Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

albert6

There are non-driver IDs. They don't cost as much and are easier to get.

The safest speed is one where everyone is going the same speed. The easiest speed to agree on is the one that is posted, rather than the one everyone makes up for themselves. If you think the speed limit should be raised, take it up like an American and vote for an increase.

Your logic was to go faster than others. If everyone has to go faster than everyone else, just to please you and stay out of your way, then that's the only way to do so.

Don't always change your mind.

albert6

We found a new one in Missouri. OK, not so new.

Go out speeding on a country road.

When some lame-o won't get out of your way, pass them.

On a hill.

Going up.

Just before the crest.

It pulverizes the police car that is coming the other way up the hill on the country road.

Should the cop have just stayed out of the way? I mean, the other driver was -safely- speeding, right?

"A Calhoun County deputy fatally injured in a collision Friday was the department's first on-duty death since the early 1880s, said Sheriff Richard Meyer. On Monday, those who knew Chief Deputy Brian Gibbons, 33, struggled to come to terms with their loss. Gibbons, who was seeking to become sheriff himself, died Sunday of injuries suffered in the Friday collision just before 6 p.m. about a mile south of Michael on Illinois Route 100."

ID#: 1000583330, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)

fintail

Once you get the license, all you have to do is pass a vision test. Not hard. And a DL is more socially acceptable...and we all know that conformity has immense value in this society.

I'll drive as I please...I don't mind passing you. Going around vehicular cholesterol is no skin off my back...sometimes it is even fun. I like seeing the acceleration of my vehicles.

The "vote" idea is always good for a laugh. How long did it take to finally discard 55? Who voted for the current limits? Were they set by credentialed people who used verifiable data?

I don't go faster than others, unless others are the elderly (usually) in the right lane. Most people don't go the limit or under, not around here anyway (unless they are making yet another sad attempt at merging). My logic is to drive at what I see is an acceptable speed. If that is marginally faster than the posted limit, then so be it. I won't say I am a F1 quality driver, but I've never had so much as a parking ticket, so I must be doing something right.

albert6

Here's a list of the latest.

http://www.missourinet.com/mhp/list.cfm?areas=200

There are some repeats, but that's because some die after the initial accident report or more infomation is added. The counts are good. We're down almost 100 deaths this year. That leaves MO at 486 dead on the highway to date.

I can imagine the speeders now - ignoring the numerous 'high rate of speed' entries and concentrating on 'losing control' or 'failed to negotiate the turn.'

I'd just like one example where the driver lost control due to his low rate of speed, or -was fatally injured at a low rate of speed-. Best, can anyone deliver a story where the investigation concluded that the -cause- was a low rate of speed? Oh gosh, not the excuse -he was moving slowly, so I hit him - since trees move slowly and school buses move slowly and there's really no excuse for hitting them.

I mean a real story of a lone car on an empty stretch of road going out of control due to a freakishly low speed and killing someone.

And pony up, other states. Missouri may be the leader in outlawing photography of puppy mills from road-sides (could lead to terrorist activities) and may have to have a law against assault with a dead dachshund 3 week old puppy but,
Missouri can't be a leader in creative ways to mash people to death while enjoying the pass-time of driving. At high rates of speed. Possibly drunk.

PS Re. New way to irritate cops: I know, Illinois Route 100 is -not- in Missouri, but it is quite close to the border and easily made it to the Saint Louis news.

snakeweasel

Shhh... there are those on this forum that don't believe that it is more dangerous to go faster.

New way to irritate cops: I know, Illinois Route 100 is -not- in Missouri, but it is quite close to the border and easily made it to the Saint Louis news.

I know the area about 25 miles or so northwest of St. Louis. Close enough to be considered part of the greater St. Louis metro area. But it is one of the least populated counties in IL

carlisimo

There's nothing safe about passing right before a crest!

xwesx

The phrase "high rate of speed" is meaningless, so why focus on it? After all, it is absolutely subjective and offers no real information. For example, was the person going 35 in a 35, but the roads were slick or the driver was impared, incompetent, or distracted? If the person missed the turn going 35 and smacked a tree, it could still be considered a "high rate of speed" because no attempt was made to slow the car prior to impact. Now, using something that provides a basis of comparision, like saying "estimated at 70 in a 35 zone" could be useful for readers, especially those familiar with the area, roads, site, etc, and even for those unfamiliar with it simply because a speed double the limit is typically not a safe operating speed. That would be too much though, as it would leave the reader to form its own opinion rather than being spoon-fed.

Collisions and other driving mishaps are never the result of speed alone, so why blame speed as the cause - whether it is considered high or low? I was in Buffalo, NY about 5 years ago during a heavy snowstorm and I watched vehicle after vehicle go into the ditch - and these were rigs traveling at 20 mph or less. I was going between 30-40, depending on the traffic density, and never had a problem, even when evading those who were. I would say that if you are looking to place blame, you need look no further than the driver - regardless of other complicating factors, of which the rate of movement is only one.

rockylee

The old TL didn't have Voice Recognition capability and if he would of had it then he probably would of used it. This is why I like that technology so much so the driver can get where he/she wants to go by using voice commands and improves safety of all party's.

"Gadgetology" does have it's uses in the automotive world.

Rocky

fintail

Today I saw a car pull out from a parking lot and slowly get up to speed, causing other traffic to brake and veer around it. The car? A lovely 1940 Ford convertible. Driven by a cellphone-yapping simp! I'm sure grandpa is rolling in his grave over the way sonny is driving his baby.

snakeweasel

I hate to tell you this but a 1940 Ford (or any car from that time period) is painfully slow compaired to any car made today.

fintail

I know. So its driver should wait for a reasonable gap in traffic before pulling out, instead of just cutting someone off...and maybe not be driving it during the 4pm weekday rush at all.

It was a beautiful car too, skinny tires and all.

snakeweasel

Having a car from that era I know its limitations well and I am very careful about entering traffic with it.

euphonium

However, the slower the car, the more it is seen and admired by the rest of us.

A 110 flat head V8 impresses me, especially a ragtop.

rockylee

Having a car from that era I know its limitations well and I am very careful about entering traffic with it.

I bet you are. I wouldn't want to get whipped in a CTS either. :P

Rocky

albert6

Why indeed!

How many of those leaving the road at 20mph or less -died?-

How many KILLED anyone else?

How many of those who left the road would have done better going -faster-?

Congrats on your driving ability. Would you have crashed going more slowly?
I wonder how many took to the ditches rather than get hit by you.

I think Missouri's Highway patrol reserves 'high rate of speed' for those going faster than the limit. Perhaps you're an investigator yourself and report differently. Rarely is weather (rain, snow) a contributing factor.

Around here I keep an eye out for the morons who feel that since they get better traction with 4-wheel drive they stop better than my 4-wheel brakes.

snakeweasel

Well a Yugo can whip the Zephyr but few cars will whip my CTS

snakeweasel

How many of those leaving the road at 20mph or less -died?-

Most studies I have seen place the magic speed at between 35 and 40 where speed differences under that speed don't change the likelihood of a fatal accident. But going over that speed your chances of a serious or even fatal accident increases as speed increases. But keep that under your hat because there are those here that refuse to believe that.

Around here I keep an eye out for the morons who feel that since they get better traction with 4-wheel drive they stop better than my 4-wheel brakes.

I remember one time I am walking very carefully through a parking lot that was covered with a nice layer of ice. It was ok to drive on if you went slow but I saw this Jeep with the 4 wheel drive run past me at a good rate of speed. Then I saw their brake lights go on and the thing just slid into the building barely slowing down at all.

I also get a good laugh after every good winter storm at all the SUV's in the ditches. The relatively few cars in those ditches tells you something.

fintail

I always look forward to the first icy morning for ditched 4WDs. Luckily they don't often take cars with them. I remember once I took a couple hundred mile trip in the fintail that was hampered by a freak unpredicted snowstorm...I made it home just fine, I must have seen 50 ditched SUVs, some crashing before my eyes.

If speed limits really are about safety over cash, they'd top out at 40-50. So it's kind of a moot discussion.

snakeweasel

I always look forward to the first icy morning for ditched 4WDs.

I know what you mean. One time many a year ago I went to visit a friend of mine who lived about a hundred miles or so down state. Time was perfect as a major storm had passed maybe an hour before I got on the interstate and the roads had pack snow but were easily drivable. There had to have been close to one SUV in the ditch, or signs that one was in, per mile

grbeck

Judging from those reports, it looks as though a fair amount of the accidents happened on country roads (the reports mention curbs, fences, drivers pulling into the path of other vehicles, which suggests cross traffic and left turns - all of which should have been removed from limited access interstate highways). On those roads, "speeding" can mean traveling at 50 mph.

All of which have nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highway.

Even the Harrisburg Patriot News - which is always writing editorials about the need for increased speed enforcement - finally admitted that virtually all fatal crashes in the area are occuring on two-lane country roads (even though I-81, I-83 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike converge in the area, and truck traffic is heavy as a result). On those country roads, "speeding" can mean traveling at 55 mph.

Meanwhile, on I-81, I-83 and I-76 (Pa. Turnpike), the posted speed limit is 65 mph, and most vehicles travel at 75 mph - without any problem.

ruking1

To add to what you are saying, in addition (or really more directly to the point) MOST of the fatalities (even more directly causal on the rural two lane highways to which you refer) are really due to LEAVING the road and not speed per se. While this might sound like splitting hairs; it is truly a HUGE distinction.

snakeweasel

(the reports mention curbs, fences, drivers pulling into the path of other vehicles, which suggests cross traffic and left turns - all of which should have been removed from limited access interstate highways).

I have seen fences along interstate highways and I have also seen idiots making a U-turn over the median pulling out in front of traffic (barely avoided a couple of them myself).

snakeweasel

While this might sound like splitting hairs; it is truly a HUGE distinction.

There is no distintion if one leads to the other.

ruking1

..."and I have also seen idiots making a U-turn over the median pulling out in front of traffic (barely avoided a couple of them myself). "...

Yeah I had a CHP (CA Highway Patrol) marked truck enforcement cruiser do that right along side of me going 80 mph. (might be a good reason why it is in fact against the law and DANGEROUS) I anticipated that he was going to pull into my lane, so I signaled and vacated the left hand lane to the right hand lane, which in turn probably made a big rig driver MAD (plenty of room and not a dangerous manuver at all just faster than I would have normally changed lanes). Judging by him pulling into the passing lane, I do not think he saw the CHP trying to illegally enter the freeway. He in turn pulled out into the left (passing) lane of a two lane interstate as the CHP pulled right in front of him. All I could see (in my rear view mirror) was a fishtailing tractor trailer rig and smoke pouring out the dual TALL exhaust pipes ad he desperately tried to keep from rear ending the CHP.

ruking1

For sure, if he leaves the road at (say) 35 mph and dies. This is in contrast to going 80 mph and has no issues at all, this is the key distinction and/or issue.

grbeck

snakeweasel: I have seen fences along interstate highways and I have also seen idiots making a U-turn over the median pulling out in front of traffic (barely avoided a couple of them myself).

But the fences have been moved far away from the road - at least they have in Pennsylvania. Here there is a large, flat area between the road and the fence (or other obstacle). If not, there is a guardrail on the highway, right where the shoulder ends.

If the driver had hit a guardrail, as opposed to the fence, I think that the report would say so.

As for idiots making U-turns - that happens, but it wasn't mentioned in the reports. Those reports specifically said drivers made "left turns."

If this is a recurring problem, then police should take aim at those making the illegal U-turns, not everyone exceeding the speed limit (which, in Pennsylvania at least, would be about 90 percent of the traffic, so I think police would have their hands full).

That is a more efficient - and a far more effective - use of law enforcement resources. Unless we want to make it "safer" for people making illegal U-turns by slowing everyone else down, which is not a good use of police resources.

snakeweasel

But the fences have been moved far away from the road

Not always the case, here in and around Chicago where space is at a premium those fences can be just a few feet away from moving traffic.

And now that I think of it, driving down an open interstate at 80 MPH if you veer off the road and fly onto the side you could very easily hit the fence alongside even if it is 25-30 feet or more away.

grbeck

But the bottom line is that, as has been shown repeatedly, exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways is not the problem. Reckless driving on two-lane country roads is, and from what I read of those reports, they reflected that.

To tie this in with inconsiderate drivers - this past Sunday I drove from my in-laws' home in Indiana, Pa., to my parents' house in Shippensburg, Pa. I had to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Bedford to Blue Mountain (about 40 miles) and then drive on a two-lane country road (Route 696) for about 11 miles to my parents' house.

No problem on the Turnpike even though the average speed was 75-80 mph...but about five miles from my parents' house on Route 696 there is a nasty "S" curve on a hill. I was coming up the hill, following a blue Cavalier. Coming the opposite way was a loaded 1990s Chevy full-size pickup - at about 70 mph. At the first bend (from the opposite direction - it was the second bend in the "S" curve for me), the Chevy pickup's rear wheels started to break free - and the Cavalier dove for the shoulder, and I swerved as well. Fortunately, at the last minute, the Chevy pickup's tires "caught" and he went back into his lane and missed both of us. I assume that he made it through the second part of the "S" curve.

Reading the daily paper's accident reports (which I do faithfully), I can tell you that, if there HAD been an accident, it is the type that is FAR more common than crack-ups on interstates. The difference is that the interstate accidents are more likely to receive bigger play in the paper and TV news.

Sitting along the highway, waiting to nab some [non-permissible content removed] traveling along at 75-80 mph on an interstate highway (while the five cars behind going the same speed all get off scott-free) is a waste of time. This is not the problem.

Pickup truck drivers doing 70 mph on winding back roads with a full load in their beds (but not a full deck in their heads) IS the problem.

xwesx

Haha.... you are a real gem - please stick around!

Hopefully all of them did, but obviously not fast enough if I still had to go around them. Actually, I was not even in an AWD. I was in a poorly equipped FWD rental but I likely would not have driven much if any faster in my own car due to short sight distance. None died that I read about, but one person was hospitalized when a fellow incompetent motorist plowed into him by picking the same spot to ditch. Just goes to show that it is the driver, not the speed.

The investigators will use that phrase for any speed they consider to have been a contributing factor, which means that unless it was a mechanical failure, the fact that the vehicle was moving means speed contributed to the collision. I saw one local write up about a wreck that was listed as such, but it also noted that the driver was going 40 around a corner marked at 35, on a 55 road. Turns out the driver crashed because of inattention and allowing her vehicle to drift into loose gravel on the edge of the black top.

Again, not saying that speed is not a contributing factor, but the 99% of the time the driver is the cause and nothing else. You said it yourself with your last statement, "Around here I keep an eye out for the morons who feel that since they get better traction with 4-wheel drive they stop better than my 4-wheel brakes." I pull at least a half-dozen of those out of the ditch each winter.

xwesx

Absolutely. You could apply that to anyone under situationally similar circumstances regardless of vehicle type, but absolutely. Growing up in the middle-edge of nowhere, we had nothing but shoulderless two lane roads, typically built along the side of ravines with steep drops, no guardrails, etc. Many a youngster bit the hay on those roads by maneuvering the roads carelessly. Often the fatal crashes were the ones that happened within legal speeds - it just did not seem to matter much - when they lost control, they lost it. Amazingly, the bat-out-of-hell crashes only rarely left people dead and those were always, save one I know about, in connection with alcohol. Not sure that there really is a connection there, but possible.

I had two friends that used to drive wildly - I mean double + speed limits and 70-80+ on gravel. Just stupid speeds. Regrettably, they both came out of it unscathed, but one friend's younger sister tried the same stunt in his car and ended up saving the crusher from having to do the work. She walked away by grace alone, but she never drove like that again. She was lucky to get a second chance.

snakeweasel

Your missing my point. As you increase your speed you increase your risk of an accident and a serious one at that. That is true on a back country road or a wide open interstate highway. Now certain roads are safer than others but that doesn't change a simple fact that increasing speed increases risk.

While I will agree that doing 80 MPH on a wide open interstate in the middle of farmland in Iowa is safer than doing 65 on a back country road in West Virginia. But doing 80 on that interstate is not as safe as doing 70 on that same interstate.

loncray

Actually, going at 80 MPH in traffic also going 80 MPH on roads designed for it and in conditions appropriate to it is safe as houses. It's when you change any of those conditions - traffic going slower or at inconsistent speeds, smaller roads, or weather for instance - that it becomes unsafe. And that applies to ANY speed. You can easily die at 5 MPH if you pull out in front of a semi going faster. As to 80 being less safe than 70 on any particular road, again it depends - if all the traffic is a consistent 80 MPH there, then the person going 70 is LESS safe than the folks going 80, and more likely to cause a wreck.

snakeweasel

Actually its not, going 80 with traffic thats going 80 is more dangerous than going 70 with traffic thats going 70 and thats more dangerous than doing 60 with traffic going 60 and all of those are far more dangerous than being in a house.

It's when you change any of those conditions - traffic going slower or at inconsistent speeds, smaller roads, or weather for instance - that it becomes unsafe. And that applies to ANY speed.

That is true but it doesn't change that fact that as you increase speed you increase the risk. Thats a fact you have to recognize.

xwesx

So now, it would seem, is a good time to clarify "risk." Risk of fatality *if* a crash occurs, or risk of a crash occuring at all, or risk of colliding with that bumble bee that is sauntering along above the roadway... ? Silly, yes, but the risk must still be defined. It is not certain that the general risk is going to be higher under one set of conditions where the speed is higher than another set of conditions where the speed is lower. Speed, again, is a factor, but not the only one and not necessarily the most significant one. All other conditions the same, higher speed does directly mean more risk and it is a moot point to argue that, for sure.

carlisimo

Snakeweasel, the level of safety you're advocating sounds a little extreme. It's like banning tag on schoolyards, or telling people to wear helmets while doing household chores. You might as well ban cooking, ladders, jogging, drinking, chasing butterflies, and doing things in a hurry.

snakeweasel

I am not advocating anything here, just stating a fact, you are more likely to be in a serious accident as you increase speed. There seems to be a attitude by many that they are safe going at high speeds.

I don't advocate slower speeds or anything like that just that we have to realize risk. Understanding risk and acting appropretly is one of the reasons I have made it this far.

ruking1

"just stating a fact, you are more likely to be in a serious accident as you increase speed. There seems to be a attitude by many that they are safe going at high speeds."

Actually tha attitude that you are "safe-safer" going at low speeds is just as prevalent, if not more so, if the NHTSA fatality statistics are any indication.

xwesx

Yes, I do not think snake is really trying to take it that far, carlisimo. Sometimes it works to overstate something if stating it is not enough.

I really appreciate the points of view folks bring to this discussion. Obviously opinions differ, but as long as we can glean some meaningful feedback from time to time, then it is all worth it. I only dislike the closeminded, not-going-to-consider-anything-you-say posts that crop up here where the poster will state and re-state the same thing over and over without considering anything posted to the contrary. It really just makes me shake my head and wonder why the person even bothered to log in.

xwesx

Your mention of that, ruking, reminds me of my drive home every day. My little 0.2 mile subdivision road is narrow, has some horrendous wash... pits?... from people trying to gun it up the incline while leaving the subdivision, and has a blind corner to boot! This, and now almost every residential building has at least 2 under-12 children occupying it. Now, during the summer months, these children are literally crawling all over the place - roads, ditches, other people's property, you name it, you will find them there. Nearly everyone in the place, my darn wife included, frequently drives at 20+ on this road now (usually toward the +) despite the fact that dogs, children, and other cars are nearly hit at least once a week. Considering that it is only about 5 minutes to WALK from one end of the road to the other, I usually drop my speed to about 10 by the top of the incline (right at the blind curve) when I am coming into the area so that if there is an obstacle, I can more easily avoid a disaster. Leaving, I usually drive about 15+ as it is an incline and stopping, etc., is more easy to accomplish. Now, not saying my speed is the one everyone should choose, but it really boggles my mind that a couple drivers, in particular, will drive so fast when they are going on that road. I asked one (a neighbor) about it, and he defensively replied, "I'm only going 25. Nobody is going to get hurt at that speed." Hah. I hope that he does not find out otherwise while he lives here! :surprise:

ruking1

And truthfully I would pray that nobody in your "neighborhood" ever has to really find out how prevalent that safe/safer attitude is at low speeds!

BUT, what I said also cuts across many(slow speed safe and safer attitude) scenarios, if the "epidemic" of pedestrian deaths in so called walk able cities, such as San Francisco, CA is any example. From the politico's all the way down to the common pedestrian thinks this is a REAL problem. Again these folks are NOT getting killed in the %'s and numbers of folks going "fast" or even EXCEEDING posted speed limits!!! This is even not to cover up or gloss over the fact that the MAJORITY of pedestrian deaths, the pedestrians are at fault (J walking etc) However when they get fatalized in a hugely and clearly marked crosswalk- well this should be overwhelmingly obvious.

So my take is it can be and IS dangerous across the band width. To single out the hypothetical situation of whether or not your risk is increased at 50 vs 60 60vs 70 70 vs 80 does a grave disservice to where the majority of the so called "bread and butter" fatalities REALLY happens.

fintail

With how slow people have been driving on the interstates here lately, one would assume we'd have no fatalities. Last night I took a drive down I5 from Seattle to north of Everett and back, and I was going 65...and in the fast lane passing every single vehicle. 405 has been even worse lately...the slow lane will sometimes go 40-45, with no crash or work ahead.

210delray

Must be your $3.00+ gas; I've noticed no such effect here (or on last week's trip to Charleston, SC).

oregonboy

I came across this amazing/hilarious video of an intersection. Can't adequately describe it, it must be seen. If you think traffic is bad in your little corner of the world... think again.

http://www.dailymotion.com/cluster/auto/video/287750

james

fintail

Looks like India...

What's amazing is that they don't crash!

mark156

The video can't be France, they drive on the same side of the road as the USA.

I agree with Fintail... looks like India as I think they drive on the "wrong" side (was a British colony). Also, the use of the little three wheeled mail-truck looking vehicles they call "fot-fot's"... becaue they sound like.... fot-fot-fot-fot-fot-fot-fot when motoring down the road. :P

Mark

albert6

Not sure how going 40 in a 35 mph zone is not excessive.

Probably the car would not have drifted had the driver had time to plan, which they would have had at a lower speed.

albert6

There aren't any roads designed for any particular speed. This is a wive's tale at best. There are some that are designed for a particular capacity at a particular speed, but those capacities are often much lower than current demands.

The truth is that outside of a few states so flat the border is visible from anywhere, there are hills and curves. The faster one goes the less time there is to see what is or is not moving on the other side of the hill or curve. With larger vehicles that produce a moving limited-sight obstacle, it even happens that the flattest states can get drivers in trouble.

On a race track there are spotters to prevent anyone from wandering in... no, wait, they have crashes at race tracks all the time. Sometimes within a few hundred miles.

So yes, going faster, even under controlled circumstances, tends to produce crashes, even with the best trained drivers.

snakeweasel

There aren't any roads designed for any particular speed.

That is true, the optimal speed is dependent on many variables such as the road, the car, the driver and the weather. A Corvette can handle a winding road better than a Caravan but get that road wet and the Corvette cannot handle the road as well.

The faster one goes the less time there is to see what is or is not moving on the other side of the hill or curve.

Not only less time but the distance covered during your reaction time increases. Also as speed increases it becomes harder to maneuver the car around obstacles and braking time increases.

So yes, going faster, even under controlled circumstances, tends to produce crashes, even with the best trained drivers.

This is true despite many peoples attempt to dismiss that fact with such claim that any speed is dangerous and that cars doing 25MPH can kill someone.

ruking1

Mine

"Actually tha attitude that you are "safe-safer" going at low speeds is just as prevalent, if not more so, if the NHTSA fatality statistics are any indication. "

..."So my take is it can be and IS dangerous across the band width. To single out the hypothetical situation of whether or not your risk is increased at 50 vs 60 60vs 70 70 vs 80 does a grave disservice to where the majority of the so called "bread and butter" fatalities REALLY happens. "...

YOURS

..."This is true despite many peoples attempt to dismiss that fact with such claim that any speed is dangerous and that cars doing 25MPH can kill someone. "...

No actually if you read the posted quotes to which you probably refer, it is inclusive rather than dismissive. The dismissive attitude is held by the folks doing the dismissing, which in your quote is YOU!!

Thanks for illustrating my point!

snakeweasel

I didn't illustrate anyones point. When someone mentions that going faster is riskier someone always has to comment that any speed is dangerous so why worry about it. Even you said that as you said "So my take is it can be and IS dangerous across the band width" that is you doing the dismissing, not I.