Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

carnaught

BTW @driver100, how do you like the windows on this?

jmonroe

bwia said:

The only thing I like about this Buick is the white wall tires. Too much chrome and heft to make it look interesting.

I think what I like most about that Buick is that I was very young back then with lots of speed and a good throwing arm.

jmonroe

fintail

58 Buicks and Olds remind me of the overstyling on a number of modern cars (hello Toyolex).

murphydog

fintail said:

17 miles 90 minutes - I think that's a slightly better than average rainy day in Seattle. My anecdotal commuting observations allow an hour for every 15 miles from work in good conditions during normal commuting times.

No kidding! I am lucky enough to have a vanpool. Mornings are not too bad, 20 minutes from Greenlake Park n Ride to Redmond. Afternoons are ~ 40 minutes. Distance is 12 miles and 90% is freeway. If i drive solo the drive home is an hour, and gets much worse if there is a wreck

28firefighter

murphydog said:

fintail said:

17 miles 90 minutes - I think that's a slightly better than average rainy day in Seattle. My anecdotal commuting observations allow an hour for every 15 miles from work in good conditions during normal commuting times.

No kidding! I am lucky enough to have a vanpool. Mornings are not too bad, 20 minutes from Greenlake Park n Ride to Redmond. Afternoons are ~ 40 minutes. Distance is 12 miles and 90% is freeway. If i drive solo the drive home is an hour, and gets much worse if there is a wreck

My wife commutes from Shoreline (on the edge of Snohomish County) to Downtown every day. She leaves on the earlier side, so her morning commute is about 25 minutes to go 15 miles. If she leaves too much past 4 to come home, its over an hour to get home. If I'm with her, the afternoon commute is cut in half because of the express and HOV lanes.

Mr_Shiftright

iluvmysephia1 said:

Anyone seen or heard from our longtime friend stever?

I haven't. I presume he is happily retired and working on all his various projects.

pensfan83

We live within close proximity to public transportation and I rely on that to get me downtown, commute is usually 30 minutes in the morning and 40-45 in the afternoon though I only do this 3 days/week, Mondays and Fridays I work from home. My wife's commute takes her in the opposite direction of rush hour traffic and is generally around 30 minutes.

abacomike

I was driving home from shopping earlier this morning on the circular drive that circumnavigates my condo community and as I was passing some utility work being done to my right traveling at about 25 mph, I heard an alert sound in my car and the car abruptly stopped.  It was so quick and abrupt that my body was thrust forward.  The car did not slowly brake to a stop - it clanked and just fully stopped the car from 25 mph to 0 mph in less than a second!  My right shoulder still hurts.

Obviously, the car sensed an imminent collision and went into autonomous mode.  But the road was clear - it was sensing a dirt mover way on my right moving toward the road.  I don’t think I like that maneuver or accident avoidance system.  I mean the car just abruptly locked brakes and stopped while sounding the alert.

Nasty!

isellhondas

cdnpinhead said:

Markcincinnati was the hands-down Audi authority for many years around here, but he's gone the way of Richard, sadly. Another guy I miss had by far the best handle ever, BloV8er -- he was a Cadillac person. Shipo knew a lot about BMWs. There have been a lot of interesting people pass through here.

I was thinking about all of the posters who have come and gone. Many were frequent posters with a lot of quality input and a lot of knowledge. One day they disappear never to be heard from again. Are you guys lurking? If so, say something.

Everyone brightens this place! Some by arriving and some by leaving or so it's been said!

driver100

carnaught said:

BTW @driver100, how do you like the windows on this?

Perfect, now that is my kind of vehicle.

driver100

Or I could try to import one of these....voted one of the most ugly cars;


and, who could ever forget;

iluvmysephia1

Oh, man - it looks like a squished centipede!


AMC Pacer in a medium blue color

I put the Pacer in to the same category as the Pontiac Aztek - yuk!

driver100

fintail said:

58 Buicks and Olds remind me of the overstyling on a number of modern cars (hello Toyolex).

Like maybe this one....

isellhondas

bwia said:

The only thing I like about this Buick is the white wall tires. Too much chrome and heft to make it look interesting.

Now, I don't like the wide whites on the Buick even though they came with them. The phony "vinyl" top and the bronze colors don't help either. 1958 was not Buick's finest effort.

iluvmysephia1

I haven't. I presume he is happily retired and working on all his various projects.

Mr. Shiftright - I do hope that stever is enjoying his retirement. Hey, stever, if you're lurking out there drop by and leave us a note, OK? Hope you're doing well.

I was thinking about all of the posters who have come and gone. Many were frequent posters with a lot of quality input and a lot of knowledge. One day they disappear never to be heard from again. Are you guys lurking? If so, say something.

Everyone brightens this place! Some by arriving and some by leaving or so it's been said!

isellhondas - yep, even the ones who brighten the place by leaving are welcome to stop by and tell us off, also, if they want to. We're tough enough ta take it, right?

imidazol97

abacomike said:

I was driving home from shopping earlier this morning on the circular drive that circumnavigates my condo community and as I was passing some utility work being done to my right traveling at about 25 mph, I heard an alert sound in my car and the car abruptly stopped.  It was so quick and abrupt that my body was thrust forward.  The car did not slowly brake to a stop - it clanked and just fully stopped the car from 25 mph to 0 mph in less than a second!  My right shoulder still hurts.

Obviously, the car sensed an imminent collision and went into autonomous mode.  But the road was clear - it was sensing a dirt mover way on my right moving toward the road.  I don’t think I like that maneuver or accident avoidance system.  I mean the car just abruptly locked brakes and stopped while sounding the alert.

Nasty!

Document your injury with a doctor visit and sue the manufacturer.

driver100

abacomike said:

I was driving home from shopping earlier this morning on the circular drive that circumnavigates my condo community and as I was passing some utility work being done to my right traveling at about 25 mph, I heard an alert sound in my car and the car abruptly stopped.  It was so quick and abrupt that my body was thrust forward.  The car did not slowly brake to a stop - it clanked and just fully stopped the car from 25 mph to 0 mph in less than a second! .

Nasty!

Mike, my friend was a passenger in a Tesla. Traffic ahead started to stop quickly, the Tesla started to stop quickly, Tesla driver saw an opening to the right, started to veer to the right one lane but maybe the Tesla detected a bit of the stopping car still.....so the Tesla could have gone around but comes to a sudden stop. Car behind the Tesla was going to follow him around but when Tesla stopped he had to jam on his brakes. Then he went around and leaned on the horn...he was really angry.

In theory, it sounds like a good idea, but, unless cars can actually think, I would rather not have it.

What about your automatic lane change device? I don't think I would trust it. In the videos I watched it seems to change lanes when there isn't much space between cars....I would want to change with more space than the car leaves.

imidazol97

driver100 said:

I will probably get complaints but I feel like going out on a limb here. Does anyone else think 1958 Buicks were a little over the top? It seems the simpler Chevs and Pontiacs of that era look better today, and I liked them better then. I think the fins protrude past the bumpers. I saw one on the road the other day, and it is nice to see a car like that in such beautiful condition, but, how does that look hold up today?

These cars have to evaluated in terms of the period in which they were designed. The chrome was exuberant. The Buick model in those colors looks better to me than in some other colors.

And they had to be a little more impressive than the little sister Oldsmobile.

driver100

imidazol97 said:

abacomike said:

I was driving home from shopping earlier this morning on the circular drive that circumnavigates my condo community and as I was passing some utility work being done to my right traveling at about 25 mph, I heard an alert sound in my car and the car abruptly stopped.  It was so quick and abrupt that my body was thrust forward.  The car did not slowly brake to a stop - it clanked and just fully stopped the car from 25 mph to 0 mph in less than a second!  My right shoulder still hurts.

Obviously, the car sensed an imminent collision and went into autonomous mode.  But the road was clear - it was sensing a dirt mover way on my right moving toward the road.  I don’t think I like that maneuver or accident avoidance system.  I mean the car just abruptly locked brakes and stopped while sounding the alert.

Nasty!

Document your injury with a doctor visit and sue the manufacturer.

I am sure the fine print says something about "use at your own risk".

driver100

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

I will probably get complaints but I feel like going out on a limb here. Does anyone else think 1958 Buicks were a little over the top? It seems the simpler Chevs and Pontiacs of that era look better today, and I liked them better then. I think the fins protrude past the bumpers. I saw one on the road the other day, and it is nice to see a car like that in such beautiful condition, but, how does that look hold up today?

These cars have to evaluated in terms of the period in which they were designed. The chrome was exuberant. The Buick model in those colors looks better to me than in some other colors.

And they had to be a little more impressive than the little sister Oldsmobile.

The Olds isn't quite as overdone.....but, somehow...it looks even uglier. A pure and simple Chevy looks so much better;

stickguy

Driver, good example. The concept of these autonomous (and semi so) cars is fine, but really needs to be all cars. As long as the majority of the ones out there are traditionally driven but (way too often) inattentive idiots there are going to be plenty of mismatches.

driver100

I saw one of these Caddies following behind me yesterday....now that looks nice;


I even like it with black wheels.

xwesx

tifighter said:

Yeah, I too was recently wondering what happened to @stever and, really tapping into the wayback machine, @ateixeira ...

AJ (juice) dropped out of Edmunds after the move to Vanilla Forums. He is still active within the Subaru Crew group on Facebook, along with Bob Holland and few others who were regulars here "back in the day."

Mr_Shiftright

They say a designer's best friend is someone standing behind him with a baseball bat, and for 1958, that seems to have been mostly true.

I think the general public agrees that this year was mostly a failure, because if you notice, not too many 1959 cars picked up the styling trends. One only needs to compare 1958 Chevrolet values with 1957 to see that this still seems to hold true. Same with '57 Ford vs. '58.

I did think, though that the '58 Cadillac was better than the '59.

imidazol97

Can't argue with that but the 57 Chev is not my ideal. A 58 or a 56/55 is better for me. I liked some of the Pontiacs a lot from that same era.

Let me throw flame on the gasoline (as if most things would stop me): compare the Buick and Oldsmobiles show here with some of the front ends of the supposed premium Toyotas like the Lexus model suv. Imagine if the toyota grill were all chrome and it was 1958 again... Hmmmmmm.

pensfan83

driver100 said:

Mike, my friend was a passenger in a Tesla. Traffic ahead started to stop quickly, the Tesla started to stop quickly, Tesla driver saw an opening to the right, started to veer to the right one lane but maybe the Tesla detected a bit of the stopping car still.....so the Tesla could have gone around but comes to a sudden stop. Car behind the Tesla was going to follow him around but when Tesla stopped he had to jam on his brakes. Then he went around and leaned on the horn...he was really angry.

In theory, it sounds like a good idea, but, unless cars can actually think, I would rather not have it.

What about your automatic lane change device? I don't think I would trust it. In the videos I watched it seems to change lanes when there isn't much space between cars....I would want to change with more space than the car leaves.

I was going to post a similar experience. Not long after I took ownership of the Acura I was coming up behind a car that was making a left turn across traffic and we both started to slow down. I let the car drift and while the driver in front of me took the turn slower than expected or needed, I wasn't in danger of hitting him. However I guess one of the sensors in front caught enough of the car to think a collision was imminent and the car decelerated to a stop so rapidly the guy behind me had to slam on his brakes and I got the same angry reaction.

ab348

driver100 said:

I will probably get complaints but I feel like going out on a limb here. Does anyone else think 1958 Buicks were a little over the top?

No complaints from me. The '58 Olds and especially the Buick were really overdone, Harley Earl's parting shot. The '57 it was based on was no prize either but looks somewhat better to my eye:

houdini1

fintail said:

They had amazing resale then, too. I bet a 2-3 year old 240D was still over 15K then, in those valuable dollars.

houdini1 said:

I bought the '78 240D in 1980 or '81.

It's been a few years ago, but I think I paid about $9,000./$10,000. for it from a private party.

houdini1

xwesx said:

iluvmysephia1 said:

Anyone seen or heard from our longtime friend stever?

Not a peep. I'm curious where he went!

I think he may have moved to Canada after President Trump got elected.

andres3

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.

I know!!!!! At least have insurance. I don't care about the State's registration, but you shouldn't drive around without insurance. I've noticed the people causing all the wrecks tend not to have any. Don't be one of them.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

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.

Yes, but was there not room to the right or left. With ABS it is easy to turn and maneuver while "stomping" the brakes. I find the lack of turning ability in "it takes this long to stop when your going faster" videos to be laughable. Braking in a straight line is often not the only option.

andres3

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

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.

Yes, but was there not room to the right or left. With ABS it is easy to turn and maneuver while "stomping" the brakes. I find the lack of turning ability in "it takes this long to stop when your going faster" videos to be laughable. Braking in a straight line is often not the only option.

The insurance company with more advanced and honest mathematical models are starting to show that there is little to see. The cost of a ticket on your record isn't going to have the same impact at most companies it once did. The impact has been diminishing over time with more sophisticated risk evaluation. Has law enforcement been doing worse? I don't think so, they seem pretty steady in the "poor performance" zone. If anything, they seem to have improved a tad in CA.

fintail

Funny thing, I like both of those. The pre-facelift Multipla was a daring effort for the era, and maybe as close to a landmark as you'll find during that somewhat boring time. The Pacer is also daring and now a fun relic. Don't know if I would want to own either, but I don't mind that they exist.

driver100 said:

Or I could try to import one of these....voted one of the most ugly cars

andres3

snakeweasel said:

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.

But Vision-Zero nuts say 20 MPH is the magic speed at which pedestrians survive a collision. Any faster and it's bad news. So either we slow down to 20 MPH, or we drive at the most efficient speed, and tell people/bikes to stay out of the way.

fintail

Hello there:



I like the 56 Chevy most out of the tri five years.

imidazol97 said:

Can't argue with that but the 57 Chev is not my ideal. A 58 or a 56/55 is better for me. I liked some of the Pontiacs a lot from that same era.

Let me throw flame on the gasoline (as if most things would stop me): compare the Buick and Oldsmobiles show here with some of the front ends of the supposed premium Toyotas like the Lexus model suv. Imagine if the toyota grill were all chrome and it was 1958 again... Hmmmmmm.

andres3

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.

I said 5 MPH faster over a period of time would have prevented it. Not an instantaneous 5 MPH increase just before impact. That's the context.

So when I say 5 MPH slower would not have prevented it, I do mean an instantaneous 5 MPH decrease. For sure, 5 MPH slower over a period of time would have also avoided the situation.

houdini1

ab348 said:

imidazol97 said:

I saw a good personalized license plate yesterday on a VA car traveling through on I70 here in the Heartland.

Subara WRX in the omnipresent dark blue: T WREX

I thought this story in Automotive News had a very clever headline:

Lexus' tyrannosaurus LX still roams the Earth

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180326/OEM03/180329809/lexus-tyrannosaurus-lx-still-roams-the-earth

I may be the only Neanderthal (yes, I know they didn't co-exist) here who owns one of these babies. It's our 3rd one and my wife and I think these dinos are great. My wife is the primary driver, and I think most people would be shocked at how well these things ride and handle. I think their dimensions are actually less than a Tahoe. If you ever get the chance, take one for a spin. For our model years the grill hadn't quite gone over the edge like they have now.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

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?

Yes. And in my calculations, the increased risk of going faster pales in comparison to the decreased risk of less time-exposure to morons and acts of God on the roadway.

It works for Germany, it works for me.

There is a diminishing return though, as shown by the Solomon curve. You can only go a little bit faster than average traffic in order to minimize risks. Once you get away from the median speed in either direction (up or down) you start adding risk.

The other benefits of less time on the roadway (reduced risk) include:

• 1) Less fatigue (drowsiness has been shown to be up there with drunk driving in causing collisions)
  
• 2) More % of driving time spent on high-alert.
  
• 3) More attention to driving when you can drive, whereas when you are escorted in a line moving 2 MPH you are not really driving, you are just following and mimicking the cars in front of you.
  
• 4) Not for everyone, but for me, less stress. For some people, going faster is stressful. Going slower is stressful to me.
  
• 5) And of course, more time to enjoy your destination.
  

thebean

isellhondas said:

cdnpinhead said:

Markcincinnati was the hands-down Audi authority for many years around here, but he's gone the way of Richard, sadly. Another guy I miss had by far the best handle ever, BloV8er -- he was a Cadillac person. Shipo knew a lot about BMWs. There have been a lot of interesting people pass through here.

I was thinking about all of the posters who have come and gone. Many were frequent posters with a lot of quality input and a lot of knowledge...

And then there is @jmonroe.

jmonroe

thebean said:

isellhondas said:

cdnpinhead said:

Markcincinnati was the hands-down Audi authority for many years around here, but he's gone the way of Richard, sadly. Another guy I miss had by far the best handle ever, BloV8er -- he was a Cadillac person. Shipo knew a lot about BMWs. There have been a lot of interesting people pass through here.

I was thinking about all of the posters who have come and gone. Many were frequent posters with a lot of quality input and a lot of knowledge...

And then there is @jmonroe.

:@ :@ :@

jmonroe

jmonroe

fintail said:

Funny thing, I like both of those. The pre-facelift Multipla was a daring effort for the era, and maybe as close to a landmark as you'll find during that somewhat boring time. The Pacer is also daring and now a fun relic. Don't know if I would want to own either, but I don't mind that they exist.

driver100 said:

Or I could try to import one of these....voted one of the most ugly cars

Man, you actually admit that you like the looks of those cars.

I sure wouldn't want to see the women you've dated.

jmonroe

cdnpinhead

isellhondas said:

Everyone brightens this place! Some by arriving and some by leaving or so it's been said!

Perfectly stated. I can get through this thread quite quickly by skipping certain postings, as I'm sure they do mine. I only post occasionally; others appear to be going for numbers. It's apparent they have a lot more to say.

graphicguy

bwia said:

Those of you who drive your expensive cars probably do not experience the driving nightwares of everyday workers. In Boston, for example it took me an hour-and-a-half to drive 17 miles, that's why I retired early. My daughter who lives in MV-DC area starts her daily commute at 5:00 AM. She is hoping for the day when autonomous driving cars become commonplace so she can relax and read the newspaper on her way to work. It's ok to dream but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Ah yes......I remember those days of driving through the "Big Dig". I was telecommuting back in the early-mid '90s, while working for a large tech company in Acton. I would fly in Monday night, and fly home (to Cincinnati) Thursday evening or early a.m. Friday. Did that for 3 years. Not sure I would even attempt to do that today.

abacomike

imidazol97 said:

I was driving home from shopping earlier this morning on the circular drive that circumnavigates my condo community and as I was passing some utility work being done to my right traveling at about 25 mph, I heard an alert sound in my car and the car abruptly stopped.  It was so quick and abrupt that my body was thrust forward.  The car did not slowly brake to a stop - it clanked and just fully stopped the car from 25 mph to 0 mph in less than a second!  My right shoulder still hurts.

Obviously, the car sensed an imminent collision and went into autonomous mode.  But the road was clear - it was sensing a dirt mover way on my right moving toward the road.  I don’t think I like that maneuver or accident avoidance system.  I mean the car just abruptly locked brakes and stopped while sounding the alert.

Nasty!

Document your injury with a doctor visit and sue the manufacturer.

This was not a positive experience - there was no collision imminent.  This is an example of a safety feature improperly activating.  If there was a car tailing me, it would have collided with my rear end. Quite frankly, it shook me up pretty good - emotionally and physically.

Michaell

graphicguy said:

bwia said:

Those of you who drive your expensive cars probably do not experience the driving nightwares of everyday workers. In Boston, for example it took me an hour-and-a-half to drive 17 miles, that's why I retired early. My daughter who lives in MV-DC area starts her daily commute at 5:00 AM. She is hoping for the day when autonomous driving cars become commonplace so she can relax and read the newspaper on her way to work. It's ok to dream but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Ah yes......I remember those days of driving through the "Big Dig". I was telecommuting back in the early-mid '90s, while working for a large tech company in Acton. I would fly in Monday night, and fly home (to Cincinnati) Thursday evening or early a.m. Friday. Did that for 3 years. Not sure I would even attempt to do that today.

I was doing a lot of travel to Boston during that project, as well. Got to be pretty good at figuring out what lane to be in as I transitioned from the tunnel to the central artery to the Mass Pike.

I almost didn't recognize it when it was complete.

andres3

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.

well, I've lost count of how many tickets I've received, but I'm going to go with 1 every other year. If that's remotely accurate, then the percentage of any even remotely sensible citations received in my sample of about 12 is 1/12th. So my percentage was off. 91.7% utter technicalities or poor (incorrect) powers of observation with no threats posed.

I don't think my missing the yellow light by 1/2 second posed a threat, but at least on one occasion, the light was red for 1/2 a second and I was indeed in violation. I'll give that one the benefit of the doubt.

My first citation ever, when I was 16 or 17 was for a red light violation, but I crossed the white lines when it was still yellow by a split second. The officer was just plain wrong for dreaming up that violation with his poor sense of time.

I can't give points for a tailgating violation I received, because the hazard of my tailgating for a couple seconds is minuscule compared to the fact that just a few seconds before being pulled over for that, the car I was "tailgating" just performed perhaps the worst "cut-off" I've ever suffered. The unsafe lane change being 1,000,000 magnitudes of order more dangerous than my tailgating, I can't give points for that one. The officer must have turned his head or blinked for a very long time to miss that!

andres3

abacomike said:

imidazol97 said:

abacomike said:

I was driving home from shopping earlier this morning on the circular drive that circumnavigates my condo community and as I was passing some utility work being done to my right traveling at about 25 mph, I heard an alert sound in my car and the car abruptly stopped.  It was so quick and abrupt that my body was thrust forward.  The car did not slowly brake to a stop - it clanked and just fully stopped the car from 25 mph to 0 mph in less than a second!  My right shoulder still hurts.

Obviously, the car sensed an imminent collision and went into autonomous mode.  But the road was clear - it was sensing a dirt mover way on my right moving toward the road.  I don’t think I like that maneuver or accident avoidance system.  I mean the car just abruptly locked brakes and stopped while sounding the alert.

Nasty!

Document your injury with a doctor visit and sue the manufacturer.

This was not a positive experience - there was no collision imminent.  This is an example of a safety feature improperly activating.  If there was a car tailing me, it would have collided with my rear end. Quite frankly, it shook me up pretty good - emotionally and physically.

This is why I don't want autonomous nanny features in any car I drive if I can be blamed for a blemish on my pristine driving record from it. I doubt you'd be able to convince anyone you were not at fault if your car caused an at-fault collision.

andres3

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.

I should just add I'm not mixing apples with oranges.

My observations that cops go for easy prey (likely due to laziness and apathy), has nothing to do with my argument for driving at speeds I deem prudent and reasonable.

In fact, a majority of my citations have not been for speeding. I think a majority of my convictions might be though, as I tend to win 50% of my cases and speeding seems to be a loss leader case bringing my win percentage down. I can see why they stick to speeding, they seem to have mental issues with anything even remotely more complicated than a radar speed reading that a computerized device gives them a reading for. Still, I'd like to see some passing lane enforcement.

fintail

I think you hit on something in a way. I believe most drivers don't want to have to be attentive. They don't want to be forced to take it seriously, don't want to pay attention, don't want to put forth an effort, don't really enjoy driving. To a lot of people, driving is likely up there with scrubbing the toilet or folding laundry. They get upset when asked to do things properly.

I think part of that is why I can be irked driving here - I can be hyper attentive, and without so much to focus on due to artificially low limits and plodding traffic, the dopey little errors catch my eye. If I drive in a place where people are expected to take it seriously, are better trained, and drive with a little more purpose, I don't become nearly as annoyed. I find driving in Germany, where most take it seriously, most expect competency, and distracted driving a social faux pas as much as being illegal, to be more enjoyable than many places here. I think many locals would be eaten alive on the roads away from the US and Canada.

andres3 said:

Yes. And in my calculations, the increased risk of going faster pales in comparison to the decreased risk of less time-exposure to morons and acts of God on the roadway.

It works for Germany, it works for me.

4) Not for everyone, but for me, less stress. For some people, going faster is stressful. Going slower is stressful to me.
5) And of course, more time to enjoy your destination.

explorerx4

@driver100,
I can see why you like that truck posted by car naught. It does resemble a GLK.