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
I drive fast on Interstates with almost no traffic. Limited access would mean that coffee is
available only off the Interstate. As far as mechanical failure and erratic lane changes with no signal, these are extremely unlikely IMO. I do believe that limiting exposure time to such an occurance provides a safety cushion
Limiting exposure time is by driving past them at a high rate of speed.
Do you see why I answered your post.
May I also suggest the use of paragraphs to separate distinct, different thoughts.
eharri3: I did not read the Pennsylvania drivers manual but I am sure it does not condone speeding in order to move past large packs of cars and avoid traveling with the pack.
Slowing to pass at reasonable speed differentials makes excellent sense... I do that also if passing a much slower vehicle. Although I haven't seen the high side of 100 for a long, long time.
Whenever someone zips past me on the highway, I'm GLAD. They are welcome to attract the attention of the Law that might otherwise be directed at a minor speed-limit-stretcher, such as myself.
Also I much prefer someone who passes and is gone to one who creeps up, lingers in my blind spot, pins me behind slower vehicles, or passes only to slow down and force me to re-pass to maintain my speed.
So speed-on, be vigelant, and pay no heed to the P.C. ninnies who regale you with "what ifs".
james (the opinions expressed here are just opinions and are intended in no way endorse or encourage illegal or anti-social activities)
The unfortunate truth is a traffic engineer may determine the maximum safe speed, only to have a different speed substituted by the state legislature. The state legislature, typically, is not poplulated by engineers. So, in WI, we have a stretch of Highway 41 from Peshtigo to Marinette that is 65mph. This stretch is only 7 miles long and is NOT controlled-access. That is, there is cross-traffic spots all over in the median so people can get to businesses, their homes, what-not. Then, there is a stretch of Highway 41 from Abrams to Green Bay that is 100% controlled-access. Want to get to your house or a business? Take an off-ramp and use a frontage road. This highway? Also 65 mph. No traffic engineer would say the two stretches have the same safe max speed, but the state legislature has said only 4 lane highways can have 65 mph limits and 65mph is THE highest limit it will put on any highway. This, despite the fact that the south and east part of the state is relatively flat and judging by 65mph limits on other, more dangerous roads, one should be able to safely travel I43 or I94 (rural portions of each, obviously) at something higher, perhaps 75. Because most people are not totally stupid, they realize the rural portion of I43 from Green Bay to Milwaukee is safer than Highway 41 from Peshtigo to Marinette and thus, their speeds tend be higher. In my case, I'm right at 65 on 41, but 75-85 on 43. Does this make sense? Or is this wrong, ONLY because the state legislature, who likely never travels these roads, says so? A change to match this concept, I think, is what most "speeders", myself included, would consider ideal. Limits that make sense for an individual road and for today's car. Even the most basic Kia today, at a fundamental level, is likely better equipped to handle 75 on a rural interstate than a 1976 Ford Granada.
Further, the 10-15 over or 20-25 over cutoff cannot be applied in all cases, because on most streets in my town (limit 25), those speeds are likely not safe due to their totally uncontrolled nature. This is a town where kids DO play in the street, etc. The point is 45 in a 25 is not the same as 85 in a 65.
"Several other countries eg England, have much lower rates of fatalities but with higher speed limits."
Perhaps for other countries, this is true. However, in regards to England, I may not intelligently comment on their fatality rate, but their limits on the Motorways are not much higher than any interstate in the US (if at all). I travelled on several last Christmas and IIRC, (and it might have depended on where we were) the limits were 65 or 70. Certainly not autobahn or even Texas, for that matter.
Regardless, in the US, I never look at the number of traffic deaths--I look at rate--the number of deaths per 100 million miles travelled. What difference (big picture) does it make if 40000 or 41000 die each year if the rate is still .90/100m mi? The risk is the same. As we grow and we travel more, keeping all other factors equal, the absolute numbers will increase. This is certainly terrible for the 1000 more people that died--I understand this and I want the number to be as low as possible. But, what are we really shooting for here? Can we logically use absolute numbers to compare our fatalities to Canada or England? No way--not ever. The day we have fewer fatalities than England is a bad day for England. (I know what I quoted stated "rates" in England--I was using abolute numbers in the sense that you see all the hand-wringing and such about how last year our fatalities went up, but there was no comment about how many more miles were driven, so based on the wailing of MADD and such, we have no idea how much riskier driving last year really was). I understand we can have lower rates than other industrialized countries and hope do achieve that.
Trust me on this, I've driven there extensively. By the way, even taking a bite of a sandwich or a a swill of soda can result in a hefty fine (for "not being in control of a motor vehicle"), and talking on cell phones is forbidden.
I was referring to the fatality rates prorated to the miles driven, sorry if that was not clear.
Your comment here "
....are indeed 70 mph, but everybody travels at 85-90, and police will ticket only above 100 mph or if changing lanes unsafely or tailgating. In urban areas, there is stricter application of the limits, enforced with speed cameras." is exactly what I was aiming at. At least there, drivers are relatively disciplined and the police know that. Unfortunately here, the cops in many cases cannot successfully discriminate between proper travel +10mph and improper +10mph.
My stepdad never mentioned the eating/drinking rule enforcement. (He's from England). I think that's great. Part of why 85mph is allowed, I imagine is the cops realize it's likely being done safely.
I was passing a minivan in a 65 mph zone. I was probably doing a little over 70 mph. The minivan sped up as I was trying to pass ([non-permissible content removed], I HATE that!) so I inched my cruise control up to 75 mph; like you guys, I don't like to linger next to other cars. RIGHT as I rounded the curve, a cop nailed me at 75mph. I explained the situation, and got the usual "speeding is speeding" lecture. Two more points on the license.
I try to stay in the right lane as much as possible but I'll come up on someone with the cruise set and they're obviously going slower. So I get over and when I go to pass (with the cruise still set the same, on flat, FLAT road (it's oklahoma) I'll come up along side them and they'll pace me.
The thing is, I don't think they do it on purpose. I think it is either a mental thing where they just subconcously start pacing off of you, or that they wake up from the mental fog and start going faster like they'd like to.
Whatever the reason, it drives me nuts. I see it ALOT and I, like you, do not like to sit next to these brain dead morons any longer than neccessary. Also, inevitable I'll just speed up more and go around, wasting gas and risking an even bigger speeding ticket.
Less frequently but equally irritating, an open open road someone (apparently on cruise control as I am, going a few miles faster than I) will pass me on the left, then pull in front of me, then coast to exactly 2mph slower than what I was going at.
As for speed, I'm guilty of it. On a few (I can count them on one hand) occasions I've gone above 90, up to 110 (and that was just once for a gratifying instant; it's my Tercel's speedometer limit, under my tires' limit but not by a safe margin).
I feel safe at 90 if it's a pretty straight freeway, there are only a few cars around doing the same, each direction of traffic is well separated, and I've worked on the car recently. Maybe 95, but then I'm really nervous about police. Past that I know I'm depending on nothing surprising me and I admit I shouldn't have tried it. But I wouldn't know anything about my car's dry-road grip limit and now I do, and that's come in handy on occasions at lower speeds.
I know a guy who got up to 150 in his RSX, and hit a pothole. Flipped a lot of times, but somehow he's alive (and no longer driving). Maybe in a car like that though, a speed slighly above 100 is perfectly alright. As far as I can feel in my car, it's the suspension and grip that limits what speed seems safe.
AND, I must confess I sometimes experience the slight urge to speed up when getting passed.
Sphinx, I think what you described also has to do with people overestimating their own "cruise" speed. By cruise, I don't necessarily mean cruise control, but rather their prefered traveling speed when not passing or otherwise responding to something. You travel at your cruise speed, speed up to pass someone, and then theoretically return to your cruise speed. In your situation, the driver somehow fails to return to his prior cruise speed, or misjudged your speed and should never have passed you in the first place(assuming your speed didn't change).
I cannot stand drivers who do not maintain some sort of cruise speed. Likewise I find that I cannot stand driving cars w/o cruise control.
Like somebody said before pass all the people you have to pass as quickly as you can and that will make your daily drive better. This way you can clear traffic and move to the right lane. You can also let people who want to go faster than you go past you on the left without you being tailgated. You will also have more open road to yourself. If you have to pull out and pass a vehicle who's going slower than you in the right lane pull and pass in the left left lane and than move back to the right lane ASAP. I'm 24 years old and driving 90mph is ridiculous. I live in New Jersey where insurance rates are scarce. If I crash into somebody and cause an accident like in the snow my insurance goes up even more. So I realize the consequences of not using my head when I Drive.
Living in New Jersey I have been on the Flemington Circle, and Somerville Circle which aren't good traffic area's. The I-287, I-80, and US 46 spilt in the Northern Part of Jersey is not a friendly traffic pattern either. Rt 22 in Union with the Big Island seperating the east and westbound lanes with all thise crazy U-Turns can be dangerous as well. I have never experienced the I-80, US 46, and US 23 intersection/circle in Wayne(nothern NJ) and the I 295, I276, and US 130 intersection in Southern Jersey. Have seen those intersection as passenger in a car but don't want to experience them as a driver in a car.
I also drive in NJ (live in Northern, work in Central) quite a bit, and you seem to be a rare and precious thing- a NJ driver who shows lane discipline. I tend to drive a little faster than you (ideally cruise at 10 over or so) but I doubt you'd ever give me cause to complain because you do the right thing. In turn I try to do the right thing to not block people who want to go faster than me.
I really don't like 22 at all, it does that same "big middle island, lots of weird u-turns" thing near Somerville, too (Dunellen?). Really funny thing, there's at least 1 *house* in the island in the middle of the highway.
The 46/23 thing in Wayne isn't that bad, IMO, you just have to know how to merge- which is a whole separate issue. NJ drivers simply can't merge, which is ironic because they're required to do it so often.
Could someone explain why I need to go 110, or 90, to determine how well my Michelins grip on dry pavement? I can tell how they grip at 50, and 65, all legal and prudent.
If it's okay to go 90, then 110 is no problem. It's only 20 mph more. And why not 120, it's only 30 more. And why not 130, it's only 50 more.
Just where does xx over the speed limit society has set become dangerous?
And in a small car... My large car with heavier parts should be good for 150 at least???
And if I have a Honda sports car (RSX) I should be able to go, oh say 150, because there's no danger, I can see 1/4 mile at least, and nothing untoward could happen. (Refer to above post for those that wonder why that's a ridiculous statement.)
As for the pavement grip, what if other pavement is less coarse -- has an area high in tar binder or has smoother stone at the surface. Does a 115 mph test suffice for all roads? NOT.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I have never heard of a pothole that would throw a car like that. Must be in the mid-west where they have "pot-hole warnings" on the radio. I was driving there and thought that was the funniest thing I had ever heard. Until I actually saw one. ..We don't have roads like that in Ga. At least not without 2 miles of signs warning you about it.
Anyway 90+ MPH is not scary. Just need to be a little more vigilant. A big thing is simply reading the behavior of other drivers. If you pay attention to them, even when they don't use their blinkers or anything, you can often tell what they're going to do before hand by how their driving and their actions. My wife does not "read" other drivers well and it drives me nuts that she doesn't anticipate what is coming. Very underated, under-mentioned driving skill.
I once hit a tool box on the Autobahn going about 120. I guess the car should have exploded and left a 50 foot crater to mark to spot of such a tragic error in judgement.
Instead, it just knocked the alignment out and ruined my front spoiler. So much for drama.
If speeding is regarded as a cash cow for local law enforcement, or if it is regarded as saving a precious non-renewable resource (time), will determine whether we can drive fast safely or not.
The Ohio turnpike is about 350 miles of relatively straight, limited access, divided 2 lanes each way, well maintained highway.
It had a 70 mph speed limit in the early 60's. This was for cars with bias ply tires, no ABS, no seat belts, and they were quite heavy.
Enter the 55 mph speed limit. The Gov't even directed speedometers to be cut back from their traditional 120 MPH maximum to an 85 MPH maximum. This was done to make it look like you were using more of your cars capability, than the less than 50% displayed on a 120MPH speedometer.
At the inception of the 55MPH speed limit, tires were better, cars were safer and handled better. They now were limited to 55, where the inferior cars could do 70.
The net result was a total disregard for speed limits. It still lives on. I regularly see cars in the left lane of commuter traffic doing 75-80 in 55 mph speed limits.
Is it any small wonder that modern, good handling cars can do 100 + safely, particularly if old 1958 Fords without so much as power steering, (it was not rack and pinion either) were allowed 70 MPH.
Whether a 58 Ford or a Corolla can do 100 is a
driver factor as well as safety and is subjective in your statements? What data do you have that a 58 Ford is less safe than a recent little Corolla?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'd suspect that the Corolla would handle much better than that 58 Ford. With all the advancements in technology and materials, I'd bet it stop much quicker and handle high speeds better.
Under the right conditions 90 is a piece of cake, even here. As I said earlier, I've been in situations where the general flow of traffic was 90. In the middle lane of three.
There's even one road I know of where the flow of traffic can get up over 90, sometimes approaches 100. Though that one's in MA.
The main difficulty in the Northeast is too little road and too many people who need to drive but really aren't interested in driving, don't like it, and therefore have never learned how to *do* it.
Here in NJ we had some snow Tuesday night. And today, Thursday morning, I saw a number of cars on the road with snow completely covering their license plates.
The *second* day after the storm, and they still can't manage to clear off a tiny patch on their cars to obey the most basic of vehicular rules.
Heh, imagine how someone that clueless, that deprived of knowledge of traffic law and the rules of the road, unable to notice detail, that purely *stupid* (is the time you saved not clearing your plate worth getting stopped and ticketed?) drives.
Hey, as long as you are not speeding, police are okay, since those fines are not worth a lot, and insurance companies can't jack up your rates, so everybody's happy, except people like you and me!
People's behaviour is adaptive, and the general populace will learn what will "fly" and what gets ticketed and behave accordingly over time.
difficult. :-)
If you had ever driven one of those old behemoths, you would know how well they didn't handle. The engines were generally massive V-8's under the front hood and those heavy cars were RWD
I had a '65 Olds 442. It could do 0-60 in under 5 seconds. It would squeal the tires at 110 shifting from 3rd to 4th. That was on a drag strip. I got protested by the guy who won every week when I beat him. He didn't think my cut out exhausts and slicks were stock. We never even got to the re jetted carburater. "Listen to that exhaust, that doesn't even sound like a stock exhaust."
It reminds me of the adage "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
I thought rear wheel drive cars had a much better weight distribution, hence were better for 'real' driving. Some 'luxury' cars are RWD aren't they?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Hell, I had a 1966 Mustang that I bet a modern day Corolla could run rings around.
Maybe it is because you live in IL, although I would say it depends where in IL you live. Anyway, there are plenty of areas in WI like this: I43 from Green Bay to Milwaukee suburbs, I39 from Wausau area to Madison and I94 from western Milwaukee suburbs to Madison. All can have light traffic at various times, all are relatively straight and flat.
All easily allow for safe opearation at 85-90. (See previous post--if state says 65mph is safe on all 4 lane highways, w/o regard to access, then surely these interstates can be safely travelled at a higher speed, right?)
In fact, I once was returning from friends house on I94 to Madison in moderate traffic. Traffic was flowing at 80 and I was following a car that was doing 90 (I was at 85). There were several State Patrol cars around, yet no one pulled over. Mind you, attention is key here--I don't think I heard one song on the radio for the entire 75 mins the trip took. I can't ever imagine being able to drive 85 on Highway 41 through Green Bay--unless it's 3am--even Sundays have enough traffic where this would be dangerous.
The whole point was to explain why there is such disdain for speed limits.
I am sorry if I used a reference that was unfamiliar to you. You would not say that RWD cars have better weight distribution if you had driven one of the old cars.
For the same reason that I have to abide by yours. If I owned a Ferrari 575M that I wanted to drive at 175mph on a single lane road, why should I have to slow down because your Accord coupe has trouble reaching a mere 140mph? If you shouldn't have to abide by his limitations then I just as easily could claim that you don't belong on the street at all b/c your car only does sub-200mph.
That's why we have speed limits. They set a limit that hopefully is a realistic compromise for all car types at all income levels on all road types in all weather conditions for all skill levels of driver. Seem like a big compromise? You bet. Want to change it? This November when you vote for a President, vote for one who promises to upgrade every passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. to be stable at 150mph, promises to rebuild every road, and institutes nationwide advanced driving training for drivers of all skill levels. Then we can bump up those speed limits to triple digit speeds and you can get to work 3 minutes faster.
I was driving west on I80 a bit over an hour ago, and passed an accident scene on the other side. There was a multivehicle pileup featuring a tour bus, plus lots of emergency vehicles, broken glass everywhere, etc. Eastbound was reduced to one lane.
I saw people in the eastbound lane right at the end of the accident area, in the last part of the one lane "tunnel" where the road opened back up fully, *stopping* to look. Major interstate highway reduced to one lane, literally miles of cars backed up behind you, and you *stop* to get a better look? Boggles the mind.
Carefully peruse point 1.
Some folks have questioned the arbitrary nature of many current highway speed restrictions, how they really have nothing to do with safety but began as intrusive governmental nannying and now serve primarily to generate revenue.
All your point 1 has to offer is that "bad drivers" say there's nothing wrong with speeding. Strikes me as a bit of ad hominem- you don't need to address the issue, all you have to do is suggest that one side is making the same arguments as "bad drivers" (and perhaps are bad drivers, and therefore automatically discredited and wrong).
About the 46/23 thing the traffic signs are just all over the place. You want to see confusion look at Exit 127 in Woodbridge off the Garden State Parkway where I-287, Us-9, and US 440 meet. Now thats confusion.
The worst driving I have seen is in maryland, Washington DC and Delaware on I-95 south. Everybody is in a hurry to get someplace. As a passenger you get to see a whole lot of tailgating on I-95.
About people removing snow off their cars can't people remove snow off the roofs of their cars? What if you make a sudden stop and all the snow off the roof just goes onto your front window? You can't see anything as a result.
I've gotten lost a couple of times at the 23/46 thing, but I have the hang of it now. I think that whole area around Perth Amboy is a mess. I've taken a few wrong turns there, too.
I have driven in 48 of the 50 states. (never driven in Idaho or Oregon)
Boston has the worst drivers in the country. NYC and DC are tied for 2nd place.
I-95 is common with I-495 in MD and VA. I-495 is known locally as the DC beltway.
It is heavy to moderate traffic 24 / 7. It is bumper to bumper 15 mph in rush hour. In moderate traffic, it i not unusul to see the left lane doing 75-80. I know from experience that one will not get ticket for 70 and under. 80 is a different matter.
The I-495 return to I-95 in VA has been perpetually under construction. The road signs are not the best there, either, due to changes in route patterns.
BTW I live in MD. One of the biggest reasons traffic sucks in the DC region is that both MD and VA teach new drivers that passing on the right is acceptable on 3 or more lanes. Lane discipline is non existent, as a result. Consequently, there is a lot of tailgating, particularly in the left lane.
You may just pass through. Imagine having to contend with it on a regular basis.
I go against traffic on my way to / from work on one of the feeder roads to the beltway. I have it very easy compared to those I see on the other side of the road, heading into the beltway.
Isn't there a sub-discussion in here, about is it safe to pass people at 100? Or have you not been reading these threads and just decided to post something condescending for the heck of it because you haven't kept up? Go to post 2315 and look around.
Funny stuff. Good post.
I find that I must CONSCIOUSLY resist the urge to slow down when I pass some scene. Usually my GF is with me, do I tell her, "Okay, you gawk and I'll just drive." Then she can tell me about it later.
"More than 60% of bad drivers say they are frustrated driving behind SUVs because they are wide and tall and block their vision."
I thought it would have been hilarious if the sentence after that had been: "The other 40% drive SUVs."
I guess I have an odd sense of humor. :P
Yes I'm weird, and no it probably wouldn't still stop the rubbernecking, but at least those that have to know what's going on with all the flashing lights could keep on driving knowing they could check it out later.
Yes I'm being semi-serious, and ignoring legal issues, but damn, I don't understand why people have to rubber kneck. I just keep on driving, and get pissed at everyone going so slow. I love when traffic's backed up for 5 miles, and then you finally come up on an accident.....on the other @#$!$!# opposite oncoming side of traffic. Then, magically you speed back up. Nothing was physically slowing traffic down....nothing at all.