Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I perhaps do not know what you mean. The NHTSA is a compilation of data that includes speeds at 50 and 80. I am sure YOU know what YOU mean. However your last few posts leave me completely stumped.
How would you validate YOUR conclusions of meaningless ness?
I've driven 65 for hundreds of miles and didn't have an accident.
I've driven 45 for long periods of time an didn't have an accident.
And the point is?....
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The EPA and I are in agreement> The EPA themselves agree their tests with a warmed up car and the accelerator held to a flat speed do not reflect real world driving experiences. The agree their tests are in need of revamping.
I can't draw any conclusions from the NHTSA. The tri-state area with their millions of cars on the road at the same time driving at speeds of 25mph in rush hour traffic should have a different metric than the wide open roads of the sparsly populated sections of the country.
Route 78 one of the worst roads in the area with spectacular traffic fatalities every week do not reflect other roads. While the NHTSA does a noble attempit to capture a dynamic moving traffic system, looking at traffic deaths per 100 millions miles say nothing about the very roads people drive everyday.
As for EPA mileage estimates yes it's a flawed system. But it still is relevant for comparing one vehicle with another. If a Passat is rated 28 mpg highway and an Accord is rated 29 I agree the numbers don't really tell you much, except that the same driver should get about the same mileage from both vehicles. But they both look different than an SUV at 18, or a diesel Golf at 49. The numbers have to be used as intended, not as a guarantee of performance.
Yes, it is.
This is what you posted previously, without any qualifications: High speed raises the risk of an accident (lower response time, less stability, etc) and increases the severity of the result. This is obvious. (emphasis added)
This has been proven incorrect several times, most recently when the nationwide 65 mph speed limit was repealed in December 1995, and several states immediately repealed their old 65 mph limit and instituted higher ones.
By the end of 1996, fatalities per 100 milllion vehicle miles driven had declined in those states, despite the higher speeds traveled by drivers. Within that one year timeframe, the road network could not have been dramatically altered or repaired within each state, and neither did anywhere near a majority of drivers turn in their vehicles for newer ones with more safety features (anti-lock brakes, airbags,etc.).
Same drivers, same roads, same vehicles...the one variable that changed was the higher speeds.
Li_sailor: Same faulty correlation. Those doing 80 are more likely to be on an open road with no other vehicles.
And your proof of this assertion is found where? Based on urban highways surrounding major metropolitan areas? Once you get away from urban arteries, every major highway has a mix of vehicles traveling at speeds ranging from 60 mph to at least 85 mph. Unless a driver is in the most remote reaches of the West, it is highly unlikely that he or she will not be sharing the road with any other vehicles.
Li_Sailor: Driving 20 mph faster (all else being equal) does not reduce the chance of accidents. If you think it does, give us some rationale for it.
And, once again, your proof of this assertion is found where? Your thesis has not been borne out by real-world experience on limited access highways.
The rationales? Increased comfort and attentiveness, on the part of both the person driving 80 mph and other, slower moving vehicles, who know that they have to be aware of faster moving traffic.
Li_Sailor: Correct, compared to other modes, like local traffic, see above.
And also compared to those same, limited access highways under slower speed limits.
Quoting the NHTSA statistics and making the leap that higher speeds are safe is the same as saying that after having one or two beers you are as safe as driver as before the beers.
This is a perfect example of taking a point and rendering it meaningless by yanking it out of context.
I don't think that anyone is saying that going 85 is dangerous in and of itself, necessarily. Only that it increases the risk of accident and the severity of the outcome.
It's quite possible and not inconsistent to think that a) it may be a reasonable risk to drive 85 at some points and b) driving 85 (all else being equal) raises the risk of incident and outcome.
Unfortunately since the NHTSA database does not track this, that fact seems to be lost on some.
High speed raises the risk of an accident (lower response time, less stability, etc) and increases the severity of the result. This is obvious.
you:
This has been proven incorrect several times, most recently when the nationwide 65 mph speed limit was repealed...
We've been thru this before. The data was at best mixed and at worst showed the opposite.
In any case, please provide some rationale to support the notion that accidents at 85 are not more likely or not less severe in outcome than at 55. AFAIK, none exist and you have certainly not offered any. This is what you have to refute: at 85, reaction time is less, vehicle stability is less and the forces involved in an actual collision are worse.
By the end of 1996, fatalities per 100 milllion vehicle miles driven had declined in those states...
In some they declined, in some they increased. We've done this dance before.
I know what the law is and I realize that technically he could give me a ticket, but giving me a ticket for "speeding" during a very quick pass that I think was safer than a drawn out pass was, well, inconsiderate. I hope his next donut makes him choke :=)
This is a perfect example of taking a point and rendering it meaningless by yanking it out of context.
I don't think that anyone is saying that going 85 is dangerous in and of itself, necessarily. Only that it increases the risk of accident and the severity of the outcome.
..." It's quite possible and not inconsistent to think that a) it may be a reasonable risk to drive 85 at some points and b) driving 85 (all else being equal) raises the risk of incident and outcome. "...
If one has been following the OTHER posts, then one does have a flare for the obvious that one is ignoring the other posters who have stated a lot of these yardsticks are MEANINGLESS! I would happen to disagree. Again as I have said having a higher risk of accident and severity of the outcome does not necessarily convert to the statistics. As it has been said, the overall highway system RATE is the safest that it has been ever since they have been recording this history.
Again if folks think this stuff is meaningless, again I have no problem with that.. In a manner of speaking if one only drives within the borders of say NY state, the other 49 states real results are TOTALLY meaningless.
So for example, while CA state fatality rate is app 2200 per year, the average for each state is more like 860 fatalities per year. So in the spirit of meaninglessness, why should the meaningless advocates care about the USA rate of app 43,000 fatalities?
A little over the top in the fantasy fulfillment are we?
On a more serious note, I think he issued you a "ticket" that was tailor made to be beat in court, I.E., take the decoder ring hint!! Ask for a court appearance or trial by written declaration.
If indeed it was only for a "seatbelt" violation, then contest it and tell the truth: you had your seatbelt ON. CASE DIMISSED, no harm no foul!! NO points!
I couldn't care less if you like riding in the left lane either. I have no problem passing on the right. Those that are terrified of "high speed" accidents should just let us crazy people drive on to our deaths and get out of the way. I mean if we are killing ourselves in such horrific numbers, we won't be around much longer anyway.
I might add I've never known anyone to have a high speed accident that wasn't doing something else stupid at the same time. Like racing or "trying out" the handling of a car in high speed sweepers. I'm sure the fatal wreck caused solely by someone driving in a straight line, as most interstate highways are, is pretty rare. Before someone get carried away on that statement. I guess I'll have to add that by being caused by high speed means that the person wasn't trying to find out how fast the car was going or something. I mean a person driving on the interstate at a comfortable speed and that speeed itself was the reason for the wreck. Not deer, not mechanical failure, lack of maintenance etc.
Again to belabor a meaningless point, most fatalities (fully 80%) happen at speeds of 45 mph and under!!!!!!!
Saying it don' t make it so. No NHTSA statistic supports your contention. You've cited none and that's not surprising, since none exists. The statistic would have to isolate speed as a factor. None does. Highway/local driving is embedded and not isolated. If you wish to cite something to the contrary, please do so and be specific, thanks.
...if one only drives within the borders of say NY state, the other 49 states real results are TOTALLY meaningless.
LOL, yeah, the laws of physics are violated in NY and drivers and roads are completely different from the other 49. Good one :=)
You must be kidding. In what universe does a judge believe a defendant over a cop???? None that I know of!
Going under or at the speed limits DOES NOT guarantee you will not be a fatality...
Stop the presses! Dog bites man!
most fatalities (fully 80%) happen at speeds of 45 mph and under!!!!!!!
Because most accidents happen on local streets. (tap, tap, tap) Is this mike on?
I don't think that was the contention. It was whether higher speed increases risk.
Those that are terrified of "high speed" accidents...
Recognition of reality is not tantamount to being terrified of it. I drive 85 sometimes (not often) and I've hit 100. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the added risk.
I mean if we are killing ourselves in such horrific numbers...
What horrific numbers? Mountain climbing is very, very risky (approaches 100% fatality in 10+ years). Yet the numbers are quite low (as opposed to the rate per climb).
Again you missed his point.
You als missed my point by a country mile! The ones that have necessarily converted are the ones documented? So I already have cited and it is VERY SPECIFIC. Again the point is that speed or even 85 mph per se is not the problem. I would agree with you that highway and local driving is embedded.
It does not at all follow that the laws of physics are violated and drivers are completely different in the other 49. That is a silliness of YOUR own making, and has NOTHING to do what what I said.
I really don't care about the numbers. Horrific or not.
Sometimes its good to do payroll.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
After spending several hours on I5 and 405 over the past 36 hours, I am now of the opinion that the minivan will soon replace Buick/Caddy as the LLC vehicle of choice. I saw some amazingly clueless stuff out there. Sit in the left lane at 5 under while EVERYTHING passes you...semis, motorhomes, and pay no attention to the world around you. I saw it countless times.
I saw that driver intelligence thing, pretty funny.
No it wasn't a set up post, I apologize if it appears as such. But to answer your question back in 78 I got broad sided by a camaro with such force that the wreck was a half block away from the impact site The frame of my 74 duster was bent in a nearly 45 degree angle. As the police came up to the accident I was actually standing next to all this without a scratch on my body. It took a lot of convincing the policeman that I was the driver. Any ways to get to the point of this story the drivers seat was pretty much crushed and occupied an area about 1/3 of its original size. I was told by the police and the fire rescue that if I had been wearing a seat belt I would have at least been seriously injured and maybe even fatally. That opinion was even put in the fire department report.
Believe it or not that weighs heavily on my mind when I put on a seat belt.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Personal choice of course, and entirely your business.
Let's dig up links to stories where someones life could have been saved if they had been wearing seat belts. Those stories unfortunately make the headlines very regularly.
The fringe case has nothing to do with reality. The poor joe cited above, might not be so lucky the next time if he continues to leave his seat belt unbuckled.
However, in terms of actual death statistics, the seat belt/non seat belt use metric points up the weaknesses in passenger cabin protection. One for example is the IIHS 45 mph of center barrier crash testing, with constant emphasis and subsequent crash ratings that emphasize cabin integrity. Another very rare but usually injurious if not deadly accident is the T bone accident.
I think the right path is indicated by what racing sport venues have taken: 5/6 point harness, full roll cage, helmet and neck restraining systems and in some cases fire suppression systems. The lack of inclusion of some or all of this stuff on passenger cars indicates the remoteness of occurrences, higher cost, and acceptance of society at large of the losses incurred.
Same thing regarding motorcycle rides not wearing a helmet. If you leave the bike sure you can walk away. But you can also wind up a parapalegic, like someone I know that this one time didn't wear a helmet.
I think motorcycles pretty much offer full exposure. The statistics indicate that while helmets do offer a measure of protection and in fact might keep some accidents from getting fatal, the use of helmets does little to keep the fatality and accident rate from going through the roof as compared to even the small car and sports cars such as Mustang Camaro segments.
You're changing the subject. You said:
Those that are terrified of "high speed" accidents...
You weren't speaking of you, were you?
You were referring (correct me if I'm wrong) to those (here) that cite the higher risk of faster speed. I'm one of those, and I'm not "terrified of "high speed" accidents"...at least not more than I should be.
I really don't care about the numbers. Horrific or not.
Hey, you brought it up and used the term, not me.
Really. Who are you referring to? I'm not aware of anyone on planet earth that thinks that ZERO accidents is "the metric".
There's a right and wrong way for everything. Camping out in the left hand lane at under the speed limit is just as discourteous as tailgating. If everyone followed courteous driving, everyone would be able to happily travel the roads wwith no complaints.
The problem children are the extreme drivers on both ends of the spectrum.
I dont happen to agree with it or them, but that isn't the issue and is not what you are implying, is it now? I have even gone on record on this thread that it is the safest on the Am highwaysystems than it has ever been. (from a rate point of view)
There's a right and wrong way for everything. Camping out in the left hand lane at under the speed limit is just as discourteous as tailgating. If everyone followed courteous driving, everyone would be able to happily travel the roads wwith no complaints.
The problem children are the extreme drivers on both ends of the spectrum. "
Yup! SOP with this particular poster. Misquoting, misapplication and misdirection a speciality!!
1. don't tug on Superman's cape,
2. don't speed into the wind,
3. don't pull the mask on the ol' lone ranger,
4. always wear a helmet while bike and motorcycle riding,
5. always wear your seat belt.
As much in the past as I have loved motorcycle riding, I will not ride one on the streets. You can be right 100% of the time, but that might include being DEAD right. NHTSA indicates that 70% of motorcycle accidents between car and bike are cause by CARS. I have been tempted, in that a guy I am friends with owns a Ducati repair facility close to my home and he is a high performance track and dirt bike instructor to boot. Even he says it is not a matter if some one will lay down the bike, BUT WHEN.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2003EARelease.pdf
pg 55, is not encouraging at all . Helmeted deaths 1882=52% and non helmet 1709=48%, interesting footnotes: I might add. Actuall deaths of 3591 are small compared to the national rate of app 43,200. However the rates are through the roof in comparison and GROWING. So while certain states have more less rates and more or less fatalities, the avg for 50 states is something like 71.82 per state.
As I have indicated, I wear seltbelts 99.9999% of the time.
So for example, NHTSA data is app 6M accidents with 43,000 fatalities. If you are so interested you can hunt down the injury numbers.
As I have said in other posts, each state also has its own statistics and in fact they make up the broader scheme of the USA figures. So in that sense if you live in the state of CA with say 2300 yearly fatalities one needs to quell the tendency to be slightly paranoid looking at the 43,000 overall figures. That is unless one happens to drive in ALL 50 states. Here's one anecdotal example. New Mexico is reputed to be known for a high drunk driving rate: which can add to the states overall fatalities and fatality rate. Why should one worry much if he drives in NY state, that has better than the overall fatality rate per 100M miles driven. If NY state were by some miracle able to totally eliminate their drunk driving rate, it would probably do precious little to affect NM's and vice versa. I'd be a bit more cognizant if I was a NM resident or like me, have reason to drive in NM. . Again, I mean nothing pejorative against NM nor NY, nor wish to imply that NYers are superior. Just an example here.
Don't know who you're talking to, I assume someone else.
Camping out in the left hand lane at under the speed limit is just as discourteous as tailgating.
The problem children are the extreme drivers on both ends of the spectrum.
No argument there.
Literally? No, not one, ever. Please point to these posts that don't exist.
...but that isn't the issue...
What issue?
I have even gone on record on this thread that it is the safest on the Am highwaysystems than it has ever been.
Rates have been going down for years, yes, we all know this. What's the issue again?