Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

driver100

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?
.

Just about every accident is that way. it wouldn't have happened if I left 10 minutes sooner, it wouldn't happen if I had left 6 minutes earlier. The accident happened at that time and place.....you can't change things unless you are in the movie Back to the Future.

I'd like to hear him explaining that to the cop....see if I could have been driving 90 mph instead of 50 this accident wouldn't have happened - it is the stupid laws fault.

You just might be the guy who can fix our poster buddy. Good luck with that.

jmonroe

Agree 8

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?
.

Just about every accident is that way. it wouldn't have happened if I left 10 minutes sooner, it wouldn't happen if I had left 6 minutes earlier. The accident happened at that time and place.....you can't change things unless you are in the movie Back to the Future.

I'd like to hear him explaining that to the cop....see if I could have been driving 90 mph instead of 50 this accident wouldn't have happened - it is the stupid laws fault.

You just might be the guy who can fix our poster buddy. Good luck with that.

jmonroe

Agree 8X

tbirdmarco

All interesting  all 

qbrozen

driver100 said:

How about a new VW Arteon....starting from $37000; I know....looks like a Buick! That color is getting popular...I may get more used to it. Why It Matters: The Arteon is to the car side of VW’s showrooms what the Atlas is to the truck side: a new flagship responsible for ­accelerating the brand’s return to relevance. Platform: VW’s ubiquitous MQB transverse-powertrain components, set up for sedan use. Powertrain: A turbocharged and intercooled 2.0-liter inline-four packing 270 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque (substantial increases over the outgoing CC’s turbocharged 2.0-liter) with an Aisin eight-speed automatic transaxle sending output to the front wheels. VW’s 4MOTION all-wheel drive will likely be optional. VW Arteon

Looks good from the front.



For $37k in FWD form, it better come completely loaded if they want to stand a chance against the Asian competitors.

bwia

roadburner said:

@imidazol97 your story also reminded me of this clip. I actually had a law professor that was just about as manic; he saved me from being kicked out of school my final semester(I pulled a prank at a very formal event- long story).

Too funny...that clip was from Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield. I've watched that movie about a dozen times and it still gives me a chuckle.

graphicguy

roadburner said:

@imidazol97 your story also reminded me of this clip. I actually had a law professor that was just about as manic; he saved me from being kicked out of school my final semester(I pulled a prank at a very formal event- long story).

Great movie....up there with Stripes and Animal House.

While not grad school, my college mentor/guidance counselor (more like a friend as we went out for beers together, often) urged me to get a double major, too. I mentioned that I took courses that certified me to tech driver’s ed. Since high schools were just starting to form curricula for computer science, and so few had were going into education who would know how to teach it, his thought process was I could easily get a teaching job in my major.

He was right, but he slighted the fact that the pay discrepancy between teaching Computer Science and getting a job in the business community was pretty big.

All I had to do was to take 6 more qtr hours in education and student teach for a qtr and I would have had the double major. I didn’t. But, especially now, kind of wished I did. That might be a fun gig to take on after retirement.

abacomike

My brother and his SO just bought a 2018 GLC MB for her.  MSRP was $51,365 - quite loaded.  4 cylinder turbo with pano roof.  They paid $46,000 which, from my research, is a good price due mainly to $1000 in trunk money to the dealer and a below invoice deal - in stock vehicle.

Driver, you may want to take a look at it - very hot selling SUV for MB.

bwia

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

nyccarguy

bwia said:

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

Unlimited Mileage? My interest is peaked.

carnaught

abacomike said:

My brother and his SO just bought a 2018 GLC MB for her.  MSRP was $51,365 - quite loaded.  4 cylinder turbo with pano roof.  They paid $46,000 which, from my research, is a good price due mainly to $1000 in trunk money to the dealer and a below invoice deal - in stock vehicle.

Driver, you may want to take a look at it - very hot selling SUV for MB.

@driver100 has made it clear that he likes cars and SUV’s with tall tour bus-like windows to be more open and give more optimal vision. Hence Mrs. driver, who feels the same, drives a GLK rather than a GLC. The latter, as with most of the current Mercedes models, are more trim and streamlined (flattened) with less height above the beltline.

oldfarmer50

Interesting experience the other day. We we delivering cars to my neighborhood Ford store and I noticed they still had a 2015 Mustang Ecoboost that had been there since new. I looked it up on their website and saw they were only offering $12k off the $34k sticker after 4 years. Car had about 10k miles. I thought the price was absurd until I ran it through the Edmunds appraiser and found out they value it at $22k, only a grand less than asking price.

Do Mustangs really depreciate that slowly? Since my 2015 has about the same milage it put a smile on my face.

snakeweasel

bwia said:

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

No money down, $600 a month that includes service, insurance and taxes with unlimited miles? What could possibly go wrong?

My guess is that once someone returns a banged up 2 year old car with 125K miles on it they will rethink that option.

stickguy

Rav 4 still has a traditional slush box trans. I think it is at least up to 6 gears now.

carnaught

snakeweasel said:

bwia said:

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

No money down, $600 a month that includes service, insurance and taxes with unlimited miles? What could possibly go wrong?

My guess is that once someone returns a banged up 2 year old car with 125K miles on it they will rethink that option.

I’m sure the fine print will cover those kind of cases.

jmonroe

carnaught said:

snakeweasel said:

bwia said:

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

No money down, $600 a month that includes service, insurance and taxes with unlimited miles? What could possibly go wrong?

My guess is that once someone returns a banged up 2 year old car with 125K miles on it they will rethink that option.

I’m sure the fine print will cover those kind of cases.

I agree. Like the man said, "the BIG print gives it to you and the little print takes it away".

I also tune out when I hear FREE.

jmonroe

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You can play that game in reverse, if they had been going slower, even by 1 MPH, the pedestrian would have been across the road before the car got there.

Of if he car was going faster and been past the incident point before the pedestrian got there who is to say that there would not have been a collision further down the road?

It has not been proven wrong.

yes, the game works in both ways and at all speeds. This is why speed is fairly irrelevant, as long as it is safe for conditions. You can't account for when a pedestrian is going to wear dark clothes and blindly cross a dark road (although there is debate that roadway was dark and it is just a crappy camera that makes it look dark).

I believe the reported speed was 38 MPH. That's not fast for that type of road. So if less speed is better, then 0 is best. It's a bad argument. It doesn't pass the logic test.

A simple quarter turn flick of the wheel to the left would have avoided the fatality. The left lane was open.

There is one difference though. Going faster gives less time to random pedestrians randomly trying to walk in front of you.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

How about 3 accidents or 3 tickets?

Accidents (at-fault) yes. Tickets? No!

If you can get a few Auto Insurance companies to give you some recent data, I think you'll find the actuarial have finally figured out that tickets have little impact on the likelihood of future claims. I've begun to see and hear evidence that tickets don't have the effect on insurance rates they once did. The numbers are starting to reflect the reality.

Why not? You can lose your driving privileges for three tickets. Tickets tend to show reckless and/or careless driving and that does increase incidents of accidents.

I'm not seeing that, and niether are the insurance companies. Tickets are not showing a correlation to accidents.

That's what happens when 95% of the enforcement effort focuses on hazard-less violations like a Stop Sign violation where no one was around, or a U-turn (sign) violation where no one was forced to swerve or hit the brakes, or going 70 in a zone where even the Officer says 65 is the safe speed. If that biased guy says 65 is safe, maybe a reasonable judge will find 70 to be CLOSE ENOUGH to be safe too.

Certainly 5 MPH is not going to make any difference in terms of collisions on many types of safe higher speed roadways.

So in theory we wish tickets were issued for careless or reckless driving, but in reality most citations are issued for technicalities.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?

Yes time and space, if going faster would put you past her when she crossed the street going slower would have put you far enough in front of her for her to cross before you got there. That is unless you think she would have stopped in the middle of the street to wait for you.

All this is is just an excuse to justify your speeding.

You are taking things out of context, and I think deliberately.

I mentioned it would take a slightly higher speed over a bit of time to ensure you were past the point of the collision at the time of the collision.

I'm saying 5 MPH less at just the instance of where the lady was noticed in the video camera would not have made a difference. Certainly 5 MPH less over a few seconds would make a difference. However, if the time was the same (all other things being equal), 5 MPH less would not have prevented this. I don't see how you can argue this, as it doesn't appear the autonomous programming nor the human back up driver made any steering or braking inputs until after impact anyway.

snakeweasel

carnaught said:

snakeweasel said:

bwia said:

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

No money down, $600 a month that includes service, insurance and taxes with unlimited miles? What could possibly go wrong?

My guess is that once someone returns a banged up 2 year old car with 125K miles on it they will rethink that option.

I’m sure the fine print will cover those kind of cases.

I am sure it will. It would have been nice to have an unlimited mileage option when I was putting 40K or more a year on my car.

andres3

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?
.

Just about every accident is that way. it wouldn't have happened if I left 10 minutes sooner, it wouldn't happen if I had left 6 minutes earlier. The accident happened at that time and place.....you can't change things unless you are in the movie Back to the Future.

I'd like to hear him explaining that to the cop....see if I could have been driving 90 mph instead of 50 this accident wouldn't have happened - it is the stupid laws fault.

It's the time exposure. Similar to being exposed to high levels of radiation. Do you want to be exposed for 1 hour, or 2 hours? Which carries less risk?

Yes, that's right, I just compared a Southern CA commute to walking next to Chernobyl or Fukushima without a protective suit.

fintail

Anyone else having issues with Edmunds crashing Chrome? Appears to be tied to Toyota ad banners - been happening for the past few days. Funny I would get those banners, as guess what I am not shopping for?

I see CVT in RAV4 is hybrid only.

andres3

bwia said:

Don't remember if this topic has been discussed here. But here goes. The 2019 Volvo XC40 is much beloved by the automotive press and based upon the video reviews I have seen it looks impressive indeed. First off, it is the right size for a compact SUV making it a worthy competitor to the other luxury marques such as the Audi A-3, BMW X2, Jaguar E-Pace and Mercedes GLA.

What intrigues me though is not the car itself but the novel financing option. Instead of an outright purchase or lease you can acquire the car by subscription similar to a cell phone plan. For a 2-year subscription, the price is $600 a month for the Momentum model. That price includes everything including service, insurance, and taxes. Sounds like a lease but simpler I think. No money down , no mileage limitations and you can upgrade to a higher trim level just as you do with a cell phone.

If this experiment works I am sure other manufacturers will follow with their own versions. Good marketing me thinks, especially for young buyers who would ordinarily be hosed with high insurance premiums.

Your thoughts?

Would take a lot of mathematical calculations to tell if it was a good deal or not. My Kia 3-year rental/lease is about $10,000 for the 3 years.

ab348

Talking about speeding, this has been getting a lot of attention locally the last few days:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2018/03/22/halifax-police-charge-man-give-more-details-in-wild-dangerous-driving-incident.html

"Inbound on Highway 102 on Wednesday, a white Chevrolet Camaro was clocked by an RCMP officer going over 200 km/h, and several attempts were made by police to stop him – but they failed.

In a press release, police said the driver was swerving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding other vehicles, and crossing the yellow line in order to evade their attempts to stop him.

At the intersection of Duke Street and Damascus Road, near Bedford, he was clocked by an HRP officer going 192 km/h but wasn’t pursued.

At such high speeds, the safety of the public, and traffic officers, becomes a concern.

“That’s why he was not pursued,” said Fraser during an interview.

After the driver sped down Rocky Lake Drive, still reaching speeds around 190 km/h, police setup a “road block” on Waverley Road.

He crossed the centre line and took a shoulder to avoid it, said Fraser.

“He literally went around the police vehicles,” she said.

Finally, at about 3 p.m. police located the car at an Irving Gas Station at 200 Waverley Road where the driver was arrested without incident, according to police.

Police have charged people with “stunting” before, where drivers go 50 km/h above the speed limit, said Fraser, “but as far as from 192 to over 200 km/h, that’s a lot.”

Marshall Ellis, a 20-year-old man from Elderbank, has been charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and flight from police. He has also been issued two tickets for expired registration and operating a motor vehicle without insurance."


It's people like this who give certain posters here a bad name.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

murphydog said:

Maybe the issue isn't self driving cars, but pedestrians darting into the street?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

Turns out they did "release the video." I watched it. I wouldn't use the term "darting", however:

While video is never as good as your own human eyeballs (assuming you have normal vision), I think Uber and Autonomous cars can be given a break here. She appears to have been wearing black at night. The Volvo's headlights were not very good. The car still should have had time to react and hit the brakes though, but in fact, a collision may have been very tough to avoid.

All I know is my personal safety record of 0.00 fatalities per mile traveled is better than autonomous cars now.
No matter how many miles autonomous cars log, they'll never get down to 0.00 again. I intend to keep my 0.00 score for at least this lifetime too.

Another observation.

Had the self driving car been driven by a human speeder, it probably would have only taken the speeder a few seconds of speeding by a "normal speeding margin" to have avoided that collision. The extra speed would have put the Volvo at a further position down the road before the woman walking the bike crossed paths with it.

So any of you doubters that "going faster" can avoid wrecks, have been proven wrong yet again.

You can play that game in reverse, if they had been going slower, even by 1 MPH, the pedestrian would have been across the road before the car got there.

Of if he car was going faster and been past the incident point before the pedestrian got there who is to say that there would not have been a collision further down the road?

It has not been proven wrong.

yes, the game works in both ways and at all speeds. This is why speed is fairly irrelevant, as long as it is safe for conditions. You can't account for when a pedestrian is going to wear dark clothes and blindly cross a dark road (although there is debate that roadway was dark and it is just a crappy camera that makes it look dark).

I believe the reported speed was 38 MPH. That's not fast for that type of road. So if less speed is better, then 0 is best. It's a bad argument. It doesn't pass the logic test.

A simple quarter turn flick of the wheel to the left would have avoided the fatality. The left lane was open.

There is one difference though. Going faster gives less time to random pedestrians randomly trying to walk in front of you.

Also going faster gives you less time to react, increases the distance you travel as you react and decreases your ability to maneuver the vehicle.. It also increases the amount of force you hit the pedestrian if a collision occurs.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

I'm not seeing that, and niether are the insurance companies. Tickets are not showing a correlation to accidents.

I am not surprised that you are not seeing it but insurance companies do see it.

andres3 said:

That's what happens when 95% of the enforcement effort focuses on hazard-less violations like a Stop Sign violation where no one was around, or a U-turn (sign) violation where no one was forced to swerve or hit the brakes, or going 70 in a zone where even the Officer says 65 is the safe speed. If that biased guy says 65 is safe, maybe a reasonable judge will find 70 to be CLOSE ENOUGH to be safe too.

andres3 said:

Yes hazard-less violation like a stop sign violation when no one was around. I wish I had a nickle for every close call I had when someone did that "hazard-less" stop sign violation when "no one was around" because some idiot was in such a hurry that s/he needed to shave 2 seconds off their travel time and doesn't have the time to properly check the intersection and didn't see the pedestrian crossing the intersection.

Now the 65 vs 70 argument shows your bias simply by you saying the guy stating the slower speed is biased but the guy saying faster is safe is reasonable. Many studies have shown (and I know that you will never admit this) that increases in speed above a certain speed (between 35 and 40 depending on the study) have a negative effect on safety.

andres3 said:

Certainly 5 MPH is not going to make any difference in terms of collisions on many types of safe higher speed roadways.

So in theory we wish tickets were issued for careless or reckless driving, but in reality most citations are issued for technicalities.

andres3 said:

5 MPH can make a world of difference in terms of collisions. A case in point, last fall I was driving down a open four lane divided road doing about 50 MPH. Some idiot making a left turn onto this road to travel in the opposite direction pulled out in front of me and stopped to wait for traffic to clear so they can continue the turn. What this meant was that they stopped blocking me so I had to practically stand on my brakes and stopped maybe 5 or 6 feet from him. If I had been going 55 MPH at that time my stopping distance would have increased by 21% and it would have been a bad day for both of us.

jmonroe

ab348 said:

Talking about speeding, this has been getting a lot of attention locally the last few days:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2018/03/22/halifax-police-charge-man-give-more-details-in-wild-dangerous-driving-incident.html

"Inbound on Highway 102 on Wednesday, a white Chevrolet Camaro was clocked by an RCMP officer going over 200 km/h, and several attempts were made by police to stop him – but they failed.

In a press release, police said the driver was swerving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding other vehicles, and crossing the yellow line in order to evade their attempts to stop him.

At the intersection of Duke Street and Damascus Road, near Bedford, he was clocked by an HRP officer going 192 km/h but wasn’t pursued.

At such high speeds, the safety of the public, and traffic officers, becomes a concern.

“That’s why he was not pursued,” said Fraser during an interview.

After the driver sped down Rocky Lake Drive, still reaching speeds around 190 km/h, police setup a “road block” on Waverley Road.

He crossed the centre line and took a shoulder to avoid it, said Fraser.

“He literally went around the police vehicles,” she said.

Finally, at about 3 p.m. police located the car at an Irving Gas Station at 200 Waverley Road where the driver was arrested without incident, according to police.

Police have charged people with “stunting” before, where drivers go 50 km/h above the speed limit, said Fraser, “but as far as from 192 to over 200 km/h, that’s a lot.”

Marshall Ellis, a 20-year-old man from Elderbank, has been charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and flight from police. He has also been issued two tickets for expired registration and operating a motor vehicle without insurance."


It's people like this who give certain posters here a bad name.

It's good to hear that the RCMP have enough common sense to know when not to pursue a speeding car but that was not the case on Thanksgiving Day 2016 in a town about 4 miles from where I live. The young local idiot LEO just had to get his kicks by trying to chase down some punk because he thought there was a warrant out for the guy driving the speeding car. He was right but the warrant was for a misdemeanor and he wiped out a young family of 4 on their way to their family's dinner. Every time I come to that intersection since that happened it makes me sick.

Someday the cops that put the public in jeopardy, not only driving recklessly but also being quick to shoot will no longer have the right to serve and protect us.

jmonroe

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?

Yes time and space, if going faster would put you past her when she crossed the street going slower would have put you far enough in front of her for her to cross before you got there. That is unless you think she would have stopped in the middle of the street to wait for you.

All this is is just an excuse to justify your speeding.

You are taking things out of context, and I think deliberately.

I mentioned it would take a slightly higher speed over a bit of time to ensure you were past the point of the collision at the time of the collision.

I'm saying 5 MPH less at just the instance of where the lady was noticed in the video camera would not have made a difference. Certainly 5 MPH less over a few seconds would make a difference. However, if the time was the same (all other things being equal), 5 MPH less would not have prevented this. I don't see how you can argue this, as it doesn't appear the autonomous programming nor the human back up driver made any steering or braking inputs until after impact anyway.

I am? you did say that going 5 MPH slower the crash would still have happened, that's it's context. But you in a different post claimed that an increase of 5 MPH would have avoided it. if going 5 MPH faster would put you past that point when the lady crossed then going 5 MPH slower would put you before that point at the same time.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?
.

Just about every accident is that way. it wouldn't have happened if I left 10 minutes sooner, it wouldn't happen if I had left 6 minutes earlier. The accident happened at that time and place.....you can't change things unless you are in the movie Back to the Future.

I'd like to hear him explaining that to the cop....see if I could have been driving 90 mph instead of 50 this accident wouldn't have happened - it is the stupid laws fault.

It's the time exposure. Similar to being exposed to high levels of radiation. Do you want to be exposed for 1 hour, or 2 hours? Which carries less risk?

Yes, that's right, I just compared a Southern CA commute to walking next to Chernobyl or Fukushima without a protective suit.

But you have to account for the fact that going faster increases your risk. What would you prefer? a 1% change of something bad happening over a 60 minute time period or a 2% chance of something happening over a 55 minute period?

Mr_Shiftright

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

Really? I have ran over my fair share of raccoons but I never hit a person. 

Of course not. The smart raccoons avoided you. Natural selection at work!

driver100

abacomike said:

My brother and his SO just bought a 2018 GLC MB for her.  MSRP was $51,365 - quite loaded.  4 cylinder turbo with pano roof.  They paid $46,000 which, from my research, is a good price due mainly to $1000 in trunk money to the dealer and a below invoice deal - in stock vehicle.

Driver, you may want to take a look at it - very hot selling SUV for MB.

Makes an excellent first or second car. We rushed out and bought a 2015 GLK because of the larger windows and the built into the dash GPS. A lot of people did that, the last of the 2015s went fast. I am sure it is an improved SUV, but my wife loves her GLK with 6 cyl, 329 hp, and about 18000 miles on it.....12000 if the SIL hadn't borrowed it and used it as his daily driver while we were in Florida. btw...it gets about a 4.5 out of 5 on most surveys.
2018


2015

driver100

carnaught said:

abacomike said:

My brother and his SO just bought a 2018 GLC MB for her.  MSRP was $51,365 - quite loaded.  4 cylinder turbo with pano roof.  They paid $46,000 which, from my research, is a good price due mainly to $1000 in trunk money to the dealer and a below invoice deal - in stock vehicle.

Driver, you may want to take a look at it - very hot selling SUV for MB.

@driver100 has made it clear that he likes cars and SUV’s with tall tour bus-like windows to be more open and give more optimal vision. Hence Mrs. driver, who feels the same, drives a GLK rather than a GLC. The latter, as with most of the current Mercedes models, are more trim and streamlined (flattened) with less height above the beltline.

Excellent memory carnaught.........that is exactly right. It would have been easier to order a 2016 than try to find a suitable 2015 - but we did. Depreciation, newest model, getting what is popular....means nothing to my lovely wife......she wants what she wants and knows what she likes.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?

Yes time and space, if going faster would put you past her when she crossed the street going slower would have put you far enough in front of her for her to cross before you got there. That is unless you think she would have stopped in the middle of the street to wait for you.

All this is is just an excuse to justify your speeding.

You are taking things out of context, and I think deliberately.

I mentioned it would take a slightly higher speed over a bit of time to ensure you were past the point of the collision at the time of the collision.

I'm saying 5 MPH less at just the instance of where the lady was noticed in the video camera would not have made a difference. Certainly 5 MPH less over a few seconds would make a difference. However, if the time was the same (all other things being equal), 5 MPH less would not have prevented this. I don't see how you can argue this, as it doesn't appear the autonomous programming nor the human back up driver made any steering or braking inputs until after impact anyway.

I am? you did say that going 5 MPH slower the crash would still have happened, that's it's context. But you in a different post claimed that an increase of 5 MPH would have avoided it. if going 5 MPH faster would put you past that point when the lady crossed then going 5 MPH slower would put you before that point at the same time.

Wouldn't the 5 mph slower cancel the 5 mph faster so you would be going the same speed as you were in the first place? I think I need 2 aspirins.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

Really? I have ran over my fair share of raccoons but I never hit a person. 

Of course not. The smart raccoons avoided you. Natural selection at work

!

But, if you were driving 5 mph faster the raccoon would still be alive.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Going faster would have placed the Volvo past the point of this incident when it occurred. Sample of 1. It is just another example. My own collision with the Lexus was similar. I wasn't speeding, but had I been, perhaps (likely) I could have avoided it. It was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't believe this. In a previous post responding to imidazol97 you said "Still, I think if the Volvo was going 5 MPH less, the collision would have still taken place." So going slower would have still caused the accident but going faster would have avoided it?

Yes time and space, if going faster would put you past her when she crossed the street going slower would have put you far enough in front of her for her to cross before you got there. That is unless you think she would have stopped in the middle of the street to wait for you.

All this is is just an excuse to justify your speeding.

You are taking things out of context, and I think deliberately.

I mentioned it would take a slightly higher speed over a bit of time to ensure you were past the point of the collision at the time of the collision.

I'm saying 5 MPH less at just the instance of where the lady was noticed in the video camera would not have made a difference. Certainly 5 MPH less over a few seconds would make a difference. However, if the time was the same (all other things being equal), 5 MPH less would not have prevented this. I don't see how you can argue this, as it doesn't appear the autonomous programming nor the human back up driver made any steering or braking inputs until after impact anyway.

I am? you did say that going 5 MPH slower the crash would still have happened, that's it's context. But you in a different post claimed that an increase of 5 MPH would have avoided it. if going 5 MPH faster would put you past that point when the lady crossed then going 5 MPH slower would put you before that point at the same time.

Wouldn't the 5 mph slower cancel the 5 mph faster so you would be going the same speed as you were in the first place? I think I need 2 aspirins.

It doesn't matter because either your on a two lane road behind someone going 7 MPH under the limit or you're on a multi lane road behind a LLC.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

Really? I have ran over my fair share of raccoons but I never hit a person. 

Of course not. The smart raccoons avoided you. Natural selection at work

!

But, if you were driving 5 mph faster the raccoon would still be alive.

Yeah the raccoon would still be alive but this would happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOCATWRLug

thebean

driver100 said:

My brother and his SO just bought a 2018 GLC MB for her.  MSRP was $51,365 - quite loaded.  4 cylinder turbo with pano roof.  They paid $46,000 which, from my research, is a good price due mainly to $1000 in trunk money to the dealer and a below invoice deal - in stock vehicle.

Driver, you may want to take a look at it - very hot selling SUV for MB.

Makes an excellent first or second car. We rushed out and bought a 2015 GLK because of the larger windows and the built into the dash GPS. A lot of people did that, the last of the 2015s went fast. I am sure it is an improved SUV, but my wife loves her GLK with 6 cyl, 329 hp, and about 18000 miles on it.....12000 if the SIL hadn't borrowed it and used it as his daily driver while we were in Florida. btw...it gets about a 4.5 out of 5 on most surveys. 2018 2015

Driver, I agree.  To my eye, the 2015 model is ages better looking than the current model.  Lower roof and gunsight windows will not get my SUV business.  

ab348

It's funny because while I like the 2015-earlier model, its styling always looked like an outlier to me compared to the other Benzes being sold alongside it at the time. It seemed to be designed maybe a decade earlier, with lots of sharp angles.

jmonroe

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

Really? I have ran over my fair share of raccoons but I never hit a person. 

Of course not. The smart raccoons avoided you. Natural selection at work

!

But, if you were driving 5 mph faster the raccoon would still be alive.

Yeah the raccoon would still be alive but this would happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOCATWRLug

When he pulled over I thought he was going to show the damage he did to his car but I guess it was to clean the drivers seat.

jmonroe

fintail

The GLK has kind of a 2009 MB design theme, which featured plenty of angles. Like the then-new E-class:

xwesx

Y'all post so prodigiously on this thread, I simply cannot keep up. I managed only a couple pages per day for the week, and I ended up falling further behind be at least a hundred posts.

Interesting stuff, just not enough time to go through it!

jmonroe

xwesx said:

Y'all post so prodigiously on this thread, I simply cannot keep up. I managed only a couple pages per day for the week, and I ended up falling further behind be at least a hundred posts.

Interesting stuff, just not enough time to go through it!

If it was easy, anyone could do it.

jmonroe

abacomike

ab348 said:

It's funny because while I like the 2015-earlier model, its styling always looked like an outlier to me compared to the other Benzes being sold alongside it at the time. It seemed to be designed maybe a decade earlier, with lots of sharp angles.

The design of the S Class has permeated throughout the Mercedes line of sedans - much the same is true in the Audi and BMW lines.  The new mid-life redesign of the S Class, from the rear, resembles the C and E Class sedans.  

But I, too, agree that the styling of the GLC leaves much to be desired.

dino001

andres3 said:

That's what happens when 95% of the enforcement effort focuses on hazard-less violations like a Stop Sign violation where no one was around, or a U-turn (sign) violation where no one was forced to swerve or hit the brakes, or going 70 in a zone where even the Officer says 65 is the safe speed.

Could you present some evidence to that 95 percent? It’s a very specific number. Your gut feel doesn’t count.

I don’t like cops going for easy pray, either but your claims are getting more and more outlandish. Please submit some evidence, before concocting another theory why you personally should be allowed to go whichever speed you and your experience deem safe.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

cdnpinhead said:

There have been dozens of self-driving vehicles in the southeastern portion of the "valley of the sun" running around for most of a year now. I think they belong to Google, but it could be something else, but not Uber. In any event, it's a rare day that I don't see one or more of them on my way to work or back. No news of any kind. Point being, the ones I've seen have accumulated hundreds of thousands of miles with nary a peep of negative publicity. This Uber thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Gee, that never happens.

Maybe, but it's not like someone got bumped and bruised. A lady was killed.

Who here can raise there hand and say, I've also been involved in a fatal pedestrian collision?

We had a regular poster here who did. Operative word - "had". He no longer posts, as he got too busy with post-retirement plans.

Well are raccoons considered pedestrians?

No they are smarter.

Really? I have ran over my fair share of raccoons but I never hit a person. 

Of course not. The smart raccoons avoided you. Natural selection at work

!

But, if you were driving 5 mph faster the raccoon would still be alive.

IN a local town the cops are in trouble because they used their cars to dispatch a rabid raccoon in a crowed supermarket parking lot. Many in the animal right community had the vapors over it. I wonder if the police had hit one of their kids with a ricocheted bullet if they would have been happy.v

Don't go bragging about your raccoon tally or you'll have protesters outside your house.

fintail

In my local experience, the vast majority of enforcement is speed. If the enforcement class spent as much time on signal use, lane discipline, minding crosswalks, distracted driving, etc as they do on speed, the proceeds could probably pay the national debt, and the roads would actually be safer and better for driving, instead of hovering in a semi-second world condition we are in now.

I'd like evidence that a given speed limit is optimal, but I won't hold my breath, as we all know there is a revenue component to many, even if those who are directly or indirectly connected to the game won't admit it.

jmonroe

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

That's what happens when 95% of the enforcement effort focuses on hazard-less violations like a Stop Sign violation where no one was around, or a U-turn (sign) violation where no one was forced to swerve or hit the brakes, or going 70 in a zone where even the Officer says 65 is the safe speed.

Could you present some evidence to that 95 percent? It’s a very specific number. Your gut feel doesn’t count.

I don’t like cops going for easy pray, either but your claims are getting more and more outlandish. Please submit some evidence, before concocting another theory why you personally should be allowed to go whichever speed you and your experience deem safe.

You're asking for the biggest headache you'll ever have.

Go get the aspirin bottle now while you can at least see straight.

jmonroe

carnaught

abacomike said:

ab348 said:

It's funny because while I like the 2015-earlier model, its styling always looked like an outlier to me compared to the other Benzes being sold alongside it at the time. It seemed to be designed maybe a decade earlier, with lots of sharp angles.

The design of the S Class has permeated throughout the Mercedes line of sedans - much the same is true in the Audi and BMW lines.  The new mid-life redesign of the S Class, from the rear, resembles the C and E Class sedans.  

But I, too, agree that the styling of the GLC leaves much to be desired.


Ouch...

driver100

thebean said:

driver100 said:

abacomike said:

My brother and his SO just bought a 2018 GLC MB for her.  MSRP was $51,365 - quite loaded.  4 cylinder turbo with pano roof.  They paid $46,000 which, from my research, is a good price due mainly to $1000 in trunk money to the dealer and a below invoice deal - in stock vehicle.

Driver, you may want to take a look at it - very hot selling SUV for MB.

Makes an excellent first or second car. We rushed out and bought a 2015 GLK because of the larger windows and the built into the dash GPS. A lot of people did that, the last of the 2015s went fast. I am sure it is an improved SUV, but my wife loves her GLK with 6 cyl, 329 hp, and about 18000 miles on it.....12000 if the SIL hadn't borrowed it and used it as his daily driver while we were in Florida. btw...it gets about a 4.5 out of 5 on most surveys.
2018


2015

Driver, I agree.  To my eye, the 2015 model is ages better looking than the current model.  Lower roof and gunsight windows will not get my SUV business.  

Besides, the 2015 has a classic cuteness to it.

If my wife needs a new car it will be hard to find one that she will agree to. I haven't tested or tried sitting in any, but I think the best cars for vision and seat position she would find acceptable are an Audi A4 (which I wouldn't like to give them the satisfaction of selling me another one - though we would get an automatic this time) or possibly a BMW 335 or 328.

driver100

fintail said:

The GLK has kind of a 2009 MB design theme, which featured plenty of angles. Like the then-new E-class:

Fintail. Please recheck...that looks more like my 2015 E400 which I believe was the first year for that model. The 2009 looked more rounded...I believe.


i like the clean simple lines...but not that chiseled look that I like.

driver100

jmonroe said:

xwesx said:

Y'all post so prodigiously on this thread, I simply cannot keep up. I managed only a couple pages per day for the week, and I ended up falling further behind be at least a hundred posts.

Interesting stuff, just not enough time to go through it!

If it was easy, anyone could do it.

jmonroe

Especially if JMonroe doesn't write his novel sized posts.

fintail

March 2009 intro for 2010 model year, counted as a 2009 in Germany. The car in your pic is a W211, final model year in NA was 2009. It is indeed much more rounded, especially inside.

driver100 said:

Fintail. Please recheck...that looks more like my 2015 E400 which I believe was the first year for that model. The 2009 looked more rounded...I believe.


i like the clean simple lines...but not that chiseled look that I like.