. Tickets can't be issued.

    Sorry but that's not always the case. I have know someone who got a ticket for an accident that wasn't his fault because he was going to fast. Ever hear of failure to slow down to avoid an accident?

    However, you can't twist my example to fit your ill-conceived logic.

    I didn't twist your example, I may of qualified it but I didn't twist it. However you are doing a good job of twisting things around. You never said doing it so that the driver had no way to avoid you.

    It's a simple fact that the faster you go the harder it is to control your vehicle. Turns and lane changes have to be made more gradual and stopping takes longer. You can't sit here and tell me that even though you are making it harder to control your vehicle you are just as safe.

    This is why I told Backy it is meaningless to argue this subject with some people. You won't listen to people, you throw out BS and then you try to change things around when it is thrown back at you.

    Slow down, you'll live longer.

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

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,789
    That requires another driver to be on the road, in your way, and going slower than you are.

    Or it requires someone driving responsibly and doing nothing wrong and someone flying down the road way over the SL thinking that it his god given right to go as fast as he wants as long as he, and only he, thinks it is safe.

    There's a thing called a windshield and there's no reason the guy going 100 can't slow down for the guy going 55, of course the guy going 55 should move right first.

    There is no reason for the guy doing 100 to be doing 100. Not all roads have more than one lane in each direction, I took a 220 mile road trip with only 10 of those miles having more than one lane in each direction. Also If I am doing 55 in say a 50 MPH zone passing someone doing less than me why should I have to change anything I am doing just so you can kill yourself faster?

    How come airplanes don't have more rear-end collisions, they go over 500 MPH? Shouldn't they have exponentially more accidents since some of you say "speed" is so dangerous.

    See this is why you cannot argue with people like you. You just throw out crap like that which is in no way a comparison. But lets look at that. Plane, unlike cars can travel at different altitudes so one can pass over another. Secondly planes follow a very strict set of rules, they do have speed limits and are controlled by air traffic controllers. If an air traffic controller tells you to go to a certain altitude and go 500MPH and you say "screw that 600 MPH is just as safe" what do you think will happen? So if you want to make the comparison every time you get caught going over the posted speed limit give up your license and your job.

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

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    1. Accidents may be easier to avoid when going slower, but I like how you worded that. Just because something isn't easy does not mean the accident isn't still avoidable. It may require skill, and it may not be the easiest thing, but the accidents are still avoidable at higher speeds. Going 0.00 MPH makes most every accident avoidable (except being rammed into of course).

    2. Avoidance regardless of who is at fault will cost you in wasted time and efficiency. Again, why not make the speed limits all maximized at 35 then? Why such a low bar and standard?

    3. Failure to slow down to avoid an accident is an entirely different animal. You do have a duty to mitigate damages where reasonably possible, which would include slowing down to avoid an accident where possible (or simply changing lanes to avoid). If you purposely get into an accident because you think it won't be judged as "your fault" then you really are causing the accident yourself. That person should be charged with reckless driving and assault with a deadly weapon (and perhaps attempted murder). Brake checkers fit into this category in my book.

    4. My point was that some accidents are unavoidable, regardless of speed. However, I stand by that if you take a shorter amount of time to go from A to B then the hazards in between A and B have less of a chance to harm you. For example, if 1 deer crosses a road on average in a 10 mile stretch per 24 hours, your chances of having one of those deer run in front of you double if you go 35 MPH instead of 70. You have twice the exposure going slow, but I'll give you that the deer will have less of a chance of survival and avoidance during the interaction with the 70 MPH car.

    5. I like poking holes in your logic and arguments, and really show how silly they are. You don't like my airplane example, but I think it is perfectly valid. You mention airplanes have the option of going up or down, in addition to left or right. That is an advantage, as cars can only go right or left to avoid traffic. But what that argument all comes down to is congestion and traffic. Going 100 MPH may not be possible if traffic is too congested (even if the speed limit is 100). I know I have no problem obeying the lowly 65 Maximum Speed Limit when I'm stuck in rush-hour bumper to bumper traffic. The comparison is valid; essentially your saying if cars develop the ability to change altitude your OK with higher speed limits. The only reason to change altitude would be the same reason you'd change lanes; it all comes down to traffic and congestion.

    I love the airplane example. Or how about Bullet Trains in Europe? I challenge anyone to show me that high speeds equal greater and more frequent danger in a logical manner.

    I previously asked someone to show me a study that says relatively high-speed freeways are more dangerous than slower speed roadways.

    The challenge stands. Saying speed kills no longer flies :)
  • gene103gene103 Posts: 47
    So your point is predicated that the less time you are on the road, the chances of an accident decrease and that someone going 35 mph has twice the chance to hit that deer than someone going 70 mph. Makes sense, until you consider the following:

    The deer crosses the road once in 24 hours. Let’s say it crosses at mile marker X.

    The deer and the car will collide if the car and the deer are both a mile marker X at the same time, agreed? Well, whether a car is going 35 mph from point A to point B, or going 70 mph, he will be a mile marker X only once during the trip. There is an equal chance of meeting up with the deer no matter what the speed. He doesn’t get two opportunities to hit the deer because he is driving at half the speed. Of course, going very slow gives someone the opportunity to avoid that deer at mile marker X while someone going very fast would have minimal time to react.

    Of course, if you drive from point A to point B at 100 vs 55, you will minimize the time period where you can have an accident but you will come across more cars and pedestrians during that time than someone doing 55 and will have more opportunities to interact with them.

    I realize you believe have a duty to ignore unjust laws, but you will need to ignore the laws of physics to defend your posiiton :)

    You don’t need to see studies on high speed vs slower speed roads. Depending on the variables, I may be safer on the high speed road. I acknowledge that. The problems arise when a few vehicles are going much faster or much slower than the norm.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,956
    Lots of phone holders today. First got behind a RAV4 that was weaving like a drunk - but moving faster than the usual local slowness (some of the scared-of-speed types here need to move to Seattle). Lo and behold, he had a phone cradled in the steering wheel hub and was playing with it. Then saw a woman in a current style A6 with a phone to hear ear, and a guy in an XC60 with a phone to his ear. Late model highline cars with assumed affluent drivers and standard bluetooth take the cake. Should be $500 fine to start, $5000 for the second offense, and then, watch out. If money is built from being smart and logical and lots of other fun stories, it sure likes to hide those traits.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    So, Andres, when you are old, say 80-90 and in a nursing home will you advocate for unlimited speed down the corridors in your electrified wheelchair? Or, would you want the nursing home to invoke max speed controls on the wheelchairs?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,747
    You have to ask that question? :)
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,280
    Actually, that would be my mom. Last visit I think someone jimmied the high speed on her scooter - I could actually keep up with her. She always was a hotfoot.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • That one made me smile, Steve. We had to have the tech come by & 'de-tune' my dad's power chair... twice! Seems he had a bad habit of running in to the paperback racks at the grocery store & taking chunks out of the woodwork & drywall at the assisted living place.
    I guess if we had looked at all the 'parking by braille' evidence on his car, we could have predicted the power chair issues :)
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,578
    edited October 2013
    'parking by braille' evidence on his car

    Hahahaha; nicely stated!
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    I acknowledge that it may be "easier" to avoid the deer going 35 than it would going 70 (of course going 70 would likely make more noise which would keep the deer from running in front of you at an inopportune time).

    Let's say the deer always crosses at mile marker X once a day for the sake of your argument; although it really should be random.

    Let's assume the time of crossing during each 24 hour period is completely random though.

    You never know when that deer will cross, only that it will cross once per each 24 hours. 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.

    Driving is a risk. Reducing the amount of time performing that risk obviously reduces the risk in my book, which says nothing of the effects of boredom and fatigue on driving performance. All of my tickets seem to come when I'm bored and/or fatigued, always when I'm not driving the fastest I go during optimal conditions; both internal and external.

    You are all assuming I'm advocating for 100 MPH cars alongside 55 MPH cars. You are also all assuming the 100 MPH is a law breaker.

    In my Utopia the speed limit is 100 MPH or more. No one would be going 55, the slowest would probably be going 65-75. Lane discipline resolves most speed differential conflicts and works quite well in Europe where this is practiced (unlimited speed limits). I'm not saying speed differentials are not a problem, I'm just saying proper lane discipline solves most all of that problem.

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

    The only way to say speed is dangerous is to throw in variables which really could mean "too fast for conditions." The speed limit isn't supposed to be the limit during a snow storm while driving a fully loaded double-decker bus. The speed limit should be for optimal conditions for optimal vehicles.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,747
    Your Utopia is impractical for a number of reasons. One is that high speed e.g. over 70 mph requires considerably more fuel than at slower speeds. Maybe you don't mind using up a limited resource faster (and raising prices due to increased demand), but others don't care much for that idea. I'd like to leave some petroleum for my kids and their kids etc.

    Even in the supposed auto Utopia of Germany's autobahn, there ARE speed limits:

    Despite the widespread belief of complete freedom from speed limits (and a lobbying effort that has the same influence and deep pockets as the American gun lobby), some speed regulations can be found on the Autobahns. Many sections do indeed have permanent or dynamic speed limits ranging from 80 to 130 km/h (50-80 mph), particularly those with dangerous curves, in urban areas, near major interchanges, or with unusually constant heavy traffic. In construction zones, the limit may be as low as 60 km/h (37 mph). Also, some sections now feature nighttime and wet-weather speed restrictions, and trucks are always regulated (see table below). That said, about two-thirds of the Autobahn network has no permanent speed limit, although there is always an advisory limit of 130 km/h (81 mph). This recommendation is generally seen for what it is-- an attempt by the government to cover itself without having to upset millions of Porsche and BMW owners/voters. 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.

    http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/autobahn.shtml
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    There are still sections with no speed limits. Advisory speed limits such as those on our yellow signs are to be ignored even more than the white signs, unless you drive a top heavy roll-over prone vehicle.

    81 MPH is a step in the right direction though; I'd settle for that compromise; though for American tastes, let's round up to 85 MPH since we don't know what a Kilometer is and TX has already done so without massive carnage.

    We all pay a gas tax, the more gas you use, the more tax you pay. What if everyone orders a Tesla S? Then you can go fast without using petroleum. Of course, your range may suffer.
Sign In or Register to comment.