Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said;
I've debunked the "speeding doesn't save time, or at least not significant time" many times. I've debunked it in my own real-world studies. Occasionally you'll get caught up to at red lights, but occasionally you'll also arrive 15 minutes earlier on a 30 minute drive because the slowpoke got caught by a 20 MPH moving train that's 3 miles long, the train you managed to avoid by mere seconds because you sped for mere seconds. The sucker gets caught by the falling traffic arms by mere seconds. I'm sure if we graphed the time savings it would be a bell curve like anything else. Multiple 5 minutes saved by thousands of commute days in your lifetime, and suddenly you've lived years longer; at least outside of your car. If you call commuting living, well, then you win.

You haven't debunked it as much as disagreed with it. Time saved by going faster is a function of speed difference and distance, but that doesn't account for traffic, traffic controls and other obstacles. For example, I will be driving to Florida later this month, a drive just over 1,200 miles. Going 1 MPH faster could save me 12 minutes or more, but on my daily commute an additional 1 MPH shortens my drive time by maybe 10 seconds. And that doesn't account for congestion.

In high congestion areas especially in rush hour traffic going faster mostly gets you to the next light faster, not through it faster.

Since the average driver drives less than 50 miles a day on average and a great deal of it in congested areas little time can be saved.

Now for your 5 minutes a day, saved time must be spent when saved or its wasted. If I save $5 a day for 30 days and I would have an extra $150 at the end of the month. If you save 5 minutes a day for 30 days at the end of the month you will not have any extra time.

Don't forget about the times you "see" a multi-lane multi-car crash 2 or 3 miles ahead of you, while the speed demon sees it in the rear-view mirror. What's the longest you've spent traveling 2 or 3 miles before? I can't see time as ever being wasted as I think all speeders have determined that Carlin was right, going slower is idiotic. Therefore, I'd rather watch paint dry and grass grow then be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.

Let's be serious here, if we both leave from the same place at the same time and I go a reasonable speed and you be a speed demon and I see the accident 2 or 3 miles ahead it will also be ahead of you. Unless the speed difference is extremely high or we are going a very long distance you simply won't get that far ahead of me. And the odds of the accident happening in the short time it takes for me to get there after you is extremely small.

If I am stuck lin bumper to bumper traffic I will be stuck regardless of how fast I went. The only way to avoid that would be to drive when traffic is light. 

Remember what Carlin said about speeders.

Now think about this for a bit; slow down you'll live longer.

abacomike

xwesx said:

Forgot about the wax and detailing of my Benz - I’M IN!  So while I sit on a folding chair watching you detail the Benz in the 95 degree heat with outrageous humidity as Mrs. jmonroe fattens me up with her cooking, I will be tickled pink as the Yuenglings are passed around.  As for two weeks instead of one week - that’s OK because the Benz is big and I’m a hard man to please.  

Which dates should I schedule for your arrival?  

Two weeks... that might just be enough time for TWO waxings if you get him out there at the start of the trip for the first one. Another dust spell would certainly warrant a second effort!

Yes, we’re getting Saharan Dust right now, in fact.

iluvmysephia1

2013 Ford Focus ST

This pup is still sitting on the huge parking lot on 10th St. in Alamogordo. He hasn't dropped the price below $11,500 yet. I don't think he will. Even with 61,000 miles that price is great. I think that a 5 year old Focus ST would be sound mechanically after 5 years but I would have it checked out thoroughly first.

The 2011 Kia Soul is at 100,779 miles. I have until August 7th to register it in New Mexico. The title has been sent to the local DMV office I'm working with on 10th Street and I have everything together that I'll need to register it and get NM plates. Last time I was here I chose the turqoise colored plates with a cool sun in the middle of it. Won't be buying any other car - I still owe 2 years of payments on the Kia Soul, and, really, I still like the car a lot. It's getting the job done.

The Nissan Sentra idea is still alive and I've got 2 years to start digging several more cars out there, so that's cool.

PF_Flyer

There have been a number of headlines recently surrounding potential new tariffs on vehicles sold here in the U.S. Have you purchased a new vehicle recently / moved up your purchase of a new vehicle to avoid this potential increase in prices? If so, a reporter would like to chat with you. If you're interested, please reach out to PR@edmunds.com no later than 12 p.m. Pacific this Thursday, July 12. Thank you!

imidazol97

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

I thought of this when the late night trucker radio was reporting a long backup on the mountain going into Tennessee at the border with Kentucky. As I understood the backup was long from on top of the mountains. TDOT was diverting traffic onto a detour route. Most likely the heavy southbound end-of-4th-of-July traffic Sunday night had an accident because of an aggressive driver taking chances.

On Friday, if I understand correctly, there was a landslide on top of the mountain in the area of Stinking Creek Road and the next exit south of there. @100 will appreciate knowing he's not being slowed by the diversion of traffic onto the other side giving one lane traffic.

henryn

imidazol97 said:

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

I would restate that as "many accidents are caused by drivers not moving with the normal flow". Too fast or too slow are equally dangerous.

I hate it when I'm moving with the normal flow at 65 mph, and some idiot comes blasting by, weaving in and out of traffic, going 20 mph faster than anyone else. And it is every bit as bad, and dangerous, when you get some idiot driving with his emergency blinkers doing 30 mph in the right hand lane.

If there is something wrong with your car, and you can't keep up with traffic, STAY OFF THE FREEWAY!!!

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said;
I've debunked the "speeding doesn't save time, or at least not significant time" many times.
I've debunked it in my own real-world studies.

Occasionally you'll get caught up to at red lights, but occasionally you'll also arrive 15 minutes earlier on a 30 minute drive because the slowpoke got caught by a 20 MPH moving train that's 3 miles long, the train you managed to avoid by mere seconds because you sped for mere seconds. The sucker gets caught by the falling traffic arms by mere seconds.

I'm sure if we graphed the time savings it would be a bell curve like anything else. Multiple 5 minutes saved by thousands of commute days in your lifetime, and suddenly you've lived years longer; at least outside of your car. If you call commuting living, well, then you win.

You haven't debunked it as much as disagreed with it. Time saved by going faster is a function of speed difference and distance, but that doesn't account for traffic, traffic controls and other obstacles. For example, I will be driving to Florida later this month, a drive just over 1,200 miles. Going 1 MPH faster could save me 12 minutes or more, but on my daily commute an additional 1 MPH shortens my drive time by maybe 10 seconds. And that doesn't account for congestion.

In high congestion areas especially in rush hour traffic going faster mostly gets you to the next light faster, not through it faster.

Since the average driver drives less than 50 miles a day on average and a great deal of it in congested areas little time can be saved.

Now for your 5 minutes a day, saved time must be spent when saved or its wasted. If I save $5 a day for 30 days and I would have an extra $150 at the end of the month. If you save 5 minutes a day for 30 days at the end of the month you will not have any extra time.

Don't forget about the times you "see" a multi-lane multi-car crash 2 or 3 miles ahead of you, while the speed demon sees it in the rear-view mirror. What's the longest you've spent traveling 2 or 3 miles before?

I can't see time as ever being wasted as I think all speeders have determined that Carlin was right, going slower is idiotic. Therefore, I'd rather watch paint dry and grass grow then be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.

Let's be serious here, if we both leave from the same place at the same time and I go a reasonable speed and you be a speed demon and I see the accident 2 or 3 miles ahead it will also be ahead of you. Unless the speed difference is extremely high or we are going a very long distance you simply won't get that far ahead of me. And the odds of the accident happening in the short time it takes for me to get there after you is extremely small.

If I am stuck lin bumper to bumper traffic I will be stuck regardless of how fast I went. The only way to avoid that would be to drive when traffic is light. 

Remember what Carlin said about speeders.

Now think about this for a bit; slow down you'll live longer.

Yeah, never quite got or understood the "maniac" part. I just assume they got somewhere to be. It doesn't offend my ego when someone passes me, which will almost always be on the left if I can help it (sometimes you do go into Lemming mode in the passing lane in very heavy traffic), but 99% of the time I'm yielding to faster traffic. I have hope their front bumper is more intimidating than mine to the guy in front impeding traffic (and hope they'll be a more aggressive tailgater too).

There are go-getters, and there are Lemmings. Go-Getters don't do Lemming well.

By the way, some commutes are pretty long for many people. I have 30 miles to cover, I could easily get a few miles ahead of you, especially if I caught one light you didn't before getting on the freeway. Yes, the chances of an accident in that short span are low, but they are possible. I've encountered bad wrecks where I was early enough on scene that traffic hadn't gone haywire yet, and law enforcement hadn't bottle-necked the situation even worse yet. So while I was only slowed down 2 or 3 minutes at most, the people 3 miles back might be slowed down 10 times more.

dino001

henryn said:

imidazol97 said:

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

I would restate that as "many accidents are caused by drivers not moving with the normal flow". Too fast or too slow are equally dangerous.

I hate it when I'm moving with the normal flow at 65 mph, and some idiot comes blasting by, weaving in and out of traffic, going 20 mph faster than anyone else. And it is every bit as bad, and dangerous, when you get some idiot driving with his emergency blinkers doing 30 mph in the right hand lane.

If there is something wrong with your car, and you can't keep up with traffic, STAY OFF THE FREEWAY!!!

I'd give this slow guy a pass if his target was the next exit. It's safer for him (and rest of us, too) to limp for a few miles and get off at a controlled access point (if he can) than stop altogether at a random location. On the other hand, the "immortal", who makes no mistakes, driving and weaving at 20 mph higher, convinced that normal rules of traffic and laws of physics don't apply to him, is the one that is more dangerous, as he/she will do it for miles and miles with no intention to let up.

andres3

henryn said:

imidazol97 said:

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

I would restate that as "many accidents are caused by drivers not moving with the normal flow". Too fast or too slow are equally dangerous.

I hate it when I'm moving with the normal flow at 65 mph, and some idiot comes blasting by, weaving in and out of traffic, going 20 mph faster than anyone else. And it is every bit as bad, and dangerous, when you get some idiot driving with his emergency blinkers doing 30 mph in the right hand lane.

If there is something wrong with your car, and you can't keep up with traffic, STAY OFF THE FREEWAY!!!

Actually, the Solomon curve goes parabolically higher and steeper on the slower side than the faster side (slightly). And in fact, going slightly over the average flow is the bottom of the curve, not zero.

Lastly, weaving is a symptom of a disease. That disease is left lane camping. Eradicating left lane camping makes weaving extinct, among many other undesirable behaviors.

Speed differential hazards are almost wiped out if you have lane discipline and strict adherence to passing laws. The reason speed differentials are so hazardous in the USA is because of our poor adherence to lane laws as a group of people.

andres3

imidazol97 said:

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

I thought of this when the late night trucker radio was reporting a long backup on the mountain going into Tennessee at the border with Kentucky. As I understood the backup was long from on top of the mountains. TDOT was diverting traffic onto a detour route. Most likely the heavy southbound end-of-4th-of-July traffic Sunday night had an accident because of an aggressive driver taking chances.

On Friday, if I understand correctly, there was a landslide on top of the mountain in the area of Stinking Creek Road and the next exit south of there. @100 will appreciate knowing he's not being slowed by the diversion of traffic onto the other side giving one lane traffic.

Actually, the main causes of wrecks are summed up by the following:

1) Distraction
2) Drowsiness
3) Drunkenness

Get rid of those 3 things and Utopia is almost achieved. Number 4 is likely left lane camping, which #1 is certainly a partial, but not full cause of left lane camping. I firmly believe the "oblivious acting" is just that, an act, by a passive-aggressive hall monitor type.

henryn

andres3 said:

Lastly, weaving is a symptom of a disease. That disease is left lane camping. Eradicating left lane camping makes weaving extinct, among many other undesirable behaviors.

Speed differential hazards are almost wiped out if you have lane discipline and strict adherence to passing laws. The reason speed differentials are so hazardous in the USA is because of our poor adherence to lane laws as a group of people.

No, not true. Or at the very least, not universally true. My morning commute takes me up the 288 Freeway, which then splits into I45 and I69. The left 2 lanes go into I45 for a short run, which then splits between Northbound and Southbound.

The rightmost lane goes into I69 South. The next lane over (second from the right) goes into I69 North. People who want to wind up on I45 Northbound, and know what they're doing, get in the left most lane a good mile or two before the split. Some mornings, I45 is backed up and the left two lanes of 288 are slower than the right two lanes. Some morning, I69 is backed up and the right two lanes of 288 are slower.

The "hurry hurry hurry, beat everyone to work by 2 minutes" crowd go plowing through traffic, jumping lanes, trying to get a 1 car advantage. They disrupt traffic flow for everyone, and cause the majority of accidents that I have seen in my 8 years of commuting on this route.

Now when I set out for San Antonio ( a 3 hour drive), I do get annoyed at left lane campers. There is a stretch of about 100 miles in there with nothing, and I do mean nothing. Just a divided interstate highway, 2 lanes westbound, 2 lanes eastbound. When I get caught behind 2 cars side by side doing 65, when the majority of the cars want to move at around 75 to 80, yes, that is annoying. But there is no "weaving", there is no way to weave, no place to weave.

And I will repeat my initial statement: If you are driving 20 mph faster than the average of the traffic around you, YOU are a danger, to yourself and others. And that is NOT the fault of left lane campers.

andres3

henryn said:

andres3 said:

Lastly, weaving is a symptom of a disease. That disease is left lane camping. Eradicating left lane camping makes weaving extinct, among many other undesirable behaviors.

Speed differential hazards are almost wiped out if you have lane discipline and strict adherence to passing laws. The reason speed differentials are so hazardous in the USA is because of our poor adherence to lane laws as a group of people.

No, not true. Or at the very least, not universally true. My morning commute takes me up the 288 Freeway, which then splits into I45 and I69. The left 2 lanes go into I45 for a short run, which then splits between Northbound and Southbound.

The rightmost lane goes into I69 South. The next lane over (second from the right) goes into I69 North. People who want to wind up on I45 Northbound, and know what they're doing, get in the left most lane a good mile or two before the split. Some mornings, I45 is backed up and the left two lanes of 288 are slower than the right two lanes. Some morning, I69 is backed up and the right two lanes of 288 are slower.

The "hurry hurry hurry, beat everyone to work by 2 minutes" crowd go plowing through traffic, jumping lanes, trying to get a 1 car advantage. They disrupt traffic flow for everyone, and cause the majority of accidents that I have seen in my 8 years of commuting on this route.

Now when I set out for San Antonio ( a 3 hour drive), I do get annoyed at left lane campers. There is a stretch of about 100 miles in there with nothing, and I do mean nothing. Just a divided interstate highway, 2 lanes westbound, 2 lanes eastbound. When I get caught behind 2 cars side by side doing 65, when the majority of the cars want to move at around 75 to 80, yes, that is annoying. But there is no "weaving", there is no way to weave, no place to weave.

And I will repeat my initial statement: If you are driving 20 mph faster than the average of the traffic around you, YOU are a danger, to yourself and others. And that is NOT the fault of left lane campers.

But you called the "hurry hurry 20 over" speeders a "crowd" Isn't fair to say if they are a crowd, perhaps the average is only 10 below them, not 20? We're not talking lone wolf are we?

Let's concede for a moment that going 10-20 over the adjacent lane is a danger. Even so, does forcing them to weave right to pass sound like a good solution? That just makes the fastest traffic interact more closely with the slowest traffic. This is why we have left/right driving conventions in the first place. A camper is MAXIMIZING speed differentials, while a speeder is only doing whatever differential they prefer to do.

What you describe with multiple freeways going multiple directions all in a tiny space is pretty rare. I know LA has that with the I5 north. Still, some of these ramps are 2 lanes, and I often find a slowpoke choosing the left-most lane on a ramp; slowing everyone behind them. A Que of 20 or 30 cars, with 1/2 mile of empty space in front of them.

I'm always looking far up ahead (good driving habit). I'm always analyzing traffic patterns, both passively and actively. Most of the time the slower traffic is caused by a few bad apples.

jmonroe

driver100 said:

berri said:

Aba and JM, I think you've got to be really good friends to spend a week together in small spaces

I hope J.M.'s stories are shorter than his posts.

By accident I think you hit on the real reason why @MIke doesn't want to have me as a visitor. He's probably afraid I'll talk him to sleep and then snatch his keys and give his Benz a good joy ride. Again, I don't think you are savvy enough to have figured this out but @Mike probably is.

jmonroe

houdini1

Until there is a cure for human nature, most drivers will continue to believe that they rank in the top 5% as far as driving skills are concerned, myself included. Like Rain Man, I am an excellent driver.

dino001

andres3 said:

But you called the "hurry hurry 20 over" speeders a "crowd" Isn't fair to say if they are a crowd, perhaps the average is only 10 below them, not 20? We're not talking lone wolf are we?

Let's concede for a moment that going 10-20 over the adjacent lane is a danger. Even so, does forcing them to weave right to pass sound like a good solution? That just makes the fastest traffic interact more closely with the slowest traffic. This is why we have left/right driving conventions in the first place. A camper is MAXIMIZING speed differentials, while a speeder is only doing whatever differential they prefer to do.

What you describe with multiple freeways going multiple directions all in a tiny space is pretty rare. I know LA has that with the I5 north. Still, some of these ramps are 2 lanes, and I often find a slowpoke choosing the left-most lane on a ramp; slowing everyone behind them. A Que of 20 or 30 cars, with 1/2 mile of empty space in front of them.

I'm always looking far up ahead (good driving habit). I'm always analyzing traffic patterns, both passively and actively. Most of the time the slower traffic is caused by a few bad apples.

You just keep digging. "Crowd" means here number of people nationwide. One bozo like that per per half mile is already a crowd for 10 mile commute. I'm not defending left lane campers, especially on non-busy roads, but give me a break, man. I heard it all, self-proclaimed "fast, but safe" people, absolutely convinced of their own superiority of driving skills, reflexes, abilities and most importantly convinced that the only thing that counts is sense of their own "time savings", the heck with everybody else's comfort or safety.

Let me be blunt - who cares if you "can" do faster (and safe) and jump two lights over another guy, feeling, oh so superior, saving in aggregate one hour per month (or week, whatever). Slow down and give us all the break. Or that cop that stops you for "unjustified" offence - I'll applaud him, no matter how indignant you feel.

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

But you called the "hurry hurry 20 over" speeders a "crowd" Isn't fair to say if they are a crowd, perhaps the average is only 10 below them, not 20? We're not talking lone wolf are we?

Let's concede for a moment that going 10-20 over the adjacent lane is a danger. Even so, does forcing them to weave right to pass sound like a good solution? That just makes the fastest traffic interact more closely with the slowest traffic. This is why we have left/right driving conventions in the first place. A camper is MAXIMIZING speed differentials, while a speeder is only doing whatever differential they prefer to do.

What you describe with multiple freeways going multiple directions all in a tiny space is pretty rare. I know LA has that with the I5 north. Still, some of these ramps are 2 lanes, and I often find a slowpoke choosing the left-most lane on a ramp; slowing everyone behind them. A Que of 20 or 30 cars, with 1/2 mile of empty space in front of them.

I'm always looking far up ahead (good driving habit). I'm always analyzing traffic patterns, both passively and actively. Most of the time the slower traffic is caused by a few bad apples.

You just keep digging. "Crowd" means here number of people nationwide. One bozo like that per per half mile is already a crowd for 10 mile commute. I'm not defending left lane campers, especially on non-busy roads, but give me a break, man. I heard it all, self-proclaimed "fast, but safe" people, absolutely convinced of their own superiority of driving skills, reflexes, abilities and most importantly convinced that the only thing that counts is sense of their own "time savings", the heck with everybody else's comfort or safety.

Let me be blunt - who cares if you "can" do faster (and safe) and jump two lights over another guy, feeling, oh so superior, saving in aggregate one hour per month (or week, whatever). Slow down and give us all the break. Or that cop that stops you for "unjustified" offence - I'll applaud him, no matter how indignant you feel.

The problem is, if I may be blunt, that SLOW = SAFE FAST = DANGEROUS is a VERY LOW IQ thought process, to steal a Trump-ism. It's not that simple.

It's as if you think and have that attitude that the speed limit is this magical speed at which your car has the force field and shields of the Starship Enterprise, and no one can collide with you, and you can collide with no one at the speed limit. It is a magically safe speed (despite being fully arbitrary), and you can't break any laws while adhering to the speed limit. You are an omnipotent GOD if you adhere to the speed limit, and everyone else is a suicidal maniac. This type of passive aggressive "know it all/judgmental" behavior has no place on the road way.

I don't think people value their time more than comfort or safety. Some drivers that go too fast for conditions (an entirely different issue to speeding in and of itself) are indeed a hazard. Simple speeding is not.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp

The worst thing you can do is force a "bozo" or whatever name-calling you wish to apply (maniac?) to the right to pass slower traffic on the left. Slow pokes obeying the law in the correct and right lane will be just as mad at you as the maniacs. Every time I witness a left lane impediment violation/infraction, the offending vehicle could have EASILY moved right to allow passing. I just never see that ultra rare occurrence where someone is passing a long line of trucks at a delta of 5 with no room to move right, and the guy behind is just being an impatient maniac. That's just NOT what I'm observing out there, the vast majority of the time.

The truth is the slower pokes will REACT EXACTLY like a super speeder to being impeded in the passing lane. It's human nature. Slower pokes get impeded by the slowest pokes. Mild speeders get impeded by speed limit abiders, and so on and so forth. We all react the same to that, and we all will pass on the right when impeded like that.

The "everyone else is doing it" excuse to impede traffic is not a defense, anymore than it works for speeding. Not to mention the traffic is being generated by traffic impeders in the first place. So they create the situation, and then want you to be happy suffering from the situation they created? Not going to happen.

Just keep right except to pass, it makes law enforcement's job easier to pick off the speeders.

suydam

Oh please. How many times have I seen an impatient driver creep up the butt of the car in the left lane when traffic in ALL lanes is moving at EXACTLY the same speed because, jeez, there are a lot of cars on the road. What advantage do they think theyre going to get?

andres3

henryn said:

andres3 said:

Lastly, weaving is a symptom of a disease. That disease is left lane camping. Eradicating left lane camping makes weaving extinct, among many other undesirable behaviors.

Speed differential hazards are almost wiped out if you have lane discipline and strict adherence to passing laws. The reason speed differentials are so hazardous in the USA is because of our poor adherence to lane laws as a group of people.

No, not true. Or at the very least, not universally true. My morning commute takes me up the 288 Freeway, which then splits into I45 and I69. The left 2 lanes go into I45 for a short run, which then splits between Northbound and Southbound.

The rightmost lane goes into I69 South. The next lane over (second from the right) goes into I69 North. People who want to wind up on I45 Northbound, and know what they're doing, get in the left most lane a good mile or two before the split. Some mornings, I45 is backed up and the left two lanes of 288 are slower than the right two lanes. Some morning, I69 is backed up and the right two lanes of 288 are slower.

The "hurry hurry hurry, beat everyone to work by 2 minutes" crowd go plowing through traffic, jumping lanes, trying to get a 1 car advantage. They disrupt traffic flow for everyone, and cause the majority of accidents that I have seen in my 8 years of commuting on this route.

Now when I set out for San Antonio ( a 3 hour drive), I do get annoyed at left lane campers. There is a stretch of about 100 miles in there with nothing, and I do mean nothing. Just a divided interstate highway, 2 lanes westbound, 2 lanes eastbound. When I get caught behind 2 cars side by side doing 65, when the majority of the cars want to move at around 75 to 80, yes, that is annoying. But there is no "weaving", there is no way to weave, no place to weave.

And I will repeat my initial statement: If you are driving 20 mph faster than the average of the traffic around you, YOU are a danger, to yourself and others. And that is NOT the fault of left lane campers.

Just out of curiosity, how many accidents have you witnessed in real time on this route. I think a fair question, as I can probably count the amount of accidents I've seen on one or two hands in real-time.

Or are you just projecting your biases with a conclusion of fault based on only seeing the wreckage? I usually conclude that someone was on their cell phone or other distraction because I don't understand how you rear-end a car going the same direction as everyone on the freeway. I suppose you could be cut-off in a manner by an unsafe lane change that makes a rear-end collision inevitable. Good reason to get a dash cam.

dino001

andres3 said:

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

But you called the "hurry hurry 20 over" speeders a "crowd" Isn't fair to say if they are a crowd, perhaps the average is only 10 below them, not 20? We're not talking lone wolf are we?

Let's concede for a moment that going 10-20 over the adjacent lane is a danger. Even so, does forcing them to weave right to pass sound like a good solution? That just makes the fastest traffic interact more closely with the slowest traffic. This is why we have left/right driving conventions in the first place. A camper is MAXIMIZING speed differentials, while a speeder is only doing whatever differential they prefer to do.

What you describe with multiple freeways going multiple directions all in a tiny space is pretty rare. I know LA has that with the I5 north. Still, some of these ramps are 2 lanes, and I often find a slowpoke choosing the left-most lane on a ramp; slowing everyone behind them. A Que of 20 or 30 cars, with 1/2 mile of empty space in front of them.

I'm always looking far up ahead (good driving habit). I'm always analyzing traffic patterns, both passively and actively. Most of the time the slower traffic is caused by a few bad apples.

You just keep digging. "Crowd" means here number of people nationwide. One bozo like that per per half mile is already a crowd for 10 mile commute. I'm not defending left lane campers, especially on non-busy roads, but give me a break, man. I heard it all, self-proclaimed "fast, but safe" people, absolutely convinced of their own superiority of driving skills, reflexes, abilities and most importantly convinced that the only thing that counts is sense of their own "time savings", the heck with everybody else's comfort or safety.

Let me be blunt - who cares if you "can" do faster (and safe) and jump two lights over another guy, feeling, oh so superior, saving in aggregate one hour per month (or week, whatever). Slow down and give us all the break. Or that cop that stops you for "unjustified" offence - I'll applaud him, no matter how indignant you feel.

The problem is, if I may be blunt, that SLOW = SAFE FAST = DANGEROUS is a VERY LOW IQ thought process, to steal a Trump-ism. It's not that simple.

It's as if you think and have that attitude that the speed limit is this magical speed at which your car has the force field and shields of the Starship Enterprise, and no one can collide with you, and you can collide with no one at the speed limit. It is a magically safe speed (despite being fully arbitrary), and you can't break any laws while adhering to the speed limit. You are an omnipotent GOD if you adhere to the speed limit, and everyone else is a suicidal maniac. This type of passive aggressive "know it all/judgmental" behavior has no place on the road way.

I don't think people value their time more than comfort or safety. Some drivers that go too fast for conditions (an entirely different issue to speeding in and of itself) are indeed a hazard. Simple speeding is not.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp

The worst thing you can do is force a "bozo" or whatever name-calling you wish to apply (maniac?) to the right to pass slower traffic on the left. Slow pokes obeying the law in the correct and right lane will be just as mad at you as the maniacs. Every time I witness a left lane impediment violation/infraction, the offending vehicle could have EASILY moved right to allow passing. I just never see that ultra rare occurrence where someone is passing a long line of trucks at a delta of 5 with no room to move right, and the guy behind is just being an impatient maniac. That's just NOT what I'm observing out there, the vast majority of the time.

The truth is the slower pokes will REACT EXACTLY like a super speeder to being impeded in the passing lane. It's human nature. Slower pokes get impeded by the slowest pokes. Mild speeders get impeded by speed limit abiders, and so on and so forth. We all react the same to that, and we all will pass on the right when impeded like that.

The "everyone else is doing it" excuse to impede traffic is not a defense, anymore than it works for speeding. Not to mention the traffic is being generated by traffic impeders in the first place. So they create the situation, and then want you to be happy suffering from the situation they created? Not going to happen.

Just keep right except to pass, it makes law enforcement's job easier to pick off the speeders.

Tell yourself whatever you want. I also like to go fast sometimes, sometimes I go faster than the speed limit. We all do. Oh, my.... I'm not in "speed kills" camp at all, but I just grew tired of reading incessant fast-and-safe-no-matter-what-the-facts-I-have-my-own-statistics posts, I just had to say something.

oldfarmer50

Anybody know what this is?

xwesx

oldfarmer50 said:

Anybody know what this is?

A sports coupe.

henryn

andres3 said:

Just out of curiosity, how many accidents have you witnessed in real time on this route. I think a fair question, as I can probably count the amount of accidents I've seen on one or two hands in real-time.

Or are you just projecting your biases with a conclusion of fault based on only seeing the wreckage? I usually conclude that someone was on their cell phone or other distraction because I don't understand how you rear-end a car going the same direction as everyone on the freeway. I suppose you could be cut-off in a manner by an unsafe lane change that makes a rear-end collision inevitable. Good reason to get a dash cam.

A fair question. Accidents that I have seen happen, on that particular route, during the last 8 years -- probably 5 or 6. To the best of my memory, two were rear enders and the rest were side collisions. Mostly happens when 2 cars try to move into a hole in the traffic, one from the right, one from the left. And during that same 8 years, I have seen literally hundreds of near misses from that scenario.

Now there have been quite a few more where I did not see the crash-bam-boom, but did see the aftermath. And if the damage is primarily to the sides of the cars (not limited to front and rear), I make the assumption it was due to lane changing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some "never exceed the speed limit" type. Give me a nice open highway, no traffic (or very light traffic), dry conditions, excellent visibility, and I am very likely going to exceed the speed limit. Sometimes by 20 or 30 mph or even more.

But not in traffic. The more traffic, the more we all need to go with the flow. I'm sorry if you don't like it. This is much like the other discussion about noisy neighbors. If you don't want to put up with noisy neighbors, move to the country and buy yourself 5 acres. But if you're like most of us, you have to live in the city in order to make a living. And deal with occasionally noisy neighbors, and bad traffic on a regular daily basis.

It is what it is.

stickguy

A red one.

driver100

imidazol97 said:

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

On Friday, if I understand correctly, there was a landslide on top of the mountain in the area of Stinking Creek Road and the next exit south of there. @100 will appreciate knowing he's not being slowed by the diversion of traffic onto the other side giving one lane traffic.

Looks like we will be flying to Florida and back....my wife doesn't like driving that far. But, Stinking Creek Road? How would you like to tell people you live on Stinking Creek Road?

andres3

henryn said:

andres3 said:

Just out of curiosity, how many accidents have you witnessed in real time on this route. I think a fair question, as I can probably count the amount of accidents I've seen on one or two hands in real-time.

Or are you just projecting your biases with a conclusion of fault based on only seeing the wreckage? I usually conclude that someone was on their cell phone or other distraction because I don't understand how you rear-end a car going the same direction as everyone on the freeway. I suppose you could be cut-off in a manner by an unsafe lane change that makes a rear-end collision inevitable. Good reason to get a dash cam.

A fair question. Accidents that I have seen happen, on that particular route, during the last 8 years -- probably 5 or 6. To the best of my memory, two were rear enders and the rest were side collisions. Mostly happens when 2 cars try to move into a hole in the traffic, one from the right, one from the left. And during that same 8 years, I have seen literally hundreds of near misses from that scenario.

Now there have been quite a few more where I did not see the crash-bam-boom, but did see the aftermath. And if the damage is primarily to the sides of the cars (not limited to front and rear), I make the assumption it was due to lane changing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some "never exceed the speed limit" type. Give me a nice open highway, no traffic (or very light traffic), dry conditions, excellent visibility, and I am very likely going to exceed the speed limit. Sometimes by 20 or 30 mph or even more.

But not in traffic. The more traffic, the more we all need to go with the flow. I'm sorry if you don't like it. This is much like the other discussion about noisy neighbors. If you don't want to put up with noisy neighbors, move to the country and buy yourself 5 acres. But if you're like most of us, you have to live in the city in order to make a living. And deal with occasionally noisy neighbors, and bad traffic on a regular daily basis.

It is what it is.

That makes sense. I haven't seen side swipes but I have seen near-misses a lot. This is exactly why I rail against left lane camping. These simultaneous lane changes happen directly because someone is forcing passes on the right, while the slowest traffic is being passed on the left. This is exactly where those greater speed differentials come into play. Middle lane campers force passes on both sides of them in 4+ lane highways. If all passes were on the left, traffic just becomes so much more predictable and safe. Lane changes for the most part, cease to be a hazardous event.

I'm not the fastest car out there. I like to stay around the 85th percentile. OK, maybe 90%. So that still means there are faster cars than me out there regularly, and the last thing I want is to be surprised by them because of a Prius in the left lane. Forcing passes to the right goes against nature! I'm not bothered by someone going faster than me. It really is no skin off my back!

I just don't see anything positive resulting from traffic being slowed down and forced right. You'll always have people assuming "you're all just a bunch of IDIOTS!" for going so slow. I maintain the best way to avoid high congestion is to allow free flowing traffic.

I'm going to let out a speeder's secret.... after weaving carefully and safely in and around a dozen or more cars, you are often rewarded with a good stretch of open highway, 1/2 mile, 3/4/ of a mile, maybe even multiple miles. This happens even in LA of all places. Traffic often moves in pockets, even in very high congestion. I look at these pockets as solar system or galaxy clusters. There's a lot of space in between.

fintail

I'll guess a kit or homebuilt custom - very non-exotic door handles.

oldfarmer50 said:

Anybody know what this is?

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

But you called the "hurry hurry 20 over" speeders a "crowd" Isn't fair to say if they are a crowd, perhaps the average is only 10 below them, not 20? We're not talking lone wolf are we?

Let's concede for a moment that going 10-20 over the adjacent lane is a danger. Even so, does forcing them to weave right to pass sound like a good solution? That just makes the fastest traffic interact more closely with the slowest traffic. This is why we have left/right driving conventions in the first place. A camper is MAXIMIZING speed differentials, while a speeder is only doing whatever differential they prefer to do.

What you describe with multiple freeways going multiple directions all in a tiny space is pretty rare. I know LA has that with the I5 north. Still, some of these ramps are 2 lanes, and I often find a slowpoke choosing the left-most lane on a ramp; slowing everyone behind them. A Que of 20 or 30 cars, with 1/2 mile of empty space in front of them.

I'm always looking far up ahead (good driving habit). I'm always analyzing traffic patterns, both passively and actively. Most of the time the slower traffic is caused by a few bad apples.

You just keep digging. "Crowd" means here number of people nationwide. One bozo like that per per half mile is already a crowd for 10 mile commute. I'm not defending left lane campers, especially on non-busy roads, but give me a break, man. I heard it all, self-proclaimed "fast, but safe" people, absolutely convinced of their own superiority of driving skills, reflexes, abilities and most importantly convinced that the only thing that counts is sense of their own "time savings", the heck with everybody else's comfort or safety.

Let me be blunt - who cares if you "can" do faster (and safe) and jump two lights over another guy, feeling, oh so superior, saving in aggregate one hour per month (or week, whatever). Slow down and give us all the break. Or that cop that stops you for "unjustified" offence - I'll applaud him, no matter how indignant you feel.

The problem is, if I may be blunt, that SLOW = SAFE FAST = DANGEROUS is a VERY LOW IQ thought process, to steal a Trump-ism. It's not that simple.

It's as if you think and have that attitude that the speed limit is this magical speed at which your car has the force field and shields of the Starship Enterprise, and no one can collide with you, and you can collide with no one at the speed limit. It is a magically safe speed (despite being fully arbitrary), and you can't break any laws while adhering to the speed limit. You are an omnipotent GOD if you adhere to the speed limit, and everyone else is a suicidal maniac. This type of passive aggressive "know it all/judgmental" behavior has no place on the road way.

I don't think people value their time more than comfort or safety. Some drivers that go too fast for conditions (an entirely different issue to speeding in and of itself) are indeed a hazard. Simple speeding is not.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp

The worst thing you can do is force a "bozo" or whatever name-calling you wish to apply (maniac?) to the right to pass slower traffic on the left. Slow pokes obeying the law in the correct and right lane will be just as mad at you as the maniacs. Every time I witness a left lane impediment violation/infraction, the offending vehicle could have EASILY moved right to allow passing. I just never see that ultra rare occurrence where someone is passing a long line of trucks at a delta of 5 with no room to move right, and the guy behind is just being an impatient maniac. That's just NOT what I'm observing out there, the vast majority of the time.

The truth is the slower pokes will REACT EXACTLY like a super speeder to being impeded in the passing lane. It's human nature. Slower pokes get impeded by the slowest pokes. Mild speeders get impeded by speed limit abiders, and so on and so forth. We all react the same to that, and we all will pass on the right when impeded like that.

The "everyone else is doing it" excuse to impede traffic is not a defense, anymore than it works for speeding. Not to mention the traffic is being generated by traffic impeders in the first place. So they create the situation, and then want you to be happy suffering from the situation they created? Not going to happen.

Just keep right except to pass, it makes law enforcement's job easier to pick off the speeders.

Tell yourself whatever you want. I also like to go fast sometimes, sometimes I go faster than the speed limit. We all do. Oh, my.... I'm not in "speed kills" camp at all, but I just grew tired of reading incessant fast-and-safe-no-matter-what-the-facts-I-have-my-own-statistics posts, I just had to say something.

Just read the story and the study in the link I provided. I don't argue anything without the data and facts to back it up. I'm an Owl on the DISC personality/temperament survey. My only personal statistics are from out-camping left lane campers in my younger days. A revealing real-world experiment that was.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

imidazol97 said:

All the hypotheticals about the virtues of fast, aggressive driving made me recall that most accidents are caused by fast drivers wanting to get somewhere faster and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic causing accidents.

On Friday, if I understand correctly, there was a landslide on top of the mountain in the area of Stinking Creek Road and the next exit south of there. @100 will appreciate knowing he's not being slowed by the diversion of traffic onto the other side giving one lane traffic.

Looks like we will be flying to Florida and back....my wife doesn't like driving that far. But, Stinking Creek Road? How would you like to tell people you live on Stinking Creek Road?

Worse yet how would like to tell your friends that a landslide knocked you into Stinking Creek?

dino001

andres3 said:

Just read the story and the study in the link I provided. I don't argue anything without the data and facts to back it up. I'm an Owl on the DISC personality/temperament survey. My only personal statistics are from out-camping left lane campers in my younger days. A revealing real-world experiment that was.

The result does not surprise me. It's not about driving "too fast". It's about driving like a moron - cutting people off, distracted, not paying attention, lane encroachment, etc. Either through recklessness (I'm more important than you), or lack of focus (I can't be bothered, I have to look at this text message), or lack of skill (what's does this lever do?). Combine that with high speed, over or under the limit and you get death of the innocent as often as the guilty. Speed limits are aimed to reduce catastrophic nature of accidents that occur from those other primary reasons. Driving too slow is a real problem, but number of such people is (by my completely unscientific observation) much smaller than driving too fast (or whatever you call it). If we ALL drove slower, accidents would have been less deadly (even if they might be more frequent in some circumstances). I'm not advocating for that all, as there is a practical limit and proper risk-to-reward aspect of allowing higher speeds, but it's a fact.

dino001

oldfarmer50 said:

Anybody know what this is?

Jaguar? Mazda?

abacomike

oldfarmer50 said:

Anybody know what this is?

I wonder if it’s a Dino made by Ferrari.  By the looks of the tires, since they are not low profile, it’s an older type sports car.  Definitely European in design and, from my perspective, Italian-made for sure.  Be interested to know for sure.

stickguy

Looks like a kit car to me. I think those are air intact behind the doors so might be on a beetle chassis.

explorerx4

That red coupe looks like a kit car to me.

laurasdada

Definitely not a Dino, a kit car.

houdini1

abacomike said:

oldfarmer50 said:

Anybody know what this is?

I wonder if it’s a Dino made by Ferrari.  By the looks of the tires, since they are not low profile, it’s an older type sports car.  Definitely European in design and, from my perspective, Italian-made for sure.  Be interested to know for sure.

It seems out of proportion, so I would guess it is the front half of one car and the back half of another.

roadburner

oldfarmer50 said:

Anybody know what this is?

It's a Kellison kit car or similar.

roadburner

Back in the days of the asinine 55 mph NMSL I regularly drove 80-85 mph on rural interstates. With the help of a 1st generation Escort and a CB I never received a ticket- or got pulled over for that matter. When I came up on a clump of slower vehicles I matched their speed and worked my way though the pack with as little drama as possible. That way I didn't antagonize the slow drivers. Now that the speed limits on limited access roads are usually 70 mph or better, I still drive 80-85, it's a comfortable speed that doesn't attract the attention of law enforcement- especially since I'm usually far from the fastest car on the road.

tbirdmarco

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uAwsZ1FXMZw

abacomike

roadburner said:

Back in the days of the asinine 55 mph NMSL I regularly drove 80-85 mph on rural interstates. With the help of a 1st generation Escort and a CB I never received a ticket- or got pulled over for that matter. When I came up on a clump of slower vehicles I matched their speed and worked my way though the pack with as little drama as possible. That way I didn't antagonize the slow drivers. Now that the speed limits on limited access roads are usually 70 mph or better, I still drive 80-85, it's a comfortable speed that doesn't attract the attention of law enforcement- especially since I'm usually far from the fastest car on the road.

I’ve been reading the last several pages of posts regarding speed of vehicles on interstates or highways.  I’m having a problem wrapping my head around the rationale(s) proffered for driving significantly over the speed limit.

I drive a 10 mile round trip segment of the Florida Turnpike just about every morning and I fail to understand why drivers are going 75-80 mph in moderate traffic, zig-zagging in and out of the 3 traffic lanes.  The speed limit is 65 mph, but I can agree that 70 mph is an acceptable stretch of that 65 mph limit.  

I drive a car that would have no difficulty running at 90 mph safely on any well-paved multi-lane Highway, but why would I want to do 90, or 80 or even 75 in a 65 zone?  Unless all the traffic is moving at high speed as on the German Autobon, it is irresponsible to jeopardize the lives of drivers observing the speed limit or 5 mph over the speed limit.  

To take the psition that a driver can travel 15-20 mph over a posted speed limit because he or she “can” is dangerous and very suspect!  I see it every day on the Turnpike.  When I drive up to see my brother near Jacksonville, I drive at a steady 75 mph on roads that have a posted 70 mph limit.  Why is it necessary to drive at 80 or 85 mph?  It places all drivers on the road in jeopardy due to inconsiderate speeders.

If I lived in Montana, The Dakota’s or other rural areas of rural States where there is no posted speed limit, I might consider going 80 or 90 mph so long as all the traffic was moving at that speed.  But I refuse to place my life and the lives of others in jeopardy because of speeds significantly above the posted limit.

berri

So they are going to change the dates of the Detroit auto show in 2020 and more manufacturers are pulling out of various annual auto shows. Do you think they still make sense these days or are relics of the past?

berri

Speed limits - seems lime in many big cities you either are in a lane going way over or another going noticeably below. Seems like it can be difficult in these situations to actually go the limit sometimes.

stickguy

I can only comment on the Philly show. But we go every year, and it is always packed. Attendance is not off at all I don't think. And pretty sure all the brands are still represented.

whether it makes financial sense to put on, no clue!

abacomike

berri said:

Speed limits - seems lime in many big cities you either are in a lane going way over or another going noticeably below. Seems like it can be difficult in these situations to actually go the limit sometimes.

Most definitely, berri.  It’s a matter of heavy traffic in the larger cities.  Urban highways are more parking lots than roads.

I live in the northern part of Broward County where traffic is fairly light on the Turmpike.  But I-95 is quite jammed until you approach Boca Raton.  Same for I-95 in the Palm Beaches.  Once you are north of the Palm Beaches on both the Turnpike and I-95, it’s clear sailing right up to Jacksonville (I-95) or Orlando (Turnpike).

I rarely or almost never go down to Miami.  Heavy traffic and crazy drivers have caused me to avoid Miami-Dade County.

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

Just read the story and the study in the link I provided. I don't argue anything without the data and facts to back it up. I'm an Owl on the DISC personality/temperament survey. My only personal statistics are from out-camping left lane campers in my younger days. A revealing real-world experiment that was.

The result does not surprise me. It's not about driving "too fast". It's about driving like a moron - cutting people off, distracted, not paying attention, lane encroachment, etc. Either through recklessness (I'm more important than you), or lack of focus (I can't be bothered, I have to look at this text message), or lack of skill (what's does this lever do?). Combine that with high speed, over or under the limit and you get death of the innocent as often as the guilty. Speed limits are aimed to reduce catastrophic nature of accidents that occur from those other primary reasons. Driving too slow is a real problem, but number of such people is (by my completely unscientific observation) much smaller than driving too fast (or whatever you call it). If we ALL drove slower, accidents would have been less deadly (even if they might be more frequent in some circumstances). I'm not advocating for that all, as there is a practical limit and proper risk-to-reward aspect of allowing higher speeds, but it's a fact.

I see recklessness as more of a symptom stemming from ignorance, lack of experience, and road rage/anger of course.

If people knew the Solomon Curve for instance, I think you'd have less people deciding to "park it" on the shoulder of a high-speed freeway when it's foggy.

This is why young people are so susceptible to cell phone distractions; they lack the experience to know that kind of distraction has an unacceptable risk associated with it. Education helps, but so does experience.

You know what causes an unusual amount of deaths? Not wearing your seat belt. The laws have worked on that, compliance is extremely high. A very small percentage disobey seat belt laws. However, that very small percentage that disobey seat belt laws really get more than their fair share of fatalities. Maybe "fair" isn't the right word here. They disproportionately expose themselves to hazards, which I think if they knew the stats, they wouldn't take the risks.

andres3

abacomike said:

roadburner said:

Back in the days of the asinine 55 mph NMSL I regularly drove 80-85 mph on rural interstates. With the help of a 1st generation Escort and a CB I never received a ticket- or got pulled over for that matter. When I came up on a clump of slower vehicles I matched their speed and worked my way though the pack with as little drama as possible. That way I didn't antagonize the slow drivers. Now that the speed limits on limited access roads are usually 70 mph or better, I still drive 80-85, it's a comfortable speed that doesn't attract the attention of law enforcement- especially since I'm usually far from the fastest car on the road.

I’ve been reading the last several pages of posts regarding speed of vehicles on interstates or highways.  I’m having a problem wrapping my head around the rationale(s) proffered for driving significantly over the speed limit.

I drive a 10 mile round trip segment of the Florida Turnpike just about every morning and I fail to understand why drivers are going 75-80 mph in moderate traffic, zig-zagging in and out of the 3 traffic lanes.  The speed limit is 65 mph, but I can agree that 70 mph is an acceptable stretch of that 65 mph limit.  

I drive a car that would have no difficulty running at 90 mph safely on any well-paved multi-lane Highway, but why would I want to do 90, or 80 or even 75 in a 65 zone?  Unless all the traffic is moving at high speed as on the German Autobon, it is irresponsible to jeopardize the lives of drivers observing the speed limit or 5 mph over the speed limit.  

To take the psition that a driver can travel 15-20 mph over a posted speed limit because he or she “can” is dangerous and very suspect!  I see it every day on the Turnpike.  When I drive up to see my brother near Jacksonville, I drive at a steady 75 mph on roads that have a posted 70 mph limit.  Why is it necessary to drive at 80 or 85 mph?  It places all drivers on the road in jeopardy due to inconsiderate speeders.

If I lived in Montana, The Dakota’s or other rural areas of rural States where there is no posted speed limit, I might consider going 80 or 90 mph so long as all the traffic was moving at that speed.  But I refuse to place my life and the lives of others in jeopardy because of speeds significantly above the posted limit.

Question 1) How long has it been since you've been to CA? I have the lemmings here trained to do 80-85 routinely in 65 zones. Of course, with 5 lanes of width, you can have plenty of separation for those that go slower.

Question 2) Can you accept that many might find 75-80 to be a perfectly acceptable speed in moderate traffic despite the low 65 MPH speed limit? Not everyone will ever agree on the right speed, and that's why we have passing lanes.

Question 3) You do realize the Autobahn does have slower traffic, including trucks? The difference is they keep right except to pass; that's all. Germans are not genetically superior human drivers. They are not born that way. The system works. It's not theory; it's been practiced and proven to work in the real-world.

Question 4) How do speed deltas of 20 MPH or less really jeopardize lives? Does everyone here realize that the force of a collision between an Audi doing 120 MPH and a BMW doing 100 MPH is the same as the 20 MPH moving Prius rear-ending you at a red-light that you are stopped at? Okay, assuming the Prius was just as heavy.

Just my thoughts for the day. I think minor speed deltas can coexist safely in an orderly driving world.

henryn

On the subject of seat belts, I am not a big proponent of mandatory use of seat belts.

Yes, they save lives. Yes, I’m using mine. Yes, they should be mandatory for kids. But if an adult wants to risk his life by not wearing a seat belt, I’m not really in favor of making that behavior illegal. With apologies to the motorcycle enthusiasts here, riding a motorcycle is inherently much more dangerous than driving a car without wearing a seat belt. Are you going to make it illegal to ride a motorcycle?

andres3

henryn said:

On the subject of seat belts, I am not a big proponent of mandatory use of seat belts.

Yes, they save lives. Yes, I’m using mine. Yes, they should be mandatory for kids. But if an adult wants to risk his life by not wearing a seat belt, I’m not really in favor of making that behavior illegal. With apologies to the motorcycle enthusiasts here, riding a motorcycle is inherently much more dangerous than driving a car without wearing a seat belt. Are you going to make it illegal to ride a motorcycle?

Unfortunately we disagree again. And I'm pretty Libertarian, but here's why your 100% wrong:

1) Competent, reasonable, and prudent people expect you to be able to maintain control and execute mitigating maneuvers in an emergency situation, a situation that might involve impacts. Yes, collisions, plural. The first hit might not be the hardest or most deadly!

2) How in the world are you going to maintain reasonable driver control over your vehicle if you are KNOCKED OUT OF YOUR SEAT because your too stupid to wear a seat belt.(not you personally, but for those that would do so).

3) An example would be if someone hit you, and knocked you over a cliff because you couldn't be bothered to touch the brakes or turn the steering wheel because your head is halfway through the windshield. Not so bad if they are by themselves? What if they have kids in the back seat? What if they hit another car and take them over the cliff with them?

4) I'm afraid the seat belt is pretty much as important as anything to keep you in a position to effect movement and control over your vehicle. This is something I probably didn't realize to the extent I have until HPDE training. You are in control of a 3,000+ pound object traveling potentially at high speeds, I think it is fair of society to ask that you take precautions to remain in control of it in less than ideal circumstances.

5) What about unnecessary medical bills society has to pay for because someone chose no seat belt or no helmet?

Mr_Shiftright

henryn said:

On the subject of seat belts, I am not a big proponent of mandatory use of seat belts.

Yes, they save lives. Yes, I’m using mine. Yes, they should be mandatory for kids. But if an adult wants to risk his life by not wearing a seat belt, I’m not really in favor of making that behavior illegal. With apologies to the motorcycle enthusiasts here, riding a motorcycle is inherently much more dangerous than driving a car without wearing a seat belt. Are you going to make it illegal to ride a motorcycle?

But the taxpayer might have to foot some of the medical bills. Being mangled in a car wreck rarely involves just the one person.

And besides, driving is a privilege, not a right. So if one wants the privilege, he/she has to play by the rules.

stickguy

well, we have no gubbermint sponsored health care, so they will be on their own.

andres3

suydam said:

Oh please. How many times have I seen an impatient driver creep up the butt of the car in the left lane when traffic in ALL lanes is moving at EXACTLY the same speed because, jeez, there are a lot of cars on the road. What advantage do they think theyre going to get?

Why are all the cars going the same speed in all lanes? I would ticket every single one of them not in the right-most lane! EVERY-Single-One!

They all deserve it. Mob mentality isn't good. Exception: No one is moving at all, bumper to bumper stop n' go.