yesroh: found this website this morning on the effect of speed on traffic accidents. A higher speed will allow less time for the driver to react and compound the damage because the impact will be more severe.
But that doesn't prove that higher speeds actually RESULT in higher fatalities or more accidents in the real world, as measured in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven. The report is saying that, theoretically, higher speeds leave less reaction time. Which is true. Doesn't necessarily follow that higher speeds in real life are resulting in more accidents and fatalities. Judging by the 2004 fatality figures, I'd say it's quite the opposite. And saying that 31 percent of all accidents are "speed related" is meaningless, as a "speed related" accident, as defined by NHTSA, encompasses a variety of factors, including driving too SLOWLY for conditions, or driving too fast in inclement weather (50 mph is too fast in an ice storm).
In fact, the majority of fatalities and accidents happen at speeds of r 45 mph and under !!! So indeed if your premise is correct: "No, but it does make speeding look bad :P " Would that make speed compliance and under look bad? Or at best is not a good argument for going at or under the speed limits?
This is so situation dependant that we cannot really say whether, in this situation, the person was simply not paying attention to the task at hand or if the person was "not comfortable" pulling out. In the end, the best option is to be as patient as possible and give the benefit of the doubt. Had the driver sat there AFTER the light turned green, then it would have been time to investigate further and perhaps offer a horn, assistance, etc. "Turn right on red" is optional, however convenient.
One question I have.... when there are TWO right turn lanes, may a turn from the leftmost right turn lane be made on a red light? It seems to me the answer is no because a driver must cross a lane of traffic in order to make the turn, but there is a large T intersection in Anchorage where I see this phenomenon all the time.....
Additionally, what about driving through a red light (after stopping) at a T intersection if you are going straight ahead (across the top of the T!) and are in the rightmost lane? I would think that is an okay move because it is no different than turning right on red (assuming again that there is no traffic making a left turn from the stem of the T). I have heard no good arguments against it nor have I seen it explicitly denied by law. The rule I follow is that if one does not have to cross a lane of traffic, it is okay to go on a red (after stopping) if the intersection is clear. Ergo, it is also okay to turn left from one one-way street onto another one-way street after stopping if the intersection is clear....
What are others' opinions?
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Interesting post. I remember driving through Montana a couple of times one summer when there was no daytime speed limit on the interstates and the nightime SL was 75. Oh boy.....
I was driving at 65mph like I always do in that vehicle, and most traffic was traveling at 75-80. Not bad.... comfortable passing speeds. Every so often (about once every 30 minutes), somebody would fly by at 90-95.... quick, but not unnerving. Then, every so often (I think this was about 5 times total across the width of the state twice!), someone would fly by at Ludicrous Speed. I'm serious.... the world went plaid for a second! I cannot even tell you what the vehicles were because even though the road was straight and I WAAS moving (I swear it!), I never really saw anything more than a color..... They must have been doing better than twice my speed.
The next time through, the SL was posted to 75 (and i think it was 65 night? I cannot remember now if it had a day/night limit) and there were no double-my-speed passers any more, but everyone else was still out there in the same approximate densities and that was acceptable by me. I felt reasonably safe the whole way through.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Around here we have quite a few areas with two right hand turn lanes and I've never thought twice about not being able to turn right on red from either lane. In fact we have several dual right turn yields and they typically work well.
I've visited Las Vegas several times and noticed that when they have dual left turns, they are given a green light as well as a green arrow so that cars can sit in the intersection and go when traffic is clear. I like that idea and wish they would do it here.
I guess there are now three certainties in life. Death, taxes and speeding discussions on Edmunds. :surprise:
Let's get back to real world tales of horror here and let the speed limit discussion rest for a while. Everyone has said their piece multiple times. Time to move on.
I COULD tell you about the candidate I ran into (not literally) today for the Least Comprehension of the Term ZIPPERING today
and I use that term loosly. On I295 (local interstate) near my house, there are 2 exits back to back, so the on ramp from one effectively becomes the off ramp for the next. The road is also about 4 lanes all together here, with wide shoulders.
So, I need to get off the 2nd exit. Moderate traffic, so I get over to the right ahead of time. Someone comes down the on ramp (long,and downhill - I could get up to 100 if I felt like it!) Of course, they slow down since they see me in that lane, a ways back. Plenty of room in front of me to accelerate to normal speed and blend right in. But no, they practically stop on the ramp. I decide to just slow down (instead of pushing into the middle lane and then getting right back over).
Finally, they decide to make the move, and pull in slowly (at least they signalled), ignoring the last have of the accelration lane. I ended up slowing way down, and skirting to the right as the off ramp piece comes in 9it's real wide at that point).
Would have been no aggrevation, and much safer, if they had actually used the long on ramp to speed up to traffic speed (probably 60), but that was probably too hard for them to grasp.
Of course, sometimes on this ramp you get their alter ego, the guy that screams down the ramp, cuts you off, and procedes to cut accross all 3 lanes of traffic without looking. But, at least they get on the road!
There are numerous stats that show the fatality rate for accidents increases with speed. Stats show that an accident at 60 mph is more likely to result in than an accident at 30 mph.
I certainly don't want to hear "tales of terror." Why don't you people come up with solutions? There's enough "tales of terror" with people getting killed in Iraq and other ways.
Speed has a lot to do with "tales of terror" on the road. How can you avoid it? As speed rises, reaction time diminishes greatly and CONTROL is just not there anymore.
A number of years ago, on a clear and bright day on a road with no obstructions, a semi hit me from behind as I was slowing down for joggers on the side of the road. He must have been in la-la land but he did try to avoid me. However, he smashed the left back end and my Corolla was considered totalled. I was fine. Frankly, I'd rather forget about it though.
I drive defensively every day. You always have to watch out for the other drivers. So many people do not take the privilege of driving seriously. They should give driving tests every so many years. I think the system is very lax.
I certainly don't want to hear "tales of terror." Why don't you people come up with solutions?
OK. I think there should be a general I.Q. test given for new drivers. And, special instructional classes for immigrants. All too often you see a foreigner on the road driving like they may have in their homeland. It doesn't always mesh with our ways. I think that should be taken into account when they come here and apply for a drivers license.
Kids should not be given licenses until age 21. And, only after taking drivers ed all through high school. I know how I was at 16 when I got my license. I had no business on the road. I was not ready for that kind of responsibility. You see it all around. Kids dying in car wrecks. I don't know why we continue turning them loose on the roads at 16. The human brain isn't fully formed until around age 21. Is it no wonder why so many kids get in accidents? The ability to use good judgment has not yet been realized.
I was blackballed from Snopes recently for stating a pure and simple fact. That fact being: Certain members of a particular ethnic group and of a certain gender are LOUSY DRIVERS!" They have no clue. They are oblivious to their surroundings and drive like no one else is on the road. Very discourteous. Of course I was more specific on Snopes. Everyone I talk to about this group fully agrees. All have had experience in this area. Even the police across the nation have a name for it. I've heard it on TV. They know all too well of the problem.
Anyway, education is the answer. Excuse my rambling.
Saw a winner tonight...coming home from work, got behind a 4-Runner at a large intersection. Behind me was a late model 3 series driven by a woman who works with me. The guy in the 4-Runner was distracted and not taking his free turn, even in very light traffic. I flashed my lights - SUV poser didn't even move his head. She laid on her horn, he woke up. Luck would have it that all of us were heading for the I90 onramp ahead. Mr. 4-Runner ges up to maybe 45 on the ramp, the cars ahead of him long gone. He floored it off the line and then backed off...even braking in the easy curves (I wasn't tailgating - in fact, I was waiting for him to flip it or leave the road) He swiftly moves over to the right lane of the highway, as the on ramp becomes an exit only (that I was going to take). I shoot past (well, going 60 - the speed limit) and she darts around him on the left. He hit maybe 45 on the highway, and I could see every vehicle passing him as he dawdled down the road as I exited. Luckily traffic was light.
Not a surprising encounter, given the vehicle. I'm guessing a phone or a passenger (I couldn't see in)
I would much prefer Tales of Terror and how people avoid them as well as the other more "mundane" inconsiderate drivers. Why hear an endless debate about how to solve a problem. Nobody here seems to be willing to adjust their viewpoint.
Apparently those "numerous stats" missed the part where the great majority of fatalities occur at speeds of less than 45 mph.
Anyway, back to tales of inconsiderate drivers. Recently there was a line of taffic waiting to enter I-83 during rush hour. This entrance ramp is part of a cloverleaf - traffic entering the highway must watch for traffic leaving the highway for the exit ramp on the other side of the overpass. Traffic is heavy during rush hour, which only compounds the rather poor design of the entire cloverleaf.
A 73-year-old woman in a Buick Century jumped the line instead of waiting her turn to merge and pulled out on to the highway...directly in front of a tractor trailer that was exiting I-83. The truck sideswiped the Buick and then hit the overpass wall, bursting into flames. The car driver was okay, but the truck driver died.
Granted, the outdated design of the entire cloverleaf, which really can't handle today's traffic volume at rush hour, didn't help. Jumping the line of traffic when merging on to highway certainly isn't smart, however, and even more so when the driver doesn't check for oncoming traffic...
Apparently those "numerous stats" missed the part where the great majority of fatalities occur at speeds of less than 45 mph.
Well, duh! Rural interstates are the safest roads by design (no cross traffic, roadside stands, etc.), so it stands to reason that more fatalities occur on rural 2-laners and surface steets where there are far more opportunities for cars to collide with deadly effect. For example, the deadly "T-bone" crash is unlikely to occur on an interstate.
Just the other day, we had an "inconsiderate" now-dead driver in a Grand Am who tried to pass (apparently in a legal passing zone) on a rural 2-lane road and slammed head-on into a minivan. The toll: 3 dead, including one front seat occupant in the van and an unrestrained youngster in the van's cargo area. Two children (presumably belted) in the middle row survived. There were a total of 11 injured, because 4 cars were involved in the crash.
A crash of this type is rare on the interstate, because median crossovers aren't all that common (thank goodness).
I agree...16 is too young to drive. You can't even vote or smoke until you're 18, or drink until you're 21. I think 18 might be more reasonable since, under the law, you are an adult. Push 21 if you like...I'm almost 40 so it's no problem for me. What you have is a child driving a deadly weapon who can't be held 100% accountable under the law if he kills someone. It makes no sense to give a child a motor vehicle to drive. Kids can still get to school on school buses. Parents can drive their kids to where they need to be and maybe the family unit, as us old people remember it, would come together again as a family. If 16 year olds didn't drive maybe we'd save more gas and have less teenage traffic on the road. I see parents on TV complaining about gas prices and they have two teenagers driving in the family. Well...take their cars away!
I was taught that, like U-turns, if there isn't a sign forbidding it, then it's okay once you stop and yield to oncoming traffic, or side traffic, or whatever the case may be.
This is a good illustration of what I mean. Now did you not get into a u turn accident because you were taught to do a u turn except for signs forbiddng it?
Conversely did I not get into an accident because I was taught to do a U turn sparingly?
The other day on the local news there was an all too common story. 16 YO kid gets his license, and the next day wrecks his car (10 yo BMW), killing himself and 2 friends, one of whom at least must not have been belted since he was ejected.
No contributing factors (nice clear day), single vehicle accident on a back road of some kind. Oh, I guess that fact that it was estimated that he might have been doing 80, and didn't have enough experience to probably handle hlf of that, could be called a contributing factor.
At least he didn't wipe out an innocent family too.
this is one of every parent's worst nightmares. you must not have children. the comments weren't appropos.
unfortunately, people don't take it upon themselves to spend considerable hours and mileage driving with their children.
personally, i don't have a problem with someone at 16 getting a learner's permit, but i'd like them to have to have a couple years experience (i.e. 18) before they are allowed to drive by themselves.
i like the idea of limiting the number of passengers to one (a parent) who is actively helping their son or daughter get experience behind the wheel. i like the idea that children shouldn't use a radio / cd / tape deck / sat, nor a cell phone while driving (with a parent in the passenger seat).
i advocate children should not be allowed to drive SUVs while learning to drive.
i advocate children should not be driving after dusk.
i advocate that any vehicle that is too expensive for a child to own, operate and maintain on their own, is the wrong vehicle for them.
..."this is one of every parent's worst nightmares. you must not have children. the comments weren't appropos.
unfortunately, people don't take it upon themselves to spend considerable hours and mileage driving with their children.
personally, i don't have a problem with someone at 16 getting a learner's permit, but i'd like them to have to have a couple years experience (i.e. 18) before they are allowed to drive by themselves.
i like the idea of limiting the number of passengers to one (a parent) who is actively helping their son or daughter get experience behind the wheel. i like the idea that children shouldn't use a radio / cd / tape deck / sat, nor a cell phone while driving (with a parent in the passenger seat).
i advocate children should not be allowed to drive SUVs while learning to drive.
i advocate children should not be driving after dusk.
i advocate that any vehicle that is too expensive for a child to own, operate and maintain on their own, is the wrong vehicle for them"...
Nope I have two, both of recent driving age. What would be a parents' even worse nightmare would to have been a fatality or injury victim of that yahoo's lack of driving prowness!!!! Insult to injury would have been my kids would have died and he and his friends would have lived after causing an horrific tragedy. And of course I am sure he didn't have the insurance that would be needed to compensate the potential victims. But I am sure at this point he could care less. So yes your #2 paragraph is a direct result of what his parents didn't do.
I have been for, me (39 years ago) and my kids(recent years) getting their license procedure started at 15.5 years old.
When I was 8 years old. By the time I was 16, I could drive anything. Punishing all 16 year olds for the failure of some parents to own up to thier resposibility isn't fair. It's kind of like some of the discussions on this forum. You can tell the people that spend most of thier driving time in urban congestion vs. those that live in areas where the traffic is much less dense.
I drove pickup trucks on the farm and cars around the farm when I too was 10 or so. I drove tractors long before that. Driving age is more a parent accomodation than a real need for driving at 16 on the part of the child.
So should we not punish the parents of the child who wiped out himself and his friends in the car accident, being has how the kid isnt around to be punished anymore? After all according to your logic driving is a privilege?
Here in Arizona, if you have a child with a learner's permit or restricted license (i.e. not yet a full driver) and they crash, the parents are responsible too.
but if a kid (under 18) gets in a wreck, wouldn't their parents be responsible for them anyway - assuming they were still the kid's legal guardian? Seems to me that if junior just got his license and causes a wreck that kills someone, the parents will be the ones that get sued. Most likely it will be the parent's car that is driven anyway - since in most places you can't enter into a contract (buy a car) if you are under 18.
I think most teens would feel horrible after causing a fatality with a vehicle...I don't agree they wouldn't care AFTER the accident. But with age most normally equipped folks will learn the gravity of their decisions. I think the issue isn't whether or not the individual regrets what he/she did, but that they learn BEFORE the fatality. Learning from experience is great in most cases...this is not one of them.
With all the electronics in today's automobiles, it's probably possible to create some kind of micro-chip to monitor the car's performance when your child is driving. If the parent finds the child is driving too fast then the parent could take the car from the child. So of like a V-chip for cars.
Perhaps we have glossed over the point that the driver in this instance did in fact get killed along with 2 passengers (I presume). So in effect he is missing some vital equipment? Tragically what he did or did not learn before the fatality is something not many will ever know?
So this goes back to my idea (we all have some) that a child should be 18 to drive. Then he/she would be legally responsible. The upside would be greater feel of responsibility because it's his neck if he does something stupid. When I was in school a lot of kids drove to school. School buses were fine...what was the need? There would have been less pressure on parents if the child took the bus. There would be other benefits to this...parents could 'parent' a lot easier because they'd have better control of their children and their development. I see a lot of other benefits to the development of a child who is forced to stay under parental control. I found it interesting, a few years ago, how an 80 year-old man drove into an outdoor mall and killed a bunch of people and there was a short public outcry to not allow the elderly to drive. But if you look at stats...it's the young who are the most dangerous drivers. The outcry didn't last long.
Besides...a 16 year-old can't vote. An 80 year-old can.
21 is too old for the simple fact that in the U.S. an 18 year old is an adult and a parent can legally make a child leave home at 18. Although you can work and eat and live without a car (please fintail...let's not get that argument going again!) it could make things very difficult. If you are an adult then you should have all the rights of an adult.
Except for the drinking right, of course...but this country isn't the most progressive on most fronts...
Anyway, I have no problem with 18 vs 16. Few people under that age seem to have a real need to drive, and let's face it, getting a license in most places is as difficult as fogging a mirror. Most high schoolers with jobs seem to be employed to support a car. No car = more time that should/could be spent on school.
I'd also love to see mandatory skill tests for adult drivers given every 5 years or so. No old age exemption, either.
I thought of the drinking thing...but that's probably another forum. My Sunday School teacher was once talking about drinking in Germany. He said in Germany there is no legal drinking age and people drink from children on up. And he said, they don't have a problem with drunk driving.
I said,"That's because they can't tell the difference"
Censors will probably pull that one...I always wanted to a comedian.
"Most high schoolers with jobs seem to be employed to support a car. No car = more time that should/could be spent on school."
Depends. For a lot of kids, this is true. I know when I was in high school, some of the kids that had no shot of going to college were permitted to leave an hour or two early to go work at "internships" if you will that would potentially lead to full-time employment after school. I actually had a job the last couple of years I was in high school that I left early for just so I could use it on my college application to get into my major of choice.
Get off the cell phone and drive! -- That's one of the best bumper stickers I've seen lately. And they should add: Quit shaving your face and drive! Quit putting on your makeup and drive! Quit eating and drive! Quit reading a book and drive! Quit messing around with the people in the car with you and drive! Pay attention and drive! The list goes on and on of the things that people do when they drive. No wonder there are very few people out there who should actually have a license IMO.
The most dangerous phonebooth. It shows a person with notes and cell phone in hand in a caricature of a car. It's sponsored by an insurance agency, I believe.
210delray: Well, duh! Rural interstates are the safest roads by design (no cross traffic, roadside stands, etc.), so it stands to reason that more fatalities occur on rural 2-laners and surface steets where there are far more opportunities for cars to collide with deadly effect. For example, the deadly "T-bone" crash is unlikely to occur on an interstate.
Which further proves the futility of worrying about drivers traveling 80 mph on a road system that was designed to handle it in the first place. Thanks for making my point.
This also ties in with the discussion about younger drivers. A regular reading of the local paper shows that the most common type of fatal accident occurs on a two-lane country road, and a very high percentage involve younger (under 21) drivers.
A few years ago Pennsylvania instituted a tougher, graduated licensing law for young drivers. Training requirements were increased. New drivers under the age of 18 were placed under tighter restrictions as to when they can drive during the day. Within a year the number of fatalities among 16-year-old drivers fell dramatically.
>Which further proves the futility of worrying about drivers traveling 80 mph on a road system that was designed to handle it in the first place. Thanks for making my point.
The accidents that DO occur at higher speeds give more fatalities and more property damage due to higher energy. It does not make your point, sorry. The interstate speeds do need to be controlled (and no this is not Germany autobahns.)
Comments
But that doesn't prove that higher speeds actually RESULT in higher fatalities or more accidents in the real world, as measured in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven. The report is saying that, theoretically, higher speeds leave less reaction time. Which is true. Doesn't necessarily follow that higher speeds in real life are resulting in more accidents and fatalities. Judging by the 2004 fatality figures, I'd say it's quite the opposite. And saying that 31 percent of all accidents are "speed related" is meaningless, as a "speed related" accident, as defined by NHTSA, encompasses a variety of factors, including driving too SLOWLY for conditions, or driving too fast in inclement weather (50 mph is too fast in an ice storm).
To the uninformed, yes. Educated drivers don't go by how things look on the surface, or what seems to be true, when making a judgment.
This is so situation dependant that we cannot really say whether, in this situation, the person was simply not paying attention to the task at hand or if the person was "not comfortable" pulling out. In the end, the best option is to be as patient as possible and give the benefit of the doubt. Had the driver sat there AFTER the light turned green, then it would have been time to investigate further and perhaps offer a horn, assistance, etc. "Turn right on red" is optional, however convenient.
One question I have.... when there are TWO right turn lanes, may a turn from the leftmost right turn lane be made on a red light? It seems to me the answer is no because a driver must cross a lane of traffic in order to make the turn, but there is a large T intersection in Anchorage where I see this phenomenon all the time.....
Additionally, what about driving through a red light (after stopping) at a T intersection if you are going straight ahead (across the top of the T!) and are in the rightmost lane? I would think that is an okay move because it is no different than turning right on red (assuming again that there is no traffic making a left turn from the stem of the T). I have heard no good arguments against it nor have I seen it explicitly denied by law. The rule I follow is that if one does not have to cross a lane of traffic, it is okay to go on a red (after stopping) if the intersection is clear. Ergo, it is also okay to turn left from one one-way street onto another one-way street after stopping if the intersection is clear....
What are others' opinions?
I was driving at 65mph like I always do in that vehicle, and most traffic was traveling at 75-80. Not bad.... comfortable passing speeds. Every so often (about once every 30 minutes), somebody would fly by at 90-95.... quick, but not unnerving. Then, every so often (I think this was about 5 times total across the width of the state twice!), someone would fly by at Ludicrous Speed. I'm serious.... the world went plaid for a second! I cannot even tell you what the vehicles were because even though the road was straight and I WAAS moving (I swear it!), I never really saw anything more than a color..... They must have been doing better than twice my speed.
The next time through, the SL was posted to 75 (and i think it was 65 night? I cannot remember now if it had a day/night limit) and there were no double-my-speed passers any more, but everyone else was still out there in the same approximate densities and that was acceptable by me. I felt reasonably safe the whole way through.
I've visited Las Vegas several times and noticed that when they have dual left turns, they are given a green light as well as a green arrow so that cars can sit in the intersection and go when traffic is clear. I like that idea and wish they would do it here.
I guess there are now three certainties in life. Death, taxes and speeding discussions on Edmunds. :surprise:
I COULD tell you about the candidate I ran into (not literally) today for the Least Comprehension of the Term ZIPPERING today
So, I need to get off the 2nd exit. Moderate traffic, so I get over to the right ahead of time. Someone comes down the on ramp (long,and downhill - I could get up to 100 if I felt like it!) Of course, they slow down since they see me in that lane, a ways back. Plenty of room in front of me to accelerate to normal speed and blend right in. But no, they practically stop on the ramp. I decide to just slow down (instead of pushing into the middle lane and then getting right back over).
Finally, they decide to make the move, and pull in slowly (at least they signalled), ignoring the last have of the accelration lane. I ended up slowing way down, and skirting to the right as the off ramp piece comes in 9it's real wide at that point).
Would have been no aggrevation, and much safer, if they had actually used the long on ramp to speed up to traffic speed (probably 60), but that was probably too hard for them to grasp.
Of course, sometimes on this ramp you get their alter ego, the guy that screams down the ramp, cuts you off, and procedes to cut accross all 3 lanes of traffic without looking. But, at least they get on the road!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Speed has a lot to do with "tales of terror" on the road. How can you avoid it? As speed rises, reaction time diminishes greatly and CONTROL is just not there anymore.
A number of years ago, on a clear and bright day on a road with no obstructions, a semi hit me from behind as I was slowing down for joggers on the side of the road. He must have been in la-la land but he did try to avoid me. However, he smashed the left back end and my Corolla was considered totalled. I was fine. Frankly, I'd rather forget about it though.
I drive defensively every day. You always have to watch out for the other drivers. So many people do not take the privilege of driving seriously. They should give driving tests every so many years. I think the system is very lax.
OK. I think there should be a general I.Q. test given for new drivers. And, special instructional classes for immigrants. All too often you see a foreigner on the road driving like they may have in their homeland. It doesn't always mesh with our ways. I think that should be taken into account when they come here and apply for a drivers license.
Kids should not be given licenses until age 21. And, only after taking drivers ed all through high school. I know how I was at 16 when I got my license. I had no business on the road. I was not ready for that kind of responsibility. You see it all around. Kids dying in car wrecks. I don't know why we continue turning them loose on the roads at 16. The human brain isn't fully formed until around age 21. Is it no wonder why so many kids get in accidents? The ability to use good judgment has not yet been realized.
I was blackballed from Snopes recently for stating a pure and simple fact. That fact being: Certain members of a particular ethnic group and of a certain gender are LOUSY DRIVERS!" They have no clue. They are oblivious to their surroundings and drive like no one else is on the road. Very discourteous. Of course I was more specific on Snopes. Everyone I talk to about this group fully agrees. All have had experience in this area. Even the police across the nation have a name for it. I've heard it on TV. They know all too well of the problem.
Anyway, education is the answer. Excuse my rambling.
Larry
Not a surprising encounter, given the vehicle. I'm guessing a phone or a passenger (I couldn't see in)
Anyway, back to tales of inconsiderate drivers. Recently there was a line of taffic waiting to enter I-83 during rush hour. This entrance ramp is part of a cloverleaf - traffic entering the highway must watch for traffic leaving the highway for the exit ramp on the other side of the overpass. Traffic is heavy during rush hour, which only compounds the rather poor design of the entire cloverleaf.
A 73-year-old woman in a Buick Century jumped the line instead of waiting her turn to merge and pulled out on to the highway...directly in front of a tractor trailer that was exiting I-83. The truck sideswiped the Buick and then hit the overpass wall, bursting into flames. The car driver was okay, but the truck driver died.
Granted, the outdated design of the entire cloverleaf, which really can't handle today's traffic volume at rush hour, didn't help. Jumping the line of traffic when merging on to highway certainly isn't smart, however, and even more so when the driver doesn't check for oncoming traffic...
Well, duh! Rural interstates are the safest roads by design (no cross traffic, roadside stands, etc.), so it stands to reason that more fatalities occur on rural 2-laners and surface steets where there are far more opportunities for cars to collide with deadly effect. For example, the deadly "T-bone" crash is unlikely to occur on an interstate.
Just the other day, we had an "inconsiderate" now-dead driver in a Grand Am who tried to pass (apparently in a legal passing zone) on a rural 2-lane road and slammed head-on into a minivan. The toll: 3 dead, including one front seat occupant in the van and an unrestrained youngster in the van's cargo area. Two children (presumably belted) in the middle row survived. There were a total of 11 injured, because 4 cars were involved in the crash.
A crash of this type is rare on the interstate, because median crossovers aren't all that common (thank goodness).
Kids can still get to school on school buses. Parents can drive their kids to where they need to be and maybe the family unit, as us old people remember it, would come together again as a family. If 16 year olds didn't drive maybe we'd save more gas and have less teenage traffic on the road. I see parents on TV complaining about gas prices and they have two teenagers driving in the family. Well...take their cars away!
Conversely did I not get into an accident because I was taught to do a U turn sparingly?
The other day on the local news there was an all too common story. 16 YO kid gets his license, and the next day wrecks his car (10 yo BMW), killing himself and 2 friends, one of whom at least must not have been belted since he was ejected.
No contributing factors (nice clear day), single vehicle accident on a back road of some kind. Oh, I guess that fact that it was estimated that he might have been doing 80, and didn't have enough experience to probably handle hlf of that, could be called a contributing factor.
At least he didn't wipe out an innocent family too.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
unfortunately, people don't take it upon themselves to spend considerable hours and mileage driving with their children.
personally, i don't have a problem with someone at 16 getting a learner's permit, but i'd like them to have to have a couple years experience (i.e. 18) before they are allowed to drive by themselves.
i like the idea of limiting the number of passengers to one (a parent) who is actively helping their son or daughter get experience behind the wheel. i like the idea that children shouldn't use a radio / cd / tape deck / sat, nor a cell phone while driving (with a parent in the passenger seat).
i advocate children should not be allowed to drive SUVs while learning to drive.
i advocate children should not be driving after dusk.
i advocate that any vehicle that is too expensive for a child to own, operate and maintain on their own, is the wrong vehicle for them.
unfortunately, people don't take it upon themselves to spend considerable hours and mileage driving with their children.
personally, i don't have a problem with someone at 16 getting a learner's permit, but i'd like them to have to have a couple years experience (i.e. 18) before they are allowed to drive by themselves.
i like the idea of limiting the number of passengers to one (a parent) who is actively helping their son or daughter get experience behind the wheel. i like the idea that children shouldn't use a radio / cd / tape deck / sat, nor a cell phone while driving (with a parent in the passenger seat).
i advocate children should not be allowed to drive SUVs while learning to drive.
i advocate children should not be driving after dusk.
i advocate that any vehicle that is too expensive for a child to own, operate and maintain on their own, is the wrong vehicle for them"...
Nope I have two, both of recent driving age. What would be a parents' even worse nightmare would to have been a fatality or injury victim of that yahoo's lack of driving prowness!!!! Insult to injury would have been my kids would have died and he and his friends would have lived after causing an horrific tragedy. And of course I am sure he didn't have the insurance that would be needed to compensate the potential victims. But I am sure at this point he could care less. So yes your #2 paragraph is a direct result of what his parents didn't do.
I have been for, me (39 years ago) and my kids(recent years) getting their license procedure started at 15.5 years old.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
i say it is. since when is driving a "right"?
Pushing the driving age to 21 is a bit reactionary, but 18 for a full license with 16 as a permit that can't be driven alone isn't a horrible idea.
When I was in school a lot of kids drove to school. School buses were fine...what was the need? There would have been less pressure on parents if the child took the bus. There would be other benefits to this...parents could 'parent' a lot easier because they'd have better control of their children and their development. I see a lot of other benefits to the development of a child who is forced to stay under parental control.
I found it interesting, a few years ago, how an 80 year-old man drove into an outdoor mall and killed a bunch of people and there was a short public outcry to not allow the elderly to drive. But if you look at stats...it's the young who are the most dangerous drivers. The outcry didn't last long.
Besides...a 16 year-old can't vote. An 80 year-old can.
It is a privilege granted through the licensing process and should be a privilege to have only after graduating from high school.
Exception: Age 16 and a cumlative GPA of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale.
Anyway, I have no problem with 18 vs 16. Few people under that age seem to have a real need to drive, and let's face it, getting a license in most places is as difficult as fogging a mirror. Most high schoolers with jobs seem to be employed to support a car. No car = more time that should/could be spent on school.
I'd also love to see mandatory skill tests for adult drivers given every 5 years or so. No old age exemption, either.
I said,"That's because they can't tell the difference"
Censors will probably pull that one...I always wanted to a comedian.
Depends. For a lot of kids, this is true. I know when I was in high school, some of the kids that had no shot of going to college were permitted to leave an hour or two early to go work at "internships" if you will that would potentially lead to full-time employment after school.
I actually had a job the last couple of years I was in high school that I left early for just so I could use it on my college application to get into my major of choice.
(no reference or pun at all to the tragedy mentioned in earlier posts)
The most dangerous phonebooth. It shows a person with notes and cell phone in hand in a caricature of a car. It's sponsored by an insurance agency, I believe.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Which further proves the futility of worrying about drivers traveling 80 mph on a road system that was designed to handle it in the first place. Thanks for making my point.
This also ties in with the discussion about younger drivers. A regular reading of the local paper shows that the most common type of fatal accident occurs on a two-lane country road, and a very high percentage involve younger (under 21) drivers.
A few years ago Pennsylvania instituted a tougher, graduated licensing law for young drivers. Training requirements were increased. New drivers under the age of 18 were placed under tighter restrictions as to when they can drive during the day. Within a year the number of fatalities among 16-year-old drivers fell dramatically.
The accidents that DO occur at higher speeds give more fatalities and more property damage due to higher energy. It does not make your point, sorry. The interstate speeds do need to be controlled (and no this is not Germany autobahns.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,