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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
You are absolutely correct. However, I did exactly what you said and got DIFFERENT results. Since I have app 57,000 miles my prediction for this leg would have been AT least 47/48. to the 45 mpg actual.
So for me, it is in the category of "suspension of disbelief".
You talkin to me? Can't tell. I'll answer anyway.
Looking at the NHTSA document, I see that there are 2 answers. In fatal 2 vehicle collisions, they found no statistical difference in DRL use. However, there was a 7% reduction in non-fatal 2 vehicle collisions. So you can draw your own conclusion from those numbers. Here's the link.
let's move on back to inconsiderate drivers
Actually, we never left...the issue was inconsiderate drivers with DRL and this was a sidebar into that. An annoyance that is justified is reasonable, whereas an annoyance that is not is inconsiderate :=)
But in fact has saved my hide at least once and I get an insurance discount for having it. :P
The fact is, it's tough to have a statistic against things you can't measure. But if you can't measure it doesn't mean it's not valid.
Oh and the 9%, let's round to 10% to make it easy to work with, seems outrageous. I get around 24 mpg and my car has DRLs. Let's work backward, does that mean if I disconnect them I will get a magical 27 mpg? I don't think so. For 27mpg I would disconnect the DRLs.
No sooner did I ask that he use the door bell next time, I got the following response: "NEXT TIME, WHY DON'T YOU SLEEP HARDER!"
What's that, "sleep harder" stuff? I just about leapt from the balcony to strangle this idiot with the only weapon I had at the time, my skivies! :mad:
Only in America, do we often not take responsibility for our actions and place the blame on others, or in this particular case, the offended party!
Fortunately for me, this was a one time incident by this neanderthal. :mad:
Anytime I notice headlights being off, I flash my headlights several times to alert the oncoming traffic that their headlights are off and make themselves harder to see.
Don't most if not all states mandate that yellow parking lights are to be used only when stationary and further state that after sunset, headlights are to be turned on?
How is it that these drivers don't know that there driving with out the headlights being on? If you saw a vehicle from the opposite direction repeatedly flashing his lights on and off, wouldn't you think that you should be checking to see if your lights are on?
I sometimes get so frustrated that I've quietly convinced myself that perhaps crossing onto oncoming traffic might get these idiots to turn on their lights. Just once, I'd like to run into one of these people, sit in my car and wait for them to approach me as to why I crossed into oncoming traffic. I love to them tell them, "Sorry, I didn't see you!"
Just me $.02!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The results of my survey: posers as a percent by vehicle type... in reverse order:
#4 - sporty cars: mustangs, camaros, and various sport coupes & sedans
#3 - SUVs... preferably with custom accessories like altezza tail-lights and "DUBs"
#2 - Pickup trucks, again with an accessorizing bias.
and the grand prize goes to (are you ready for this)....
18-wheelers!!!! Log trucks, dump trucks, vans, flat-beds any and all.
Yup-yup-yup, it's true, I swear. I don't understand it, but it's true.
james
But in fact has saved my hide at least once and I get an insurance discount for having it. :P
The fact is, it's tough to have a statistic against things you can't measure. But if you can't measure it doesn't mean it's not valid.
Oh and the 9%, let's round to 10% to make it easy to work with, seems outrageous. I get around 24 mpg and my car has DRLs. Let's work backward, does that mean if I disconnect them I will get a magical 27 mpg? I don't think so. For 27mpg I would disconnect the DRLs. "...
In fact, your assertion is bogus. They routinely assert " this and that" saves lives and once it is adopted, whether you like to admit it or not, do not longitudinally validate it. So being as how we are on the subject of DLR's, I'd like it to be like:
We project DLR's will save "X" number of lives in a years time. And after a longittudinal study we find: either X plus lives or X minus lives per year have been saved. And let the chips fall where they may. The NHTSA assertioned the rate of carnage: fatalities, accidents and injuries with the national speed limit raised to 65 mph from 55 would increase. What really happened is their assertion was actually a REVERSE indicator of wide spread increased CARNAGE and accidents and injuries, i.e., there was LESS fatalities and accidents and injury rates than what they predicted.
Again, I am glad that on one car I have neither ABS nor DLR's. Not only does it cost less, there is a whole lot less to go wrong.
Back then though, PA law stated that headlights had to be used from 30 minutes AFTER sunset to 30 minutes BEORE dawn.
I think most state laws, including PA's, have been changed that require headlights from sunset to sunrise, as well as when windshield wipers are in use.
About the 18-wheelers and dump trucks with only parking lights on, isn't it pretty much limited to those that put strings of lights along the entire front and sides of their trucks, looking like Christmas decorations? Or should I say Halloween decorations?
Ruking: one more time -- it was GM, not the big bad guv'mint, that wanted DRLs.
If that happened to me, I'd find a media person or something. That's insane.
Actually there are more fatalities on the road than every before unfortunately. I do believe it has leveled off somewhere recently, but the sad fact is more people die on the roads these days.
"Again, I am glad that on one car I have neither ABS nor DLR's. Not only does it cost less, there is a whole lot less to go wrong."
Well I hope you never need ABS, for it has saved me from a very expensive repair bill at least once. That one time made it worth it.
DLRs are a bit different but the NHTSA seems to indicate they are useful. But I do assert if it makes you easier to see than it makes the other driver easier to avoid you. The fact the common sense sometimes falls by the wayside in these conversation amazes me. This argument reminds me of the seat belt arguement and the people who croon if I were wearing a seat belt I wouldn't be alive today. Maybe we should stop wearing seat belts. :sick:
There was no law at that time that headlights were needed outside of towns so occasionally you would see a car driving on a highway with only parking lights on.
Also, at that time if you parked on the street at night in any place in the country except London, you had to leave your parking lights on all night, or a Bobby would leave a ticket on your windshield. Since you could find yourself with a flat battery in the morning, I and other people got around that by hanging a kerosene lantern on a door handle. That was acceptable.
But DRLs use less electrical energy than low beams while not being intrusive to the drivers and provide most of the benefit of high beams, fog lights, horns and sirens. And one does not have to remember to turn them on.
Of course, you are always free to turn on your headlights.
That is incorrect. The total number of fatalities on America's roads peaked at 55,704 in 1972. That figure is from NHTSA.
By contrast, the number of fatalities in 2003 was 42,643. (As of today, 2003 is the latest year for which final figures are available, although preliminary reports indicate that the total will decline for 2004.) And that is with a greater number of vehicles being driven by more drivers a greater distance than ever before.
There are not "more fatalities on the road than ever before." FEWER people are dying on the roads these days, which is all the more remarkable considering the greater number of vehicles and the dramatic increase in miles driven by those vehicles.
And those figures include fatalities from pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. Any increase over the past few years has come from motorcyclists. Fatalities involving other vehicles have declined.
Accidents have declined as well, so it is also incorrect to say that accidents are on the increase. They are not.
That is incorrect. The total number of fatalities on America's roads peaked at 55,704 in 1972. That figure is from NHTSA.
By contrast, the number of fatalities in 2003 was 42,643. (As of today, 2003 is the latest year for which final figures are available, although preliminary reports indicate that the total will decline for 2004.) And that is with a greater number of vehicles being driven by more drivers a greater distance than ever before.
There are not "more fatalities on the road than ever before." FEWER people are dying on the roads these days, which is all the more remarkable considering the greater number of vehicles and the dramatic increase in miles driven by those vehicles.
And those figures include fatalities from pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. Any increase over the past few years has come from motorcyclists. Fatalities involving other vehicles have declined.
Accidents have declined as well, so it is also incorrect to say that accidents are on the increase. They are not. "
I'd like to add those figures are even more incredible given the inconsiderateness and cluelessness shown on our nations highways.
I also do not really mind one being of the opinion that there are MORE fatalities accidents and injuries per capita, if this fear /knowledge motivates one to drive safer and actually not be part of the statistics. However that opinion is not backed up by the NHSTA data as cited by grbeck. So for the purposes of this thread to continue to assert this despite the data is disingenuous at best.
(As reported on WBBM-AM 7/14/05).
I personally believe that Daytime Running Lights make oncoming traffic more visible. This is especially true on two lane highways. I make it a habit to turn on my headlights anytime I'm on a two lane highway. In all my years of driving, I have yet to a get a "false positive" as to which way traffic on the other side of the yellow line is traveling.
Just my thoughts.
As far as stats unfortunately the NHTSA reports there were 42,800 fatalities in 2004 up from 42,643 in 2003. I guess you could call it flat, but in 1999 there were 41,717. Maybe the rate at which fatalities are measured are low, but not the number.
Not that I want to go into this in detail, but the total numbers of fatalities (or fatality rates) can't be used as an indicator of the effects of speed limit changes that affected only certain roads (mainly interstates and other expressways).
And this weekend, I will post my inconsiderate driver, part deux, from my recent trip to the beach.
2003, 42643
1999, 41717
Yup. Sure looks like fatalities are going down. NOT..They're going UP.
What about # of accidents?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You specifically wrote that "there are more fatalities on the road than ever before."
To most posters here, "ever before" means we can go back farther than 1999 to investigate the validity of your claim. At the very minimum, we can go back to 1972 (I went back to 1957). Your contention, therefore, is still incorrect.
As for the NHTSA statistics for 2004 - if I recall correctly, those are still estimates. And last year's estimates had to be revised downward when the final figures were tallied.
210delray: Not that I want to go into this in detail, but the total numbers of fatalities (or fatality rates) can't be used as an indicator of the effects of speed limit changes that affected only certain roads (mainly interstates and other expressways).
We've beaten that horse to death numerous times on this thread, which is why I specifically avoided raising it, and stuck to refuting kdshapiro's original contention.
imidazol97: Yup. Sure looks like fatalities are going down. NOT..They're going UP.
And, as I noted, the rise is being fueled by increasing fatalities among motorcyclists, not vehicles, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Plus, since 42,800 is less than 55,704 - fatalties are NOT at record levels, which was kdshapiro's original contention.
However, since the speed limit was raised. It seems there might be a mild correlation with the increasing fatalities.
Fatalities are fatalities, we all share the same roads.
Nobody has seen driving without headlights to be a rampant problem until they have lived in (Interior) Alaska from April through September. People get so used to being abel to drive without lights 24/7 (I'll risk an attack by li_sailor and not quantify this) during June/early July that it takes well into October for some of these monkeys to turn on the lights. They occasionally remember to turn on the parking lights, though. How considerate. I have seen many rear-end collisions due to a driver on the main road not having lights on and someone else turning out from a side road. Amazingly, I'd say at least 50% of the time the person turning out is cited. Apparently it is that driver's responsibility to carry night vision goggles at all times.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Is your first thought, he drove a longer distance and therefore fatalities per mile are down?
And you can argue that some miles are riskier than others. (Not all miles are equal, in a sense.)
A much more accurate denominator is number of registered vehicles, since R.L. Polk has these data. However the problem with using registered vehicles is that some are driven more often (or more miles) than others. Some may not move at all.
So either way, your kind of stymied in a sense, which is why looking at the total nubmer of fatalities is ALSO valid.
True, but that doesn't prove anything. The important facts to remember are:
1. The long-term trend in fatalities - both in raw numbers and fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven - is down.
2. The most accurate way to measure highway safety is by logging fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven. And that figure is at a record low in 2003 - 1.48.
kdshapiro: And as you inadvertently pointed out by going to the wayback machine and the NHTSA agrees, other than seat belts, safety devices contribute to less fatalities. These safety devices were not around in prior years, thus the cars were not as safe.
Since neither I nor anyone else on this thread has denied that improved safety features on new vehicles are having a beneficial long-term impact on fatality rates, I don't see how I could "inadvertently admit" something I've never denied.
Incidentally, utilizing the "wayback machine" is also a good way to test the validity of your own assertions.
kdshapiro: However, since the speed limit was raised. It seems there might be a mild correlation with the increasing fatalities.
Except that speed limits have not been raised since 1999. Speed limits were raised in 1987, after the 55 mph speed limit was raised to 65 mph, and 1996-97, when the 65 mph national speed limit was abolished completely. States raised their speed limits in the 1996-97 timeframe.
Since that time, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven has declined to its present record low figure.
And, has been noted before, motorcyclists are accounting for a larger percentage of total fatalities over the past five or so years.
kdshapiro: What difference does it make if for example you go to the store that's a mile away and get killed in a traffic accident or you go to a store that's two miles away and get killed in a traffic accident?
Is your first thought, he drove a longer distance and therefore fatalities per mile are down?
If you fly once a year, you are much less likely to have a plane crash than if you fly monthly( say, as part of your job).
Applying that logic to driving, let's say that total fatalities in all of 2006 dramatically drop to 428, as opposed to about 42,800 for 2005. But it turns out that on December 31, 2005, gasoline supplies mysteriously dried up, and gas - when it was available - could only be bought for $25 a gallon. So most people quit driving. Suddenly, that dramatic drop in the number of fatalities doesn't look so impressive.
Of course there were fewer fatalities - there were fewer vehicles on the road. We have to measure the number of fatalities against how many miles people were actually on the road to accurately gauge highway safety.
201delray: So either way, your kind of stymied in a sense, which is why looking at the total nubmer of fatalities is ALSO valid.
But unless that total takes into account the number of miles driven, as well as demographics (more younger, inexperienced drivers, for example), it presents its own set of problems for accurately gauging highway safety.
Plus, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians are lumped in with those figures, and they present their own set of unique problems.
Increasing deaths of pedestrians and bicyclists, for example, has nothing to do with speed limits on limited access highways, as they are forbidden to use those roads.
And the number of motorcyclist deaths is probably influenced by helmet laws as much as anything else.
Indeed. The only thing that the raw fatality figures provide is the loss of human life attributable to vehicular crashes during a given time period. In order to apply this figure to surmise anything beyond that (highway safety, for example), it must be standardized between the the time periods to arrive at a "common denominator."
Think of it like comparing two fractions (and this is, admittedly, a horrid oversimplification!): 8/14 compared to 11/21. At first glance, which looks "higher?" Now, find the lowest common denominator: 7, right? At lowest common denominator, the comparison becomes: 4/7 compare to 3.67/7. In this comparison, without doing any additional math, you can easily see that the first figure is the higher of the two. You would have come to the same conclusion even if you had compared the original fractions directly and converted them to decimals, etc. But, If you had just compared the numerators, you would have come to the conclusion that the second was the higher of the two.
If you're going to compare and draw conclusions, you always have to put the data on an equal playing field. If you are looking at totals, look at the totals. But do not try to extrapolate and draw conclusions because you're likely to come to the wrong conclusion.
In terms of traffic deaths, more deaths = worse.... but worse what? Worse loss of life, and that's all you can safely conclude.
Ah, but then we have beaten this one beyond recognition, haven't we?
Its just that my car (03 celica gts) has both DRL and automatic headlights. Do I have never switched on the headlights. The just turn themselves on
Is your first thought, he drove a longer distance and therefore fatalities per mile are down?
Yes!
Its like this. Lets say there are a 100 drivers in the country A and 5 died in road crashes. And there are 100,000 drivers in country B and again 5 people died in road crashes. Which one is safer?
Its the same with the number of miles. The more that people drive, the more they are exposed to the probability of an accident. If in state X a person drives 1 mile and has a crash and in state Y a person drives 10 miles and has a crash, state Y is 10 times safer. Remove your perspective from that of a single person to 100,000 people. So in state X, you expect to have a crash every 1 mile drive. Which is why it is unsafe. Hope that clears things!
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/index.cfm?Year=2003&Accessible=0
Also, if one just drives in one localized area or specifically one state, it is obvious (IF one LQQKS) that there are not only less NUMERICAL fatalities but the RATE is FAR better. I think on a state by state basis it is unfair to bemoan the whole (safest since these statistics have been recorded) over all rate, when in fact there are a lot of states that do better than the already very safe national rates. It does follow logically that there are states which do worse in the rate and numerical fatality and accident and injury regards.
There is scant little the governor of ca can do to influence the rates in ny and vice versa and ad infinitum. So even if Arnold Whats his grewber was able to perform a miracle and have NO fatalities where 4215 existed before,
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2003&State=CA&Accessible=0
somebody will cry that 40,700 is still way over the top. This would not even mentioning that the previously GREAT NY rate would now be absolutely crappy. at 1491.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2003&State=NY&Accessible=0
While I would somewhat agree that 40k plus fatalities is over the top, there is a HUGE disconnect here. I hope I am not being vague.
As soon as I learned that most accident happen with 25 miles of where I live, I thought I would be safer if I moved...
Let's say in 2003 there are 100 drivers in County A with 5 driver fatalities. These 100 drivers drive a total of 100 miles. In 2004 in County A there are 200 drivers and 10 fatalities, but these 200 drivers drive 201 miles. Which was a better year for County A?
Well in 2003 in County A, the insurance company had to deal with only 5 fatalities vs 10 in 2004. Only 5 lives vs 10 lives. So if you look at the real economic cost and ripple effect on the economy one can see that trying to value a human life as a percentage of the miles they drive is as rational as the airline industry doing the same thing with plane crashes as the percentage of total air miles flown. Yep I can just hear Continental now: "The number of 757 crashes as a percentage of millions of miles flown is down to 10% this year, the safest year on record". :sick:
I'm surprised. I check the mileage at every refill and I am consistently +- 1 mpg from what I generally calculate. Pure highway 34, city 23 (hercules00)
I assume you mean your mileage doesn't vary much. That's true for my Frontier, which is used pretty much on the same roads at the same times each day, so the mpg doesn't vary much; for example, from 26.4 to 26.9 mpg for the last 5 fillups.:
Our Camrys have been our general purpose cars, and their gas mileage has been much less predictable.
Except that speed limits have not been raised since 1999. Speed limits were raised in 1987...and 1996-97, when the 65 mph national speed limit was abolished completely. States raised their speed limits in the 1996-97 timeframe. (grbeck)
Not quite true. States have been free to change their limits since the late 1995 repeal of the national 55/65 mph speed limits. And many have changed since 1999. Local examples: West Virginia raised its rural interstate speed limit from 65 mph to 70 in that time frame (or maybe just before '99). You can even legally go 70 within the Charleston metro area. PA has diddled with speed limits on the PA Turnpike in that period, lowering them to 55 from 65 in some of the portions through the western mountains and then raising some recently again. My home state of VA has raised HOV lane speed limits in the DC metro area and in VA Beach from 55 to 65.
Also pedestrians prohibited on interstates? Technically true, but in reality no. Everyone that exits their vehicle at a rest stop becomes a pedestrian. Ditto for those who change flats, change drivers, or whiz in the weeds between rest stops.
And no one's addressed my earlier comment -- how valid are the number of miles driven? Do you report your annual mileage to any government entity? So how do we really know the precise number? We don't -- it's an estimate, make that a guesstimate.
So even though the death rate has been declining (if you believe the reported miles driven are accurate), it's been a very slow decline through the 90s and into the '00s. And counterbalancing the increase in motorcycle deaths has been a decrease in pedestrian deaths, so the death rate for vehicle occupants hasn't changed much.
We as nation can, and should, do better. Some states do a much better job than others, notably the New England states. The deep South and Mountain states have the worst death rates.
Sounds good but like I said in a prior post... a HUGE disconnect.
And what do you mean by that?
There is a lot that can be done, but much of it is stymied by state legislators and governors. Or I could be more cynical and call them politicians.
One small example: primary seat belt laws have been shown to be effective, not only in increasing belt use, but in decreasing fatalities. But fewer than half the states have such laws. In the rest, you have be stopped for another violation before being cited for belt nonuse (and New Hampshire has no law at all for adults).
Now I know that most if not all Edmunds enthusiasts believe that seat belts are life savers.
Resistance to such laws tend to come from rural legislators, who believe they are too Big Brother-ish. And some urban legislators fear racial profiling. But conservative Indiana, Georgia, both Carolinas, and W's home state of Texas do have such laws! Go figure.
There is a lot that can be done, but much of it is stymied by state legislators and governors. Or I could be more cynical and call them politicians."...
I am not sure why you ask the question, when you have demonstrated your intuitive understanding, by your above example.
So if the Governor of CA went to your Governor of VA and said LQQK First gurlie mon of VA, you are whimp boy for not strictly enforcing seat belt compliance in your state as evidenced by your poor rate. I think the Government and the manly gurls of the legislature would predictably tell Arnold: hasta la viesta BABY!!??? Actually I think the "italian salute" would probably sum up the collective feeling?
So on a much more serious side, some of those states (such as NH, while having little or no teeth in seat belt law compliance per your example) actually have better rates than states that HAVE seat belt compliance laws!!???? etc etc.
So you are correct in getting to the "right church" by indicating it is the STATES that is where "the real rubber meets the real road"
Another example, it is a fairly common law that an open container is verboten in the cab or passenger area of a vehicle. Since I have lived and driven in the great state of Texas, the joke is why do a lot of Texans drive pick up trucks? They have to have some place to throw the empty beer cans.