Yep, right. No use fighting something you are sickened by if it takes time and effort. You can always run with the crowd that likes making assumptions because they're "easy and quick." Easier to deal with assumptions, than facts and reality. Or just continue spending your time not on working to solve the greater issue, but instead on your personal law enforcement issues that affect your pocketbook. You have plenty of time for those it seems.
Well, I don't live in CA, and I certainly don't live in La Mesa so "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" about your corrupt politicians and traffic engineers there. If you want to do something about it, it's up to you and others who live there and share your views on it.
If you don't care enough to do something about it, why should the rest of us care?
Anyone want to talk about inconsiderate drivers? Been pretty well behaved in my parts lately.
Well, they're out there... like the one yesterday morning that took the 'free' right turn, then drifted into MY left lane, as I was turning left, on MY green left turn arrow, and acted surprised when I gave him a little toot as he tried to occupy space already containing MY car. And this is at 0730 on a Sunday morning. Heaven help him in traffic!
I keep talking about air horns. One of these days... :shades:
I'm going to guess slushbox 318i? Maybe 325e? :P You'll be happy in a Prius, no doubt.
I'll blame myself if I get caught for speeding (I seldom go more than 10 over, so not likely) - not for violating the law though, but for being careless enough to get caught.
First we learned to accept parking meters. Radar was next & that is accepted. Now, Red lite cameras are to be tolerated as well. It really doesn't matter if you don't agree with the above as all you have to do is be compliant.
Oh, I think the next big thing will be GPS tracking of cars (tied to speed enforcement eventually), just as Bob suggested previously. All we have to do is be compliant though, right?
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
From studies I've read, red light cameras reduce the number of right angle collisions but sometimes do increase the number of rear end collisions; however, even if it were a one-for-one decrease/increase, since right angle collisions cause more damage/injury as compared to rear-end collisions, then red light camera do in fact increase safety. But the majority of the studies I’ve read indicate that the number of reduced right angle collisions is greater than then number of increased rear-end collisions, so that definitely indicates increased safety.
As far as the ticket a person gets in the mail, these are considered civil vs criminal (from what I’ve read), and many people just ignore them. Either way, if people were paying attention more, or slowed down on the yellow light like they’re supposed to, then they wouldn’t get the ticket.
On another subject, I’m wondering how many Prius bashers have actually driven a Prius?
And I still find it amusing when people think driving is supposed to be “fun and exciting,” all the time (I guess that means the advertisers over the years have done their job well on the easily influenced brains :P ). Like I previously said, I’ve driven a Mazda RX-7 in my youth when I was single and living out on the California coast, but I would have my “fun driving” on empty twisty roads, not straight, flat, interstate highways or suburb streets. And from what I’ve seen, speeding cars are not correlated to the type of car driven. I’ve seen as many speeding old pickup trucks as I have sports cars.
I think the problem some people have about speeding is that the posted speed limit needs to be based on traffic condition, but speed limit signs are fixed and non-adjustable. I think what would make a lot of people happy would be if speed limit signs could change based on conditions/traffic. So during rush hour the speed limit might be 55mph, but when the congestion has cleared then the speed limit could automatically go up to 65 or 70mph. But then we’d need GPS trackers in every car and nobody wants that. :P
You are 0-for-many so why not just give up the red herring on what I drive and have driven, which no one here cares about except you, and talk about inconsiderate driving?
about the lack of inconsiderate driving in my town. This morning I saw a great (?) example of one of my pet peeves: traffic backed up behind stoplight at a major intersection, left turn lane going into a high school near the intersection, turning traffic backed way up in the left lane affecting the entire intersection because... no one was considerate enough to leave space for the turning cars to sneak through while the line sat there waiting for the red lights. This always mystifies me when I see it. What does it matter if you wait a few feet back from the intersection--you're still going to wait.
After a few light changes (traffic was too heavy to turn when the light was green), FINALLY two considerate drivers stopped short of the driveway so the left turn lane could clear out.
3) Insurance companies claim they can use your liability protection to pay for attornies in your "defense or case" in a court of law. I have little faith in the insurance companies living up to this, and ever spending much money in my best interest, but it sure sounds nice on paper if there ever was an argument in court that required lawyers.
Yes, they do. At least sometimes. That is exactly what my brother is going through right now. He drove an "Enterprise-Rent-A-Car" (which is self-insured), was in an accident, has been sued, and his legal expenses are now paid by EAN up to the limits of his liability coverage.
On a more general note, actuaries at insurance companies usually know their job, and you can bet that buying ANY policies or warranties you lose money in the long run. I think it is still a good idea to take an insurance policy against some catastrophic events which you will not be able to cover otherwise, just no way. Like liability coverage, or health insurance, or maybe homeowner's. You may feel like "never going to happen", but if you are unlucky enough, this may easily set you back in six-seven digits. In all other cases, even when risks are high but surmountable, you are better off without insurance. I still buy collision and comprehensive coverage though, I don't really know why. Probably, for my wife's peace of mind.
So what would your vote be on roadway regulations? What sort of speed limits would you like to see? And how would you enforce them?
When enforcement is not overly aggressive, the traffic spontaneously flows with the most reasonable speed for conditions. All by itself. I usually drive with the traffic flow. To drive with the flow is the safest way, regardless the speed limits, regardless the actual speed. There is absolutely no discussion about that. So, I am far from the fastest driver on the road, I drive with the flow. When I look at the speedometer, I am typically 10-20 mph over the posted limit. So, that is where the fair limit should be.
The enforcement should take into account the whole pattern of driving, not just the speed. Going 80 on a long 4-5 lane fenced stretch, and a young guy equipped with all kinds of "distractions" with a super-loud music weaving between already decelerating cars and accelerating to 80 to be able to make it through the yellow light on a busy downtown intersection full of pedestrians - it is not the same. However, I witnessed sometimes the first type of behavior punished, but never the second type. At least, not in this country.
Agreed on that count! Seems a simple thing to stop behind the intersection, then go once traffic is getting ready to move in front of you. I'm amazed at how many times this doesn't happen, though. Interestingly, every time I have stopped short of an intersection in this sort of situation with more than one lane in the same direction, the driver in the other lane (who would also have to stop in the intersection) also stops short in order to allow turning traffic. But, overall, the "stopping short" scenario might happen a quarter of the times it is needed. :sick:
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
Just put governors on cars that won't let them go more than 75 (GPS adjustable to 85 in TX and KS).
Agree, Steve; sorry, I am going to re-post here what I posted a month ago in another of your threads.
>> The whole idea and practice of speed enforcement has nothing to do with safety and even with speed: 1. There are more egregious and dangerous violations that are routinely ignored; 2. If safety were at issue, the enforcement would tend to be highly apparent (to the point of bluff), not hidden and even provocative; 3. If speed were at issue, it would be mandatorily limited electronically long ago. They've been on semis for years and the truckers love them.
I've also heard that the fish adores well-oiled skillets.
Oh, I think the next big thing will be GPS tracking of cars (tied to speed enforcement eventually), just as Bob suggested previously. All we have to do is be compliant though, right?
Not going to happen. Brace yourself for something different: autopilot. I have no doubt that in 10-15 years, it will be against the law to drive a car on public streets. Technically, it is already possible, and even being tested somewhere. This is the only solution to distracted driving and the lack of driver's education. The war on distracted driving is already lost, it is pretty clear, because of culture of entitlement (or instant gratification) and lobbying by special interests. We also are giving up on the driver's education (as well as on education in general) because of the national policy of pandering to the most incompetent.
Riding for so many years, I learned that the safest way to ride on an Interstate or limited access highway is to run slightly faster than the traffic flow... 1-3 mph. It keeps you from staying in blind spots very long, and it helps minimize getting rear ended.
Yes, you are right. However, in a correctly organized traffic, you wouldn't even need this. As is a norm elsewhere, all cars in a certain lane have the same speed, and different lanes move with different speeds, even if just slightly different. Several lanes with the same speed of traffic flow, side-by-side, is the biggest barbarity I've ever seen, on so many counts (blind spots, different cruising speeds impossible, a pain to change lanes even to exit, etc). Cruise control also contributes to the general clumsiness of highway traffic.
Interesting, your mpg results aren't too far off what I posted - different cars, but the decrease in mpg with significant speed increase was not remarkable in either car.
In my car, the difference between going slower and faster is also not significant (it is more significant in our Sienna minivan, though). However, it MAY be significant even in a car in some special circumstances. As was already mentioned, accelerations are important. (Every acceleration shaves a good deal of mpg on my daily commute, for example.) A case in point: once, we had to transport my daughter's teenage friends to a picnic, so we drove strictly within speed limits (mostly 55 in our area). My tachometer was well below 2000 rpm all the time, and turbo never kicked in, or almost never. Even with the a/c on, I've got 38.5 mpg on that trip instead of typical 32-34 mpg.
Needless to say, the drive was excruciating and quite unsafe, since just about everybody had to pass us, including trucks and buses, and even usual RLCs (right-lane campers!). We consciously sacrificed safety for the sake of "perceived safety" (because we didn't want kids to report to their parents that we are reckless drivers endangering minors, and all this brainwash).
Ha, you're one to talk about red herrings. Slushbox 325e it is then, or maybe a slushbox 325 cabrio if you were feeling sporty :shades:
Had to drive 405 today, which any local knows is torture. Slow slow slow, people are happy to dawdle along at 45 in a 60 with nobody in front of them. Aggressive speed demons were an older (than someone's) Senta and a douched out early 00s Suburban, who were weaving in and out without signals and proper following distances, giving them a good car length advantage when traffic slowed. Also got tailgated by an 80s Ranger with a smoking driver - no matter I couldn't go faster than the car in front of me and the 10 in front of it. What's with that? I made it a point to make my eventual turn very slow and cautiously.
I made two road trips over the past week. First one with 30 miles of terrible traffic and 100 miles of easy highway driving gave me 25.2mpg. Return trip in lighter traffic but a little more city driving got me 26mpg even. Not bad for a big old V8. Lots of LLCs out on that latter drive, but it was a Sunday, and easy to get around them.
Sadly, correctly organized traffic doesn't exist in this land of the lowest common denominator, so those on 2 wheels have to be creative for their own survival.
I don't see driving being banned in 10-15 years - replacement infrastructure will take much longer than that to be built. However, it could happen.
But just think: if after reading 100s of posts from someone you can't figure out what kind of Bimmer they'd own, what does that say about your other assumptions about what lurks in the minds of drivers you encounter for a few seconds on the road?
You can't blame yourself for speeding when you get a ticket for speeding when you are NOT speeding. Falsely accused is one way to put it. Mistaken identity is often the cause.
You could blame yourself for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, which is then ultimate source of most of my tickets.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But the majority of the studies I’ve read indicate that the number of reduced right angle collisions is greater than then number of increased rear-end collisions, so that definitely indicates increased safety.
Have you looked at the source of the studies that show reduced accidents? Likely coming from the fox guarding the hen house. Have you looked at the source of the studies that show a 1:1 ratio, or often, increased accidents; likely coming from independent verifiable sources.
Have you seen studies that show lengthening the yellow light by just 1 second increases safety and reduces violations more effectively than red-light cameras? The cameras in no way increase safety. It is from other factors; like lengthened yellows.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
On a more general note, actuaries at insurance companies usually know their job
The actuaries at AIG must have miscalculated by oh, just a little over 100 billion dollars or so, I guess they know their jobs; they sure are good at asking for, and receiving gov't handouts and bailouts.
Just because your brothers company is good doesn't mean all of them are.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"To drive with the flow is the safest way, regardless the speed limits, regardless the actual speed."
That's insane. Do you really believe all the people driving around you are paying attention and driving in the same manner as you? Do you really trust all the drivers "in your flow?" So the teenager texting, the old guy with reduced reaction speed, the mother with screaming kids in the backseat, the contracter in the pickup on the phone and reading their next contract, etc...all driving 10-20mph over the limit is an environment you consider "safe."
The reason we need limits is exactly because people are not driving in an undistracted and safe environment. You're living in a fantasy world with fantasy drivers surrounding you if you believe that "driving with the flow regardless of the actual speed" is safe.
I do agree that reckless driving is rarely punished, but it's also rare that when it does occur that a police car is right there watching and able to stop the guy and actually convict him, since reckless driving is based on the opinion of the police officer as compared to a radar gun result. So in your reckless teenager example, you'd have to get statements from witnesses to the reckless driving (how are you going to get those) if you want more than just one police officer's statement.
Bottom line is that it sound nice to say, "arrest all the bad drivers and not the good ones just speeding" but there's no practical way to enfore it.
But I'm with you...once we have a nation of expert, non-distracted drivers, then going with the flow will be the safest driving speed!
"The war on distracted driving is already lost, it is pretty clear, because of culture of entitlement (or instant gratification) and lobbying by special interests"
The war on distracted driving is lost because too many people in this country are against government regulations, including government regulations against cell phone usage while driving, texting while driving, etc... So if you're looking somewhere to place the blame on distracted driving, blame the AM radio wacko hosts who think the government is the devil and every new regulation is an "infringement on our personal liberty."
The actuaries at AIG must have miscalculated by oh, just a little over 100 billion dollars or so
That doesn't change my core assertion: by purchasing any insurance/warranty, you are most likely losing money. AIG miscalculated in how to invest your money, not in how to rip you off better.
You could blame yourself for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, which is then ultimate source of most of my tickets.
What a cop-out. That could be said for any traffic ticket, any driving accident (your fault or not), and many other things in life including any type of inconsiderate driving.
It's a good way to avoid personal responsibility for one's actions: "Hey, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time!"
It'll be interesting to see if you still think this way 10-20 years from now.
You know what I find one of the most distracting things during driving? Having someone next to me talking to me and expecting me to have a conversation with them. Usually it's the DW. Sometimes I have to gently remind her that I need to concentrate on driving.
"The cameras in no way increase safety" There we have it by andres3. What more needs to be said?!? There's no possible way that the government can actually research anything resulting in a fair assessment of anything. Right now there's a big filing cabinet buried underneath the Pentagon with the real red light camera results stored along side the arc of the covenant. :P
I don't see driving being banned in 10-15 years - replacement infrastructure will take much longer than that to be built. However, it could happen.
In some versions that are being tested, it does need infrastructure. In its simplest implementation, however, everything is already there: just link together the adaptive cruise control, self-parking, blind spot monitoring, lane departure sensors, backup camera and such with your GPS, and voila. The only likely snag is not technical, it is legal: liability in case of the system malfunction.
That's right about radios, but radios are a form of one-way communication, and it's the two-way forms of communication that are the more distracting, particularly when the other person isn't in the car and aware of the driving environment.
On the one hand you could just ignore the reason for the distraction and just look at the observed behavior (i.e. erratic driving or an accident), but if the idea is prevention, then you’d want to try and do something to prevent the behavior from happening in the first place, such as a law making it illegal to phone or text while driving. Even if only ½ the people obeyed the law on the honor system, it would prevent a lot of accidents.
Sort of like child carseat and seatbelt laws. Do you think people would use their seatbelts or put their kids in carseats if there were no laws? Some would and some would not. But having the law definitely increases usage, just like having a law against texting or cell phone use when driving would decrease usage, even it were very difficult to enforce.
Sort of like child carseat and seatbelt laws. Do you think people would use their seatbelts or put their kids in carseats if there were no laws? Some would and some would not. But having the law definitely increases usage.
I agree wholeheartedly and support you about phones and texting, because other people's lives are at stake. I do not support, however, carseat/seatbelt/helmet laws, because it is your and your family business and responsibility. If you or your kids are hurt or dead, too bad. The law may save lives, but it goes against human dignity and erodes the basis of the civil and respectful society.
"I do not support, however, carseat/seatbelt/helmet laws, because it is your and your family business and responsibility."
Tell me you're joking??? So you're saying if you want to beat your kids that's okay because it's your "family business"??? Can you say that you aren't going to educate your children because it's "your business??" You're not going to take your kid with a broken leg to the ER because it's "family business?" I don't think so.
Carseats and helmet laws for children are for the safety of the child. Saying you're against carseat and helmet laws for children is like saying you're for allowing parents to treat their kids like animals until they're 18? It's because of attitudes like this that we need laws like seatbelt and helmet laws for kids.
Sometimes I have to gently remind her that I need to concentrate on driving.
Have you come up with a technique that works for you? I find myself in that situation fairly often, and usually the outcome is... not what I had hoped.
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
No one else but me talks back to the radio? I'm especially interactive with it if I happen to be cruising around and Click and Clack are giving some (rare) bad advice.
I least I don't keep time to the beat by tapping the accelerator pedal like my sister used to do in her younger days.
You're living in a fantasy world with fantasy drivers surrounding you if you believe that "driving with the flow regardless of the actual speed" is safe
I agree that many practical aspects are quite difficult to tackle. I still maintain, however, that driving with the flow, for everybody, no matter what, is much safer than going much faster or much slower. This is just a basic knowledge taught in auto schools, and a common sense. What matters most is your speed relative to the guy next to you, much more than your absolute speed. The premise is that to reduce the probability of a collision is not any less worthy goal than just to reduce the gravity of the consequences. I do maintain, and this is not insane, that all cars going with the flow is safer than some distracted drivers slowing up. Or keep up, or pull over to the shoulder. I disagree that one should be an expert driver to go with the flow; on the contrary, going with the flow benefits mostly average drivers semi-distracted by their thoughts, radios and conversations with passengers. Non-distracted experts might actually afford more leeway.
What you are saying is, in effect, this: let’s all drive slower then, so that even texters and contractors could keep up. That is what we actually have now at all levels: catering to the worst and weakest instead of even trying to put things in due order. My point, however, was that if everybody, including texters, already goes 10-20 over, then the limit should be increased (and texters should be weeded out, BTW). You also say that there is no practical way to enforce reckless driving. I don’t know; I don’t see even attempts to enforce. Somehow, even much poorer countries sometimes manage to do much better job. Should we concede that criminal laws, or say, gun regulations are unenforceable too and give up? Where to draw the line? Sometimes we should surrender to the inevitable and reasonable (higher speeds) and sometimes fight back (cell phones and bad driving). I see, however, that many people have their priorities just the opposite way (and that is why I think that the fight for better driving is already lost and auto-pilots are in order).
I also don’t understand why many people show so much deference to the magical numbers, like “20 over the limit”. It may sound scary if the limit is, say, 95. It is not a big deal when the limit is arbitrary and obviously very low. On my routine commute this morning, I briefly drove 75-80 in a 40 zone; most other drivers did about 60-65. I cannot imagine why the sign 40 is there; maybe some drunk had an accident there 40 years ago before that road was reconstructed, and the sign was erected then just to show that something is done about that. The legitimate question is: Who is qualified to make this judgment? Well, if there are people who are qualified, I believe my profile should fit there (30+ years of driving experience, education in physics and engineering, property owner, have a family, etc).
Hahah; *raises hand* guilty! I try; I really do, but I have no illusions about multi-tasking, and driving is my primary activity when I'm behind the wheel. Poor gal. :P
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
Of course I was a bit provocative for the sake of polemics, but basically yes, like the California governor recently ruled about helmets: you don't need a law for every situation in life. There should be a line drawn somewhere.
Saying you're against carseat and helmet laws for children is like saying you're for allowing parents to treat their kids like animals until they're 18?
First, maybe yes, why not? It is definitely better than to allow kids call 911 to tackle their parents! If to extend your logic a bit further, we should outlaw also abortions and contraception, and something says me you are probably not there (yet). But then again, this is a sort of trolling on my side. But more seriously, not in extreme cases (broken leg), but in borderline cases (helmet use), who is to decide what exactly constitutes treatment like animals? Helmets, for example, is a highly controversial matter on very many counts. Our family uses carseats and seatbelts, but not helmets.
Tell me you're joking??? So you're saying if you want to beat your kids that's okay because it's your "family business"??? Can you say that you aren't going to educate your children because it's "your business??" You're not going to take your kid with a broken leg to the ER because it's "family business?" I don't think so.
Not a comparable analogy, but a Red herring. You can do better.
"On my routine commute this morning, I briefly drove 75-80 in a 40 zone; most other drivers did about 60-65. I cannot imagine why the sign 40 is there"
So it's a 40mph zone (not a construction zone) on an interstate? I've never seen that before, so I can see and agree as to why people don't adhere to something like that.
The problem with your logic on relative speed to the guy around you versus actual speed is that as speed increases, so does stopping distance. Are you saying that people going 20mph above the speed limit are all increasing the gap to the car in front of them? The reality is that they're going faster but not maintaining an appropriate distance in front of them. Plus if something unexpected does happen (as it does in the real world) a group of cars going 85mph will have less time/distance to react/adjust than if they were all going 65mph. The problem is that the average, real driver out there isn't planning/thinking about the unexpected.
It sounds like you're a good driver, so if you know you're surrounded by a pack of cars with drivers just like you, then you can go 100mph safely, but driving is too dangerous of a thing not to cater to the below average driver. And I do agree that reckless driving should be stopped by police, but I also think that reckless drivers are also the type of driver that speeds a lot, so maybe they'll get picked up that way, since it is so difficult to arrest/convice solely on reckless driving charges.
Comments
Well, I don't live in CA, and I certainly don't live in La Mesa so "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" about your corrupt politicians and traffic engineers there. If you want to do something about it, it's up to you and others who live there and share your views on it.
If you don't care enough to do something about it, why should the rest of us care?
Anyone want to talk about inconsiderate drivers? Been pretty well behaved in my parts lately.
I keep talking about air horns. One of these days... :shades:
I'll blame myself if I get caught for speeding (I seldom go more than 10 over, so not likely) - not for violating the law though, but for being careless enough to get caught.
Crony capitalism at work.
Radar was next & that is accepted.
Now, Red lite cameras are to be tolerated as well.
It really doesn't matter if you don't agree with the above as all you have to do is be compliant.
As far as the ticket a person gets in the mail, these are considered civil vs criminal (from what I’ve read), and many people just ignore them. Either way, if people were paying attention more, or slowed down on the yellow light like they’re supposed to, then they wouldn’t get the ticket.
On another subject, I’m wondering how many Prius bashers have actually driven a Prius?
And I still find it amusing when people think driving is supposed to be “fun and exciting,” all the time (I guess that means the advertisers over the years have done their job well on the easily influenced brains :P ). Like I previously said, I’ve driven a Mazda RX-7 in my youth when I was single and living out on the California coast, but I would have my “fun driving” on empty twisty roads, not straight, flat, interstate highways or suburb streets. And from what I’ve seen, speeding cars are not correlated to the type of car driven. I’ve seen as many speeding old pickup trucks as I have sports cars.
I think the problem some people have about speeding is that the posted speed limit needs to be based on traffic condition, but speed limit signs are fixed and non-adjustable. I think what would make a lot of people happy would be if speed limit signs could change based on conditions/traffic. So during rush hour the speed limit might be 55mph, but when the congestion has cleared then the speed limit could automatically go up to 65 or 70mph. But then we’d need GPS trackers in every car and nobody wants that.
:P
They've been on semis for years and the truckers love them.
You are 0-for-many so why not just give up the red herring on what I drive and have driven, which no one here cares about except you, and talk about inconsiderate driving?
After a few light changes (traffic was too heavy to turn when the light was green), FINALLY two considerate drivers stopped short of the driveway so the left turn lane could clear out.
Yes, they do. At least sometimes. That is exactly what my brother is going through right now. He drove an "Enterprise-Rent-A-Car" (which is self-insured), was in an accident, has been sued, and his legal expenses are now paid by EAN up to the limits of his liability coverage.
On a more general note, actuaries at insurance companies usually know their job, and you can bet that buying ANY policies or warranties you lose money in the long run. I think it is still a good idea to take an insurance policy against some catastrophic events which you will not be able to cover otherwise, just no way. Like liability coverage, or health insurance, or maybe homeowner's. You may feel like "never going to happen", but if you are unlucky enough, this may easily set you back in six-seven digits. In all other cases, even when risks are high but surmountable, you are better off without insurance. I still buy collision and comprehensive coverage though, I don't really know why. Probably, for my wife's peace of mind.
When enforcement is not overly aggressive, the traffic spontaneously flows with the most reasonable speed for conditions. All by itself. I usually drive with the traffic flow. To drive with the flow is the safest way, regardless the speed limits, regardless the actual speed. There is absolutely no discussion about that. So, I am far from the fastest driver on the road, I drive with the flow. When I look at the speedometer, I am typically 10-20 mph over the posted limit. So, that is where the fair limit should be.
The enforcement should take into account the whole pattern of driving, not just the speed. Going 80 on a long 4-5 lane fenced stretch, and a young guy equipped with all kinds of "distractions" with a super-loud music weaving between already decelerating cars and accelerating to 80 to be able to make it through the yellow light on a busy downtown intersection full of pedestrians - it is not the same. However, I witnessed sometimes the first type of behavior punished, but never the second type. At least, not in this country.
Agree, Steve; sorry, I am going to re-post here what I posted a month ago in another of your threads.
>> The whole idea and practice of speed enforcement has nothing to do with safety and even with speed:
1. There are more egregious and dangerous violations that are routinely ignored;
2. If safety were at issue, the enforcement would tend to be highly apparent (to the point of bluff), not hidden and even provocative;
3. If speed were at issue, it would be mandatorily limited electronically long ago. They've been on semis for years and the truckers love them.
I've also heard that the fish adores well-oiled skillets.
Not going to happen. Brace yourself for something different: autopilot. I have no doubt that in 10-15 years, it will be against the law to drive a car on public streets. Technically, it is already possible, and even being tested somewhere. This is the only solution to distracted driving and the lack of driver's education. The war on distracted driving is already lost, it is pretty clear, because of culture of entitlement (or instant gratification) and lobbying by special interests. We also are giving up on the driver's education (as well as on education in general) because of the national policy of pandering to the most incompetent.
Yes, you are right. However, in a correctly organized traffic, you wouldn't even need this. As is a norm elsewhere, all cars in a certain lane have the same speed, and different lanes move with different speeds, even if just slightly different. Several lanes with the same speed of traffic flow, side-by-side, is the biggest barbarity I've ever seen, on so many counts (blind spots, different cruising speeds impossible, a pain to change lanes even to exit, etc). Cruise control also contributes to the general clumsiness of highway traffic.
In my car, the difference between going slower and faster is also not significant (it is more significant in our Sienna minivan, though). However, it MAY be significant even in a car in some special circumstances. As was already mentioned, accelerations are important. (Every acceleration shaves a good deal of mpg on my daily commute, for example.) A case in point: once, we had to transport my daughter's teenage friends to a picnic, so we drove strictly within speed limits (mostly 55 in our area). My tachometer was well below 2000 rpm all the time, and turbo never kicked in, or almost never. Even with the a/c on, I've got 38.5 mpg on that trip instead of typical 32-34 mpg.
Needless to say, the drive was excruciating and quite unsafe, since just about everybody had to pass us, including trucks and buses, and even usual RLCs (right-lane campers!). We consciously sacrificed safety for the sake of "perceived safety" (because we didn't want kids to report to their parents that we are reckless drivers endangering minors, and all this brainwash).
Had to drive 405 today, which any local knows is torture. Slow slow slow, people are happy to dawdle along at 45 in a 60 with nobody in front of them. Aggressive speed demons were an older (than someone's) Senta and a douched out early 00s Suburban, who were weaving in and out without signals and proper following distances, giving them a good car length advantage when traffic slowed. Also got tailgated by an 80s Ranger with a smoking driver - no matter I couldn't go faster than the car in front of me and the 10 in front of it. What's with that? I made it a point to make my eventual turn very slow and cautiously.
I don't see driving being banned in 10-15 years - replacement infrastructure will take much longer than that to be built. However, it could happen.
But for the record: Wrong. Wrong.
But just think: if after reading 100s of posts from someone you can't figure out what kind of Bimmer they'd own, what does that say about your other assumptions about what lurks in the minds of drivers you encounter for a few seconds on the road?
Mind-reading isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Radar was next & that is accepted.
Now, Red lite cameras are to be tolerated as well.
Be careful what rights you so easily accept to give up to the gov't, for soon you'll be in a totalitarian dictatorship instead of a quasi democracy.
You can't blame yourself for speeding when you get a ticket for speeding when you are NOT speeding. Falsely accused is one way to put it. Mistaken identity is often the cause.
You could blame yourself for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, which is then ultimate source of most of my tickets.
Have you looked at the source of the studies that show reduced accidents? Likely coming from the fox guarding the hen house. Have you looked at the source of the studies that show a 1:1 ratio, or often, increased accidents; likely coming from independent verifiable sources.
Have you seen studies that show lengthening the yellow light by just 1 second increases safety and reduces violations more effectively than red-light cameras? The cameras in no way increase safety. It is from other factors; like lengthened yellows.
The actuaries at AIG must have miscalculated by oh, just a little over 100 billion dollars or so, I guess they know their jobs; they sure are good at asking for, and receiving gov't handouts and bailouts.
Just because your brothers company is good doesn't mean all of them are.
That's insane. Do you really believe all the people driving around you are paying attention and driving in the same manner as you? Do you really trust all the drivers "in your flow?" So the teenager texting, the old guy with reduced reaction speed, the mother with screaming kids in the backseat, the contracter in the pickup on the phone and reading their next contract, etc...all driving 10-20mph over the limit is an environment you consider "safe."
The reason we need limits is exactly because people are not driving in an undistracted and safe environment. You're living in a fantasy world with fantasy drivers surrounding you if you believe that "driving with the flow regardless of the actual speed" is safe.
I do agree that reckless driving is rarely punished, but it's also rare that when it does occur that a police car is right there watching and able to stop the guy and actually convict him, since reckless driving is based on the opinion of the police officer as compared to a radar gun result. So in your reckless teenager example, you'd have to get statements from witnesses to the reckless driving (how are you going to get those) if you want more than just one police officer's statement.
Bottom line is that it sound nice to say, "arrest all the bad drivers and not the good ones just speeding" but there's no practical way to enfore it.
But I'm with you...once we have a nation of expert, non-distracted drivers, then going with the flow will be the safest driving speed!
The war on distracted driving is lost because too many people in this country are against government regulations, including government regulations against cell phone usage while driving, texting while driving, etc... So if you're looking somewhere to place the blame on distracted driving, blame the AM radio wacko hosts who think the government is the devil and every new regulation is an "infringement on our personal liberty."
We adapted.
That doesn't change my core assertion: by purchasing any insurance/warranty, you are most likely losing money. AIG miscalculated in how to invest your money, not in how to rip you off better.
What a cop-out. That could be said for any traffic ticket, any driving accident (your fault or not), and many other things in life including any type of inconsiderate driving.
It's a good way to avoid personal responsibility for one's actions: "Hey, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time!"
It'll be interesting to see if you still think this way 10-20 years from now.
In some versions that are being tested, it does need infrastructure. In its simplest implementation, however, everything is already there: just link together the adaptive cruise control, self-parking, blind spot monitoring, lane departure sensors, backup camera and such with your GPS, and voila. The only likely snag is not technical, it is legal: liability in case of the system malfunction.
On the one hand you could just ignore the reason for the distraction and just look at the observed behavior (i.e. erratic driving or an accident), but if the idea is prevention, then you’d want to try and do something to prevent the behavior from happening in the first place, such as a law making it illegal to phone or text while driving. Even if only ½ the people obeyed the law on the honor system, it would prevent a lot of accidents.
Sort of like child carseat and seatbelt laws. Do you think people would use their seatbelts or put their kids in carseats if there were no laws? Some would and some would not. But having the law definitely increases usage, just like having a law against texting or cell phone use when driving would decrease usage, even it were very difficult to enforce.
I agree wholeheartedly and support you about phones and texting, because other people's lives are at stake. I do not support, however, carseat/seatbelt/helmet laws, because it is your and your family business and responsibility. If you or your kids are hurt or dead, too bad. The law may save lives, but it goes against human dignity and erodes the basis of the civil and respectful society.
Tell me you're joking??? So you're saying if you want to beat your kids that's okay because it's your "family business"??? Can you say that you aren't going to educate your children because it's "your business??" You're not going to take your kid with a broken leg to the ER because it's "family business?" I don't think so.
Carseats and helmet laws for children are for the safety of the child. Saying you're against carseat and helmet laws for children is like saying you're for allowing parents to treat their kids like animals until they're 18? It's because of attitudes like this that we need laws like seatbelt and helmet laws for kids.
Have you come up with a technique that works for you? I find myself in that situation fairly often, and usually the outcome is... not what I had hoped.
I least I don't keep time to the beat by tapping the accelerator pedal like my sister used to do in her younger days.
I agree that many practical aspects are quite difficult to tackle. I still maintain, however, that driving with the flow, for everybody, no matter what, is much safer than going much faster or much slower. This is just a basic knowledge taught in auto schools, and a common sense. What matters most is your speed relative to the guy next to you, much more than your absolute speed. The premise is that to reduce the probability of a collision is not any less worthy goal than just to reduce the gravity of the consequences. I do maintain, and this is not insane, that all cars going with the flow is safer than some distracted drivers slowing up. Or keep up, or pull over to the shoulder. I disagree that one should be an expert driver to go with the flow; on the contrary, going with the flow benefits mostly average drivers semi-distracted by their thoughts, radios and conversations with passengers. Non-distracted experts might actually afford more leeway.
What you are saying is, in effect, this: let’s all drive slower then, so that even texters and contractors could keep up. That is what we actually have now at all levels: catering to the worst and weakest instead of even trying to put things in due order. My point, however, was that if everybody, including texters, already goes 10-20 over, then the limit should be increased (and texters should be weeded out, BTW). You also say that there is no practical way to enforce reckless driving. I don’t know; I don’t see even attempts to enforce. Somehow, even much poorer countries sometimes manage to do much better job. Should we concede that criminal laws, or say, gun regulations are unenforceable too and give up? Where to draw the line? Sometimes we should surrender to the inevitable and reasonable (higher speeds) and sometimes fight back (cell phones and bad driving). I see, however, that many people have their priorities just the opposite way (and that is why I think that the fight for better driving is already lost and auto-pilots are in order).
I also don’t understand why many people show so much deference to the magical numbers, like “20 over the limit”. It may sound scary if the limit is, say, 95. It is not a big deal when the limit is arbitrary and obviously very low. On my routine commute this morning, I briefly drove 75-80 in a 40 zone; most other drivers did about 60-65. I cannot imagine why the sign 40 is there; maybe some drunk had an accident there 40 years ago before that road was reconstructed, and the sign was erected then just to show that something is done about that. The legitimate question is: Who is qualified to make this judgment? Well, if there are people who are qualified, I believe my profile should fit there (30+ years of driving experience, education in physics and engineering, property owner, have a family, etc).
Saying you're against carseat and helmet laws for children is like saying you're for allowing parents to treat their kids like animals until they're 18?
First, maybe yes, why not? It is definitely better than to allow kids call 911 to tackle their parents! If to extend your logic a bit further, we should outlaw also abortions and contraception, and something says me you are probably not there (yet). But then again, this is a sort of trolling on my side. But more seriously, not in extreme cases (broken leg), but in borderline cases (helmet use), who is to decide what exactly constitutes treatment like animals? Helmets, for example, is a highly controversial matter on very many counts. Our family uses carseats and seatbelts, but not helmets.
Not a comparable analogy, but a Red herring. You can do better.
So it's a 40mph zone (not a construction zone) on an interstate? I've never seen that before, so I can see and agree as to why people don't adhere to something like that.
The problem with your logic on relative speed to the guy around you versus actual speed is that as speed increases, so does stopping distance. Are you saying that people going 20mph above the speed limit are all increasing the gap to the car in front of them? The reality is that they're going faster but not maintaining an appropriate distance in front of them. Plus if something unexpected does happen (as it does in the real world) a group of cars going 85mph will have less time/distance to react/adjust than if they were all going 65mph. The problem is that the average, real driver out there isn't planning/thinking about the unexpected.
It sounds like you're a good driver, so if you know you're surrounded by a pack of cars with drivers just like you, then you can go 100mph safely, but driving is too dangerous of a thing not to cater to the below average driver. And I do agree that reckless driving should be stopped by police, but I also think that reckless drivers are also the type of driver that speeds a lot, so maybe they'll get picked up that way, since it is so difficult to arrest/convice solely on reckless driving charges.
Seriously, was it worth it?