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
Yes, I speed (note: speeding is any speed above the speed limit, as I don't define good speeding and bad speeding). I am not against going slightly faster than the speed limit along with the flow of traffic on a wide open interstate. I do not speed on residential streets or local roads.
It's not the issue of speeding per se (which is breaking the law no matter how you cut it). It's this:
1. Speed does not have any effect on fatalities and crashes. Look at the autobahn stats. Note there are no statistics for non-fatality accidents. So a person who gets into an accident at 140 and loses both legs directly attributable to the rate of speed, but is not a fatality is not counted anywhere right? Wrong and totally meaningless.
2. Speed limits are politically motivated The rational that speed limits are set low so law enforcement can bust the speeders who are an easy target and the local region can benefit financially is totally absurd.
3. Civil and traffic engineers have no clue about what they are doing and are working for grossly overpaid and politically motivated bosses who have an agenda. Furthermore these people need to prove to the public just how they reached their conclusions, because they obviously are not doing this for the common good. This is just another absurd notion. These studies are a matter of public record, one can go after them with the Freedom of Information Act if they are really interested.
4. We're doing much better because less people are getting killed per mile even though the number of drivers and mileage has increased.. I can understand why one wants to use fatalities per million miles, it hides the real tradgedy. 10% less troops got killed in Iraq this week sounds much better than 15 troops got killed this week.
I also agree with you that the state's data is very interesting. In looking at the USA data I think you can draw broader conclusions or presents broader lessons learned. In terms of realities both real and statistical and where one drives, Individual states ARE/ could indeed be even SAFER than the already safe USA rating!!!!
If I drive in CA, the yearly numbers say app 2,300 CA deaths. This is roughly 5.3% of the overall rate! So while the overall USA 43,000 traffic fatalities are indeed tragic, even if CA were able to elimate ALL traffic fatalities, you'd still be singing your mantra, a miracle would have happened and the overall rate would not have gone down significantly. Another corollary; as a practical matter, a state like NM which is reputed to have the highest DUI rates really doesn't concern a CA driver like me. But it would if I drove in NM.
If in 2005 we would still be driving 1960 Fords, the safety picture would be very very different.
"The rational that speed limits are set low so law enforcement can bust the speeders who are an easy target and the local region can benefit financially is totally absurd."
Actually, to deny that speed-violation based revenue streams are not a significant motivation is mindblowlingly absurd and really kind of sad.
Another absurdity is a willingness to give rulemakers of debatable credentials and credibility unlimited benefit of the doubt and never even thinking of asking of them to prove their stories. No working checks and balances, no responsibility. These people really need to put up or shut the hell up.
" one can go after them with the Freedom of Information Act if they are really interested."
One should not have to. If these people have nothing to hide, they should have no problem with being asked to ante up. Why can't they? And why can't their defenders?
So if you are on a suburban road at 35 or 40, you literally don't go 1 or 2 over? Remember, a law is a law, and one should not doubt laws nor the people who make them....
Agreed, but the stats for fatalities per 100 million miles are so dumbed down they are in essence worse than raw.
"Actually, to deny that speed-violation based revenue streams are not a significant motivation is mindblowlingly absurd and really kind of sad."
Well if you don't like the law and get busted I can see how it can make one feel. But the thought is about as absurd as they come.
"One should not have to."
The information is there for the taking. That's the way gov't works.
"So if you are on a suburban road at 35 or 40, you literally don't go 1 or 2 over?"
Correct. Within the margin of error of the speedometer, I do as I say, exactly the limit.
"Remember, a law is a law, and one should not doubt laws nor the people who make them.... "
If I speed and get a ticket, mea culpa. But I'm not trying to convince anybody the problem is with the local politically motivated system who set the speed limits lower so law enforcement has an easy target. Or. The issue with the traffic engineers who culled these numbers out of thin air without first consulting with me.
Please explain in further detail. Tell me why they are dumbed down even more than raw numbers alone. Tell me how relating a number to another relevant number is dumbing it down. It's time for you to answer.
"Well if you don't like the law and get busted I can see how it can make one feel"
I've never had a ticket of any kind in my life, not even a parking ticket. The only time I have been pulled over was by some moron cop who didn't understand year of manufacture plates on a vintage car (yeah, the tags were just 40 years out of date...sure). But I know bad legislation when I see it.
"But the thought is about as absurd as they come. "
Feel free to explain that one too. Show me how revenue is not a factor. Everyone knows that some parties are very attached to that money.
" That's the way gov't works. "
You mean making decisions but lacking the guts to answer for them? Why can't you come up with some more info, as you supposedly know so much about how the rulemakers are of such high credibility and honest motives?
" I do as I say, exactly the limit. "
Scary thing is that I don't doubt you. You'll gladly do as your told...it's the law, who are you to question it, right?
Show me that "traffic engineers" and civil engineers are the ones setting every limit.
Too much halfwit conservative radio, methinks...
Hmm. I see the problem now. Too much liberal agenda.
The points in your post are beyond laughable. You seem to point to a conspiracy theory. Well I won't try and change your mind.
"You'll gladly do as your told"
Yes I do. And one of the reasons is I live in the worst state for insurance and pay a mere yearly pittance. I have no problems with that. But hey if you have the desire to speed, please feel free, just keep out of NJ.
Another corollary. When ABS come out, the insurance company gave me a insurance discount (1994) on one of my vehicles that had ABS; saying it was projected to cause less accidents and fatalities. A scant 1.5-2 years later they cancelled the discount citing NO STATISTICAL significance due to the ABS equipped vehicle.
At the time I was miffed that the base price in the vehicle was MORE to cover the cost of the ABS and I mildly was appreciative of the so called discount for having to spend a whole lot more money on ABS. I also do not like if the ABS will now 10-11 years go bad for it will cost exponentially more money to fix than a non ABS equipped vehicle. On the 6 vehicles and 372,000 or so miles, I have NEVER had the ABS function automatically. I have only functioned the ABS in procedural practices once or twice a year. So for me it is almost a total waste.
While the above quote in a more extreme context can be seen as exclusionary and perhaps pejorative, it really is a graphic illustration of what I was saying in a previous post about STATES datas and correlations being more important in both the practical and real sense of where each person drives.
Now unlike my fellow poster I'm not suggesting that if you are going the speed limit + .005 you are breaking the law. That's a bit pejorative. I think if you add 1 mph for every 5mph over 25, that's a good middleground for margin of error, where you wouldn't get a ticket.
My insurance company gives a ABS discount BTW.
I totally do not understand your second point.
I am glad for you but perhaps the insurance company came to that conclusion (no statistical significance due to ABS) from a broader population in that they insure USA and WW. Needless to say Id rather have the discount than not.
"I think if you add 1 mph for every 5mph over 25, that's a good middleground for margin of error, where you wouldn't get a ticket."
In CA that is between 8-10 mph over( 65-70 mph) when they will consider pulling you over if you happen to do that dance infront of a law enforcement type.
Your relative safety in say NJ is not going to effect/affect on a practical level, the accident and injury and fatality rate in say CA.
Hey, if you for whatever reasons can't or otherwise will not answer the questions asked of you, just say so, and we'll all move on. Don't try to turn your inability answer anything back on me, that's a sad ploy and it simply will not work.
"But hey if you have the desire to speed"
I'd love for you to explain where you got that. Given your inability to answer anything asked of you, though, I won't expect much.
Hell, I almost never go more than 10 over any limit for more than a several second spurt, and even that is uncommon. I'm not a speed demon, it's not worth the risk of the cherry-picking revenue collector hiding out under the next overpass or behind a blind corner. But at the same time, I do not believe the stories the overpaid underworked irresponsible powers that be give us when it comes to speed regulations.
" Too much liberal agenda. "
Blind deference to "authority" and an unwillingness to question the motives of those in charge = conservative agenda,
Ahh. Correct. But as I happen to get to California on an occasion or two and I bring that mindset to my driving on the CA freeways and streets, it *may* result in a safer CA as I will be driving within the law, spirit of the law and the speed limit.
But we can also suggest that dangerous and inconsiderate acts that result in fatalities are localized as well. So if I'm heading down the freeway at 100mph and crash, it has little effect on anybody in a residential neighboorhood a half-mile away.
There were no questions asked of me, only random opinions on the conspiracy of political motivations.
Maybe you have some answers?
Blind deference to "authority"
I use my power every year, do you? And after I use my influence I go back to obeying the law. Not to say things can't be improved. But at the very bottom of my list is worrying about whether the speed limit is set artifically low, so some motorists are easy pickins' for law enforcement.
While it is up to a number of governments to set speed limits, far and away I believe the speed limits are set for the greatest common good, even if you believe it's to collect revenue. There is however an easy answer: "Don't speed".
"unwillingness to question the motives of those in charge = conservative agenda,"
Opposite of conservate = liberal agenda. Thinks that a conspiracy lurks around every corner.
Maybe you're just a careless reader. I'll copy and paste them again, just for you:
"Please explain in further detail. Tell me why they are dumbed down even more than raw numbers alone. Tell me how relating a number to another relevant number is dumbing it down. "
"Feel free to explain that one too. Show me how revenue is not a factor"
"Show me that "traffic engineers" and civil engineers are the ones setting every limit. "
Aah this is nice: " Maybe you have some answers? "
I don't think you're in a position to ask anything until you answer what is asked of you.
I hate to be cliched...but put up or shut up.
"I use my power every year, do you?"
What "power" do you use? What actually happens? I think you're giving more credit than is due. Wouldn't be the first time.
" But at the very bottom of my list is worrying about whether the speed limit is set artifically low"
Well, you sure put out a lot of effort defending it...
And yet again, if safety was the real factor, limits more or less would never exceed 45 or so. Anything more, and other factors come into play.
"Thinks that a conspiracy lurks around every corner."
Beats the alternative, that thinks as long as it is in a position of power (and submits to certain social and pseudo-moral ideals), that it should be free from questioning and accountability and couldn't be anything more than perfectly honest and righteous.
Blind deference to "authority"....indeed.
But we can also suggest that dangerous and inconsiderate acts that result in fatalities are localized as well. So if I'm heading down the freeway at 100mph and crash, it has little effect on anybody in a residential neighboorhood a half-mile away. "..
I am glad you agree with what I have been saying. I tend to take a more "when in Rome do what the Romans do" type of mentality, however. On my last trip in the Eastern seaboard, I was driving in Massachusetts and Rhode Island with a rental car and in a driving rain was going no faster than 75 mph in a 65 mph zone. At this snails pace even the local Sheriff and State Troopers whizzed by me. I was of course in the far right or slow lane and thankfully no one was climbing up my six, at that speed.
But I'm glad we are in agreement, that speeding to excess can be dangerous not only to yourself, but other drivers as well.
fintail - our ever present host as asked that we stop the banter. As I'm not going to cut and paste any additional commentary from your opinings, I'll leave it to you to figure out what the heck is the message you have been trying to convey. I'm not sure you know.
But I'm glad we are in agreement, that speeding to excess can be dangerous not only to yourself, but other drivers as well. "...
While I am glad you agree with what I have been saying, I am not sure where you get I was being the aggressive one by going slower than almost everybody else. If anything, this shows that "keep right except to pass or slower traffic keep right" REALLY works. I also have to add that in the described situation, I did NOT I feel I was being aggressed upon nor was I being "aggressive". The local constables passing me really indicated that I was going far too slow (at 75) in a 65 mph zone.
If one also looks at the states' of RI and MA you will find that the accident injury and fatality rates per 100M miles are better than the already safest in recorded history USA overall rate!
Check the stats in Germany and other Euro countries where speed on the hwy is typically 130 but often 150 or more. These highways are safer than US interstates because you pass and then get the hell over. Here, some bozo sits in the passing lane endlessly, pissing off everyone behind him. Whose fault is the subsequent aggressive encounters? I think my friend above would give the ticket to the people trying to get around the jerk, when, in fact, the jerk should lose his license. Who do the cops ticket in North America? The speeder. There are something like 3 offenses that will get you in serious trouble on the autobahn: not pulling over when you should; tailgating; shooting the finger.
There are many communities along major interstates which make a significant chunk of their annual revenue off highway tickets. In my community, a border city linking USA and Canada (Windsor, Ontario) the cops routinely set up radar screens pulling people over on a divided 6 lane road (really a highway) with a speed limit of 60kmh. Typical speed is 80. Ticket people day in day out, double charge because it is considered a 'safety zone'. Most recipients of the tickets are local or transient cars, while it is trucks that run lights and kill pedestrians and people in cars. This is a total speed trap with no purpose other than taxation without representation. There are web sites warning people about these types of traps and AAA used to warn their members of them too. Nonexistent? Nah.
As I've said before, I generally try to avoid cellphone use altogether while driving (or while doing just about anything for that matter...).
WHACK! Ouch.... who just slapped me with reality?!? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So in that sense be careful what you ask or wish for : in effect you are getting it and the cell phone yapper is a GOOD example of that.
I
Note
That
All
Is
Liberal!
As has been pointed out on this very thread before, the raw number of fatalities is irrelevant, as it doesn't account for the increased number of vehicles on the highway, or whether those people are driving more in any given timeframe (usually one year). The state of the economy and gasoline prices, for example, influence both the total number of miles driven, as well as what percentage of those miles constitute "pleasure driving."
Plus, the total number of vehicle fatalities includes motorcycles. Motorcycle fatalities have been on the upswing over the last few years, but not because of speed, but because an increasing number of states have repealed their mandatory helmet laws.
The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is the accurate way to measure highway safety. And that number is at a record low.
kdshapiro: Incorrect. The laws do not stop these things from happening. They allow society to punish the offenders.
Laws are also passed for their deterrent effect. That's part of Legislation 101. The fact that a statute doesn't deter EVERYONE does not necessarily make it invalid. If that were the case, we wouldn't pass any laws.
kdshapiro: It's because they can, plain and simple. Breaking the law is breaking the law. One doesn't need exploration, we need huge fines for speeders. Guarantee get hit with a $1,000 fine for 25 over the limit once, only the foolish will continue speeding.
Enact that sort of fine, and I guarantee that even police officers will be reluctant to hand out tickets.
When Pennsylvania Governor Rendell suggested adding a surcharge to all traffic tickets, guess which group objected, on the grounds that its members would be reluctant to sock drivers with big fines? Yep, the police officers and police chiefs...
It's a waste of time, money and police resources to target people driving at 80 mph in the 65 zone on a limited access highway for enforcement efforts.
kdshapiro: You have been pretending as much as me and have not presented a single fact to the contrary that indicates within reason and guidelines there is a mostly political motivation for speed limits, rather than a safety and rational view for the common good. (In other words you believe that by setting the speed limit artifically low, then revenues can be made by ticketing speeders. I'm actually okay with that as long as enforcement is consistent.)
Well, let's see...there has never been any proof that reduced speed limits save lives. And we have several officials admitting in today's USA Today that police in many states give people a 10-mph "cushion" before pulling them over for speeding. If those drivers were really death on wheels, as certain posters seem to suggest, I would think that the authorities should make pulling them over a priority....
Obviously, the police seem to view it differently. And since troopers have to report to their commanding officers, and the commanding officers have to report to the head of the police force, who, in turn must answer to a politician (usually the governor), I'd say that's a pretty good indication of what the police and politicians think of posted speed limits.
It would seem to me that if speed limits were set on a rational basis and for "the common good," then they should be enforced to the letter. And here we have officials basically admitting in a national newspaper that they aren't.
Incidentally, few months back, I seem to recall you bragging that traffic fines in New Jersey are being used to lower property taxes, which, the last time I checked, has nothing to do with traffic safety. Apparently, generating money for property tax relief is more important than setting proper speed limits. So, thank you for providing that example.
kdshapiro: I think you should do some research, learn something and report back to us on how the system really operates.
Let's do research together - you can discover how to accurately measure highway safety. Somehow, I have the feeling that my research will be less "eye opening" than yours will be.
kdshapiro: So now we're talking about Prohibition in an amusing analogy to understand the system and speeding?
No, we're talking about Prohibition to understand what happens when government caters to an uninformed minority and passes laws that end up being ignored by the majority. Those who don't learn from history end up repeating it.
imidazol97: I marvel at the way you try to twist people's words... and then conclude they disproved their own comment. Perhaps you've traveled I75 from Cincinnati to Dayton in HEAVY traffic at 70+ mph in left lane... and already know that what you posed wasn't happening.
Let's review...you argued that heavier traffic volumes since the beginning of the interstate highway system have made it dangerous to travel at 80 mph (after I noted that the interstate highway system was designed to allow a typical 1956 car to travel safely at 80 mph).
You then said that I-75 in Ohio is "clogged" with traffic. The logical inference is that if the roads are clogged, then NO ONE is driving 80 mph. I've noted this phenomenon in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C., Baltimore and New York City. If traffic is heavy, speeds are lowered automatically. This has happened on EVERY major highway I've ever used.
(Is Ohio somehow different? If so, please explain. During my travels through the state, that difference is not immediately apparent.)
Which means that there is no need to worry about people driving 80 mph, because, they can't. It's physically impossible, unless they are in vehicles that levitate above the rest of traffic. Do they have that type of vehicle in Ohio yet?
So, yes, you did disprove your own argument.
imidazol97: I'm still waiting for you to prove in a controlled experiment manner that it does not cause increased injuries and fatalities from accidents.
You don't need a controlled experiment. You have fatality rates, both before and after speed limits were raised on interstate highways (most recently in 1995), available at your fingertips. Several posters, including myself, have cited them to buttress our arguments.
You choose to ignore those statistics.
As have been pointed out in prior posts the number of fatalities is very relevant. It's an indicator of what's really happening on the road.
Okay so heres the challenge. I would like you and fintail to get together and show the following:
1. Prove the assertion that speed limits are artifically low so that speeders are an easy target for police. That civil engineers are receive bloated salaries and do their job without qualifications.
2. Prove the assertion that people actually get hurt less at high speeds. In other words, getting into any accident at say 85 vs 55 results in less injury to the vehicle's passengers.
3. Prove the assertion autobahn assertion. That people don't get hurt worse crashing at 140 than at 55.
4. Show some meaningful relevant data other than dumbed down and meaningless fatalities per 100M miles from the NHTSA website.
The other thing that needs to be said is that at WHATEVER speed limits there are, that does not prevent one from going almost literally ANY speed at/or under THAT particular speed limit. I have literally shown that in my MA/RI motor car ramblings and not only did you ignore the significance of what I was saying, you misintrepreted it to mean that SPEEDING was very dangerous!!????
So if you are paranoid and/or must go the speed limits and under, that is ALWAYS in the cards!?
Now I consider that this motorcyclist the ultimate inconsiderate driver in that if they lost control and bumped into a vehicle, skidded and fell down, etc., that more than one of us would probably run over them and then have a big mess to clean up on/under our vehicles, not to mention that we would be delayed for supper, have to do police reports, etc. Their fall-down would cause some drivers to try and avoid and maybe lose control, go in ditch, cross median and crash head-on, etc. I expect that someone will say that all regular vehicles should maybe have slowed down (to what?) when we spot this motorcyclist in mirror. Maybe we were driving too fast (at speed limit on dry road in daylight) for conditions - the condition being a crazy motorcylist.
Not the first time encountered this situation. Over last few years seen a lot of whacky driving by one or a group of motorcyclists on interstates. Don't know much about motorcycle models, but the crazies on interstates that I am referring to have definitely not been big Harleys. Also, in fairness to all motorcyclists, have only seen this bad behavior on interstates. Lots of motorcyclists are seen in our rural part of county on weekends and their driving habits and interfaces with regular vehicle motorists are proper and courteous. I do not see them doing any crazy things on state or county highways.
Both statements are true.
The fatality rate is down due to increased safety in vehicles and roads. It would be down even further if there weren't so many unneeeded SUVs in the fleet, driven by inconsiderate purchasers.
...there has never been any proof that reduced speed limits save lives.
Yet it stands up to even a cursory application of reason. Increased speeds are almost impossible to account for any decrease in accident fatalities. OTOH, it's obvious that accidents that occur at higher speeds are more likely to result in a fatality. Not to mention that accidents are obviously more likely due to reduced reaction time.
...if those drivers were really death on wheels...
This is hyperbole that proves nothing. One does not have to be "death on wheels" to be engaging in marginally more risky behavior.
...what happens when government caters to an uninformed minority...
Why, we end up with Bush and Iraq :=)
...there is no need to worry about people driving 80 mph, because, they can't.
Wow, quite a statement. While it's true when traffic is heavy, it's certainly not true when it's not, which is most of the 24 hour day. Most of my time on the NY state thruway, 80+ is quite possible, sometimes for hours at a time.
You have fatality rates, both before and after speed limits were raised ...
Since speed limits are not isolated as the only variable, it's impossible to make any conclusion regarding cause and effect (from speeding) from the fatality rates alone.
I think the LLC discussion was more fruitful than this :=)
Somebody, go out and do something nutty on the road so someone can write about it here. Quick.
It is up to those who make the rules to prove their decisions. You have no right to issue a challenge when you perpetually dodge the questions asked to you.
It is up to you to prove that civil engineers are the people setting the limits. I see no evidence. You make the claim...
You still have yet to ante up regarding the idea that data related to other relevant data is somehow more dumbed down than raw data alone. I don't expect an answer.
"I think the LLC discussion was more fruitful than this :=) "
You're right there. This is pointless. Some people are just completely ignorant of logic and reality. Some people will willingly do anything they are told, so long as the directive comes from a supposed authority.
"Somebody, go out and do something nutty on the road so someone can write about it here. Quick. "
Well, I had a woman in a CTS driving beside me on the way to work who would vary her speed between 25 (10 under) and 45 depending on nothing at all. Guess what, she was yapping on the phone! I hope she ends up rear-ending a new Ferrari and gets sued so hard her head spins.
Wha, huh?
...and interpretation other can "stamp out speeding" is almost literally impossible for you.
Ermph, wazzat?
...it does not conform with your idea and ideal of what should be happening out there.
Decoder ring, please! INXS of a nexus!
WHATEVER speed limits there are, that does not prevent one from going almost literally ANY speed at/or under THAT particular speed limit.
Holy smokes, who knew!?! You don't have that RFID-controlled speed governor that the rest of us have??????
So if you are paranoid and/or must go the speed limits and under, that is ALWAYS in the cards!?
I think my parser just blew a fuse.
I also have seen motorcyclists slaloming through freeway traffic at highly extra-legal speeds. But I have also experienced bikes racing through suburban-commercial areas... generally by sound rather than sight: bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, bwaaaaaaaaaah.
One night, when I was at a gas station filling my Tacoma, I observed a police car parked in a lot of a convenience store to my right. A half-block to my left a motorcyclist was stopped at a light. When the light changed the bike took off like a rocket.... What a rush (thought the rider), A full throttle rip through the gears.
The cop must have had his engine running. He was out of that lot and in pursuit right now! :P
james
The other thing that the NHTSA data shows that most of the accidents and injuries and fatalities if not fully 1/2, happen to folks that were in TOTAL compliance with the law or more germane to our discussion speed limits. Speed limits are indeed no shield or guarantee against accident injuries, fatalities, as much as we would like to think that it would.
Here is a personal illustration. I was in heavy commute traffic (in an suv at the time
) on a two lane same direction heading doing less than the speed limit. A car was following me, again in supposed "safe" speed limits and the driver was fiddling with her "computer"located on the front passenger seat!!??? I braced for impact only because there was no "OUT." Sure enough, she plows her rental car into my six. We finally can pull over and she jumps out and apologizes profusely, starts to give me all the information, etc. etc. yada yada. Turns out shes an out of town Intel engineer in town for an engineering meeting. I was uninjured, and started to look at the six of my vehicle for what I thought was going to be massive rear end damage. There was absolutely NO damage!! However her rental car sustained what I figured to be app 2k and above worth of damage and to boot needed to be towed. So I just said ok and let her go. At the time the CA rules required one to file a report if there was over 650 dollars to ones vehicle. As I said before there was not even a paint scratch.
So I am reminded that no good deed goes unpunished.
I agree and bow out of this side of the discussion. The conspiracy theory is a bit old and there is no data out there to really support some of the suppositions of the previous posts. The expression: "Lies, damn lies and statistics" is as valid as ever.
Ok, most accidents/death/injury are not because of speeding. True, but to conclude from that that speeding does not contribute to accidents/death/injury would be invalid.
Most accidents/death/injury in general do not involve mountain climbing, but that hardly means that mountain climbing is not a high risk activity.
Speed limits are indeed no shield or guarantee against accident injuries, fatalities, as much as we would like to think that it would.
I'm not aware of a single sentient being that thinks that they are a guarantee. Are you? Do not count creatures made of straw.
Here is a personal illustration...
A car was following me, again in supposed "safe" speed limits...
This is an "illustration"...of what? That accidents can happen at or below the speed limit? Is this news????
...no good deed goes unpunished.
What good deed?
...into my six...
...look at the six of my vehicle...
The six??? The stix? The sex?
Is this some coded msg from a CIA operative? Deep Ruking?
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Mania Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
One clue it is not sex, so get your mind out of the gutter.
No, but my mind reading is getting better.
I had an incident about 3 years ago to the day right along these lines.....
I was driving my '69 Chevy C20 with 53 sheets of 3/4" OSB in the bed and towing a 26' flatbed trailer loaded with 13K pounds of lumber. Now, don't get me wrong, that was a heck of a load for a 3/4 ton pickup, but it was A LOT OF LUMBER and everyone on the road could see it was A LOT OF LUMBER. I am driving on a 4-lane divided "expressway" riddled with stop lights, SL of 45 mph. I am driving about 35, down a slight hill off a bridge, with moderately heavy traffic. I start slowing for a stop light ahead of me.... I am in the front of my lane (no vehicles between me and stoplight) and had just passed the start of the solid white line. My plan? Slow down such that my momentum is stopped about 20 feet before the crosswalk. I'm closing in on it.... 150 feet, 100 feet.... 75 feet..... BRAAAAWWWWWW........ a monkey on a Harley zips past me (and all the other traffic) between the lanes, whips in front of me, and stops short of the light. So, not only is this guy moronic for ignoring even the most basic traffic pattern rules, he stopped short in front of a heavily loaded vehicle - this is akin to cutting and stopping in front of a loaded 18-wheeler, then wondering why it couldn't stop.... I worked like hell to stop that rig and managed to stop less than 18" off the back tire of that bike. Had I been driving something new, I would have had no problem punting his [non-permissible content removed] into oncoming traffic, but I would have been heartbroken to damage my old truck. Ah.... the conundrums of life.
2. Prove the assertion that people actually get hurt less at high speeds. In other words, getting into any accident at say 85 vs 55 results in less injury to the vehicle's passengers.
3. Prove the assertion autobahn assertion. That people don't get hurt worse crashing at 140 than at 55.
You're using the accident as a foregone conclusion in an effort to end debate. Show me a higher accident rate resulting from higher speeds. Show me a higher injury rate. Show me a higher fatality rate. I don't think you can.
4. Show some meaningful relevant data other than dumbed down and meaningless fatalities per 100M miles from the NHTSA website.
So it's dumbed down and meaningless because it doesn't back up your blind assertion that speed kills? Normalizing the data to passenger miles traveled is what gives the statistics meaning!
Without looking at the RATE, we can come up with such cockamamy suggestions as banning air travel, unless you can prove to me that people get hurt less at 500 mph in an airplane than at 10 mph in a horse and buggy.
Speed doesn't kill... it's the sudden stop that's a b*tch. And speed doesn't cause most accidents; it's speed differential.
Actually, it's a general navigation term, and used in the vernacular even more. But it's almost always used with the "o'clock" descriptor, hence the low clarity.
Weather Conditions
Traffic Congestion
Road Conditions
Road Construction
Overall Vehicle Safety
Vehicle Safety Device Availability/Usage
Local Traffic Patterns
Vehicle Type
Overall Vehicle Age
Speed Limits
Law Enforcement Presence
Alcohol/Drug Usage
Availability of Emergency Response Personnel
etc..
Can't do it? Don't feel bad, neither can the NHTSA, or anyone else for that matter. Anyone smart enough to try fitting all these factors into a regression model probably already knows what my graduate professor said over and over:
"If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess."
Speaking of meaningless, that phrase is a doozy. Any speed? Hey, we're still alive, disproving that notion once and for all. Obviously, context matters and as the term is generally used, it means "higher speed increases risk, all else being equal".
Normalizing the data to passenger miles traveled is what gives the statistics meaning!
Without normalizing further to factor speed, it's still meaningless in this "debate".
Speed doesn't kill... it's the sudden stop that's a b*tch.
You're contradicting yourself, basically proving the case for higher speed increasing risk, since higher speed results in higher decelleration forces (the sudden stop).
Show me a higher accident rate resulting from higher speeds.
It should be intuitively obvious given slower reaction times, longer braking distances (resulting in more collisions) and greater collision forces (resulting in more injury and death when a collision does occur), but since some still don't see this, here's what the NHTSA says:
“The chances of death or serious injury double for every 10 mph over 50 mph that a vehicle travels.”
Here's the link: Traffic Safety Facts 1994 Speed
"For vehicles traveling 10 miles per hour above or below the average speed, crash involvement rates are 6 times those for vehicles traveling within 10 miles per hour of the average speed."
I dare say that backs up my assertion that it's the speed differential that causes more problems than just speed.
Later on, the NHTSA report states "Of all speed related fatalities, 94 percent occurred on roads with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour or less."
The relationship you try to establish between absolute speed and crash involvement is far from "intuitively obvious." And your one quote from the NHTSA report is just poorly written, because what's not stated is that the accident is already assumed.
The problem in our transportation system is that while there are a myriad of factors that come into the safety equation, speed is probably the easiest to directly measure. The radar gun can sometimes be misled, but it provides an actual measurement and courts seem to like it. Police would have a harder time making an LLCing ticket stick than a speeding ticket, so they go after the speeder even if the LLC is creating more of a hazard.
li_sailor, I don't care. Go as slowly as you want, just stay out of the passing lane.