Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
My advice on travel is, when you can afford it, do it when you are able bodied. I don't feel like I am making a mistake by getting out when I am relatively young, and physically able to cope with miles of walking etc a day. Of course, being single helps too :shades:
If you like more common instances of logic and order on the roads, you'd prefer there to here. Not that there aren't bouts of weirdness, but the way things generally move with less controls and restrictions is refreshing.
I just love being on a 45mph road, road make a 10 degree change in direction, simp ahead hits the brakes. Maybe everyone should have to take a new driving test.
So for example, of so called "distracted" driving (conversationally: all types estimated @ 20% of A/I/F 's ) 75% of that are caused by eating and drinking in the vehicle.
There's freeways in the Twin Cities that have lots of traffic (I would expect a lot more than this new toll road given it is a toll road and cuts across a rural part of TX) and haven't had a death for many months. Sometimes they happen. Usually due to kids doing something stupid (like driving too fast), sometimes weather related (although weather's been pretty mild lately). But never a good thing.
Did you notice also the comment in the article about the accidents caused by collisions with deer and hogs? So the "twisted metal" you wondered about isn't just limited to this one fatal accident. Setting an 85 mph limit in an area with large wild animals likely to cross the road is pretty idiotic, IMO.
Cheaper than the toll road... and without all the idiot traffic.
It wasn't a problem just three years ago... but now, it's widespread.
Did the newest crop of drivers not learn how to lightly angle the steering wheel to shift lanes?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I love seeing people start swearing at themselves when they are annoyed at other drivers, when they are at fault. In a logical world, Titan driver wouldn't be a motorist at all. Funny that you distracted him - almost as good as fooling a tailgater into a corner, and taking it faster than their skills or vehicle allow.
Lately I have been doing a lot more head shaking and "thumbs down" signs than I had in the previous few weeks.
I'd agree that 85 MPH at night is probably too fast for a road that gets regular animal crossers. During the day I'd imagine you could see them from far enough away that it would be a non-issue.
I'd imagined a raised freeway with walls on both sides so that the kind of thing they are talking about could never happen. Yet, even with raised elevated freeways with walls on both sides you get 65 MPH speed limits in CA. Now that's idiotic, lots more idiotic than TX 85 MPH speed limit.
One death so far still seems statistically insignificant as compared to many roadways across the US.
Texas highway pileup: time to slow the ‘super truckers’ down? (Yahoo)
Honestly, a pileup can't happen even in extremely thick fog unless some idiot causes something to be in the way and pile up into it. If there's nothing to pile into, no pileup can occur!
The person quoted in the article also states that is only a matter of time before an accident happens on the portion of the road with the 85 mph speed limit. Which, of course, further undermines the claim that the higher speed limit had anything to do with this particular accident, or that this accident happened where the limit has been set at 85 mph.
Is it only a matter of time before there is a fatal accident on the portion of the road with the 85 mph speed limit? Sure. Is there ANY stretch of open road in this country that has not been the scene of a fatal accident?
The latest local fatality occurred on a country road where the speed limit is 45 mph. Using the above "logic" (although that is torturing the definition of the word in this case), I guess we need to lower the speed limit on every local road to 25 mph...
When one reads the entire article, it's clear to everyone - except those clueless enough to believe that an 85 mph speed limit is, in and of itself, dangerous - that the 85 mph speed limit had nothing to do with this accident.
He said he didn't care one way or the other; he puts the truck on cruise 5 or 10 mph below the speed limit and loafs along.
Asked him if truckers rode up his tailpipe doing that - said it didn't matter, if he was going 20 over the limit they'd still do that.
There are quite a few sketchy minds out there, likely even a couple who post here, who would support that...
Indeed, that road being 85 had nothing to do with the crash. "Speed kills" is one of the greatest lies ever foisted upon the American taxpayer.
Not true. If you check the stories on this crash, it's clear the driver was killed when entering the toll road from a highway that has a posted speed of 55. The toll road is posted at 85 where the accident occurred. The crash occurred on the toll road, not on the slower intersecting highway (US 183). See for example:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/first-fatal-crash-on-85-mph-sh130-toll- -
Which raises the question as to whether the big disparity in speed between US 183 and the toll road was a factor in the crash. That was raised in the article.
I haven't seen a story yet that reports on the findings of the crash investigation, i.e. as to whether speed was a factor. The article you referenced states that it isn't known if speed contributed to the crash, thus it must not have been obvious to the police on the scene that speed was or was not a factor. But you seem sure that speed was NOT a factor. Care to share with us why that is? Were you there at the time of the accident, perhaps?
Your logic re the accident on the 45 mph road is illogical. There are other reasons for accidents besides speed.
Investigation by who? Unfireable LEOs who are usually fighting tooth and nail to keep the "speed kills" lie alive, as the proceeds from laws built around it fund their comfy salaries and nice pensions?
Noticed quite a few minor cases of inconsiderate driving over the long holiday weekend. I chalked most of it up to people being in a big hurry to get to the next store to snag some incredible deal. But one really clueless driver in a newer Highlander took the cake. On a road adjoining a large mall (where I was headed also), he puts his signal on for a left turn. So far, so good. But then proceeds to turn on a cut-through in the center island marked with a large, clear NO LEFT TURN sign. (Also, for benefit of some others here, there was a NO U TURN sign, big and clear as well. Hard to miss either one of them unless one had his eyes closed.) My 16-year-old daughter says, "You can't turn there... you can't TURN there." Even though she's only been driving on a permit for a few months, she realizes that putting your turn signal on does not give you the right to turn wherever you want.
Really a strong, strong, STRONG case for that almost always ignored basic speed and etiquette law/rule/LOGIC: KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS.
I have gone "tag team" if you will with a fully loaded tractor trailer across Texas interstates doing this and it was just fine ! Diesel trucks with loads and (in my case) under hp'd diesel cars have different torque curves. So basically I got his attention and motioned to do the above (he gave a thumbs up) and we went at it for hours on end. When we had to pass or fall back we both... DID.
I've heard the truckers like to drive fast in TX.
All the more reason for higher speed limits so that you can "legally" get them off your behind. Surely the top speed of your typical family sedan is higher than a big rig.
Either way, my best guess is this accident was indeed caused by a speed related factor, the old lady in the Civic going too slow being the cause! :P
That's where he drives. And they still run up his tailpipe.
The last thing I want to do is tailgate a semi or vice-versa or convoy with them. Those guys can't stop or maneuver.
Most trucks have governors on them now and any trucking company that doesn't require them probably faces increased risk of losing a negligent driving suit if they don't install one (and keep tabs on drivers' unhooking them with GPS tracking).
Actually this is a way to save state DoTs a lot of money. Just email partial info about an accident to andres3, and he'll send the infallible results within a few minutes. Maybe charge a few bucks a pop for that... nice extra source of income plus saves taxpayers a lot of money. Win/win.
P.S. One sign of driving too fast is being unable to avoid drivers who make a mistake. In this case, let's assume the late driver of the Civic did make a mistake and merged incorrectly. What was the driver of the Tahoe doing while the Civic was coming down the on-ramp, in too-close proximity? Were they thinking, "Aha, I'm going to smash that car to smithereens for getting in my way?" I'd hope they were thinking that an accident could happen and were getting ready to take action to avoid it. Or were they doing nothing because they were sailing down the road oblivious to everything around them?
Yes, the car on the freeway has the right of way. But if a death can be prevented from the car with the right of way paying attention and taking action to avoid the accident, I'm all for that. Doesn't help the family of the deceased to tell them, "Gosh, I'm really sorry I killed your mom/daughter/grandma, but I had the right of way so it wasn't my fault!"
I am feeling homesick for something that isn't my home. Also got behind a crawling obese Yukon XL with an obnoxious religious license plate frame piloted by a very small woman who probably would kill someone if she had to make an evasive move. Didn't see anything like that for a few weeks, and loved it.
Time to require special license endorsements for more than bikes and trucks.
Most likely, the stupid idiot had braked to a complete stop at the end of the on-ramp... and then tried to merge into 85 mph traffic going about 10-15 mph.
Not that far-fetched when you consider it was a Tahoe vs. old Civic. I'm sure the Tahoe driver might have thought, surely, the Civic will get scared into yielding since I'm so big and they are so small.
I found people seemed to respect me more when I catch up behind them in the left lane in the big company Dodge Caravan than they seem to pay attention to my little A3. More miles will need to be logged by me to verify this hypothesis, but that is my initial impression. The funny thing is that it is much safer for me to driver faster in my A3 than the wallowy Dodge Minivan.
P.S. One sign of driving too fast is being unable to avoid drivers who make a mistake.
I agree people should avoid accidents where possible to mitigate damages, however, the driver in the Tahoe may have been paying perfect attention, and simply made some assumptions that turned out to be false until it was too late. They might have chosen purposefully not to avoid the situation and called the Civic's bluff, only they weren't bluffing; which has nothing to do with going too fast.
I do respect the driver's decision to crash into the "at-fault" vehicle rather than swerving a heavy unmanueverable unpredictable Tahoe into innocent and better nearby drivers and cars; thereby involving other vehicles through no fault of their own. I hate seeing big rigs jack knife to avoid some idiot as they put other innocent vehicles and driver's at risk in doing so. In a scenario where emegency manuevers are ill-advised, it could be the correct choice to smash the offending at-fault vehicle to smithereens and leave the rest of traffic unharmed. As sad as it'll be for the affected families, it is Darwin at work. One less bad driver on the roads to cause traffic congestion for the rest of us.
Calling a bluff? Do you consider that a considerate, safe way to drive? I don't.
I do respect the driver's decision to crash into the "at-fault" vehicle rather than swerving a heavy unmanueverable unpredictable Tahoe into innocent and better nearby drivers and cars; thereby involving other vehicles through no fault of their own.
And... how do you know other vehicles were in the way, should the Tahoe have changed lanes to avoid the Civic? If the Tahoe was going too fast to execute a quick lane change (let's assume that was possible, vs. assuming it was not possible as you have done), then they were driving too fast for conditions. Maybe vehicles the size of Tahoes shouldn't be driving at 85 mph if they can't maneuver safely at that speed.
The logic of ramming another car while traveling at 85 mph as the best decision escapes me. First, it's almost surely going to be fatal for the passengers in the other car. Second, there's no way to know until the collision happens that it won't be fatal for the driver or passengers in the Tahoe.
I maintain that if the driver of the Tahoe had been driving prudently and considerately, he/she would have noted the Civic approaching from the entrance ramp with enough time to take action to avoid an accident. Even an emergency stop could have saved a life, even if it would not have prevented the crash.
Or... maybe driving at 85 reduces reaction time so much that it was not possible for the Tahoe's driver to react in time to the situation. In which case, the 85 mph speed limit on that road seems like a very bad idea.
Even if I accept your premise that a quick lane change was possible, I don't agree with your conclusion that they were driving too fast. The Civic was going TOO slow. Perhaps the driver in the Civic should have floored it, accelerated to at least 60 MPH, thereby making the collision a 25 MPH collision (which, according to you, is a "safe" speed, and thereby 25 MPH collisions can be presumed to be survivable).
Both vehicles could have been driving at an unsafe speed. But, the Tahoe hit the Civic and someone died.
Even if I accept your premise that a quick lane change was possible, I don't agree with your conclusion that they were driving too fast.
If the Tahoe could have executed a lane change and avoided the Civic, but didn't because of speed making that maneuver unsafe, I'd say the Tahoe was going too fast.
I think it's likely both drivers erred. The Civic somehow got in the path of the Tahoe. How, we don't know. Maybe the Civic could have accelerated. Maybe slowing down, to let the Tahoe pass, was the best option. (Higher speed is not always the best choice.)
And maybe the Tahoe driver should have been more alert (since you maintain driving at high speed makes drivers more alert, right?) and been able to avoid the fatality, if not the accident.
Maybe, shoulda, coulda... point is, you don't know and I don't know what actually happened there. It's all conjecture... not certainty, not fact.
Laws of Physics: the Tahoe can't hit the Civic without the Civic hitting the Tahoe back. We don't really know who hit who, but they both have to hit each other in order for a collision to take place.
You miss the point though. Any speed, whether 10 MPH or 100 MPH is perfectly safe as long as you don't try to occupy the same space and the same time and cause a conflict of right of ways. Laws of physics. The problem is in trying to occupy the same space at the same time. The speed just changes the severity of the accident.
Maybe slowing down, to let the Tahoe pass, was the best option. (Higher speed is not always the best choice.)
Being that the Civic driver died, we know for a fact whatever they chose to do was not the best option. I'm sure we can agree on that.
The Tahoe driver may have regrets, but the point is it probably could have been worse. Surely, the Tahoe driver doesn't feel they made the "worst" move possible; unless they purposely intended to cause a collision that day.
I think you set too low a bar for drivers on the road. I think we should all have a reasonable expectation that driver's will not make grossly negligent and incompetent moves on the roadway to put ourselves in situations like the one between the Tahoe and Civic. I realize driving defensively sometimes means assuming someone will drive idiotically, and that's unfortunate. It is highly inefficient and time consuming to assume every driver on the road will drive idiotically all of the time.
The point is the Civic shouldn't put the Tahoe in a position where a manuever is even necessary; regardless of speed. Now if the Tahoe had a supercharged Corvette Z07 in it, and was going 150 MPH, perhaps that wasn't reasonably expected by the Civic driver, but 85 should not be an issue.
And you say this, after you talk about the possibility of the Tahoe driver "calling the Civic's bluff"?
If all drivers acted in a competent manner all the time, we wouldn't have this discussion. And a lot more people would be alive today.
I was taught to drive as if anyone could do something they shouldn't do, at any time. Be prepared for the worst.
No one should drive in such a way as to make another driver make an accident avoidance maneuver. But we all know that's fantasy land. Someone cruising down a freeway, at whatever speed, does need to be aware of merging traffic and does need to take reasonable precautions to avoid having an accident with merging traffic. That's the considerate way to drive, that's the safe way to drive, that's the SMART way to drive. The defense that "the Civic got in my way" is pretty weak.
There is a law requiring a driver to reduce speed to avoid an accident/crash. So, even if somebody else makes a mistake, YOU still have the obligation to manage your vehicle, speed/braking/steering, etc to avoid the errant driver.
The speed of the Tahoe was estimated to be 70 mph. If speed disparity is the factor, then we need to raise the speed limit on the feeder road to 70 mph, too.
backy: I haven't seen a story yet that reports on the findings of the crash investigation, i.e. as to whether speed was a factor. The article you referenced states that it isn't known if speed contributed to the crash, thus it must not have been obvious to the police on the scene that speed was or was not a factor. But you seem sure that speed was NOT a factor. Care to share with us why that is? Were you there at the time of the accident, perhaps?
Given that you are the one so eager to jump the gun and claim that the 85 mph speed limit is the reason for the fatality in this particular accident, you bear the burden of proving it, and, so far, you haven't met it.
And around here, we've accidents similar to this one - bigger vehicle hits smaller vehicle - at 55 mph or less. And guess what, the occupants of the smaller vehicle were killed. Using your logic, we need to lower all of Pennsylvania's speed limits to 40 mph.
backy: Your logic re the accident on the 45 mph road is illogical. There are other reasons for accidents besides speed.
No kidding! That's what proponents of higher speed limits have been saying for years (and, of course, they are correct).
Which is why squawking about the 85 mph speed limit on this particular road is a waste of time. There is no consistent proof that higher speed limits on limited access highways lead to more fatalities.
But, to help you along, here are some more arguments against it that make as much sense as the ones you've already put forth:
1. Telephone poles, on their own, may jump in front of passing cars.
2. A brontosaurus may meander out on to the highway, and people may run into it.
3. Space aliens may use their evil teleporting rays to abduct drivers from their cars, and the suddenly driverless cars will careen out of control.
Never exceed 55 mph, though, and not one of these things will happen.
More than one phone yapper, and also a woman in a G coupe petting a dog while she "drove".
No. Again, reading for comprehension is important. The Tahoe was estimated to be going "... in the 70 mph range or above, since it was already on the toll road." In other words, they guess it was going 70 or over because it was already on the toll road. Nothing in the article to indicate they know how fast it was going, i.e. 70 as you claim.
Given that you are the one so eager to jump the gun and claim that the 85 mph speed limit is the reason for the fatality in this particular accident...
Wrong again. I never said any such thing. Recall I simply reported the story here. Others have jumped to the conclusion that the 85 mph speed limit was NOT a factor in the accident, despite not knowing the details of the accident. I did express surprise that a road that large wild animals are known to cross at night has an 85 mph limit. If you consider that "squaking" and of no concern to anyone, so be it. I think it was ill-advised. And there's been several accidents with wild animals on the road already. I know you'll say that is common, why complain? But I have no doubt that hitting a deer or wild pig at 85+ mph will cause a more serious accident than hitting it at a lower speed.
I'm not aware of any live dinosaurs in that part of Texas. Never saw a telephone pole jump onto the highway, either. But I heard Bill Cosby did use that excuse once, or something similar: "That tree jumped right out of the forest and bit my car!" I don't think the LEO bought it that time, either.
I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps going faster will obliterate the animal and pulverize them on contact, thereby lessening the impact to the car.
I remember when I was a little kid me and my friends would karate chop pencils with our hands (sometimes 2 or 3 or 4 pencils at once). I remember if you were hesitant and all the pencils didn't break the pain in your hand was exponentially worse than if you just swung super hard with no hesitation and "obliterated" the pencils.
Certainly, swerving into other human occupied vehicles to avoid a big piece of road bacon seems silly.
The deer and wild pig isn't likely to survive a collision at 55 MPH, so why bother driving that slow?
I'm not worried here about the deer and wild pigs. I live in an area where deer (even bears sometimes) cross roads and get hit. The deer aren't the only animals injured or killed in some of those collisions.
The first article states that the Civic was T-boned by the Tahoe
A Department of Public Safety spokeswoman, Trooper Robbie Barrera, said evidence indicated Harris' car was perpendicular to traffic when it was T-boned by the Tahoe but investigators aren't sure why.
Given that scenario, the accident still would have been fatal to the Civic driver even if the Tahoe had been traveling at 55 mph. Very few vehicles can protect their occupants from a direct side hit at speeds above 40 mph.
backy: Wrong again. I never said any such thing. Recall I simply reported the story here.
Here is what you posted, and why you posted the link to the story in the first place:
When andres3 posted this:
I'm expecting the news reports of carnage, spilled blood, and twisted metal to be coming in daily now according to some posters here.
You posted this:
And here ya go...
And then posted the link to the article. That isn't simply posting the article out of the blue. The logical conclusion from reading this exchange is that you are attempting to connect this particular fatality to the 85 mph speed limit on this road.
backy: And there's been several accidents with wild animals on the road already. I know you'll say that is common, why complain? But I have no doubt that hitting a deer or wild pig at 85+ mph will cause a more serious accident than hitting it at a lower speed.
In early November, a car hit a deer along Route 8 (in western Pennsylvania). The deer went through the windshield of another car, killing a woman sitting in the front seat.
The speed limit on that particular road is 40 mph. If both cars - the one that hit the deer, and the car of the woman who was killed - were exceeding the speed limit by 15 mph (which isn't that uncommon on that stretch of road), that would put their speed at 55 mph. Despite the lower speeds, the deer-car collision still resulted in a fatality.
Given these facts, you'll have to set the speed limit at about 30 mph if you want to avoid ANY fatalities when a car hits an animal.
We heard all of the excuses - including animal-vehicle collisions - when the national 65 mph speed limit was repealed by the federal government in late 1995. Despite several states raising their limits to 70 mph or higher (and most people exceeding the posted limits in other states, as they do in Pennsylvania), the predictions of automotive Armageddon never happened. And there are still plenty of deer left, too. I doubt that an 85 mph speed limit on one Texas highway will result in death and destruction.
A few years ago a new Dodge Ram Diesel was stalled in the middle lane of the six-lane (three lanes each way) bridge crossing the Susquehanna River. This bridge is part of I-83, and is one of the main routes across the river. The poor driver was frantically trying to get the truck started...I wouldn't have called him inconsiderate.
Among drivers 18-to-29-years old, 48 percent admitted to this practice in 2012
So who's driving?
Just as inconsiderate of the local planners/civil engineers in an area so loaded with (dirty) money to have a road network that is paralyzed by a single breakdown.
Out on foot this morning - no blatant crosswalk violators, but lots of phones in hand.