Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

1472473474475476478»

Comments

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 35,241
    roads do look slick. And gotta say, looks way too cold and that dark at 8:40 in the AM with snow on the ground, you could not offer me a job that pays enough to live there!

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    xwesx said:

    This morning, a school bus blew through a four-way stop going ~30mph. I was at the intersection, stopped, and started to pull out when I did a double-take in the direction of the bus. Something told me that the guy was coming in too hot, so I just waited a moment longer. Sure enough, he slams on the brakes for a moment, realized there was no possible way the icy conditions would allow for a stop, then just drove right on through. Thankfully, he was the only one at the intersection who was not paying attention.

    A similar thing happened to me yesterday morning. The difference was it was at a traffic light and the driver made a right turn on red in front of me. Not sure if he came to a full stop at the light but I had to make an emergency maneuver to avoid him or her.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 24,108
    Tailgaters surprised:

    I had a Mercedes tailing me on I75 years back. There was a plastic separator skipping around on the road with the currents from vehicles passing it. Thin plastic about 4 x 4 that looked like it went between layers of auto parts in wooden crates bound for the local GM assembly plant.

    I straddled the piece but the suction under my car lifted it and it plopped right onto the hood and windshield of the aggressive MB sedan driver. LOL

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396

    A similar thing happened to me yesterday morning. The difference was it was at a traffic light and the driver made a right turn on red in front of me. Not sure if he came to a full stop at the light but I had to make an emergency maneuver to avoid him or her.

    Never fun to have happen, but at least we can write about it here without the addendum of "damage this," "broken that," to add to the bill. :D
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396
    edited January 13
    stickguy said:

    roads do look slick. And gotta say, looks way too cold and that dark at 8:40 in the AM with snow on the ground, you could not offer me a job that pays enough to live there!

    Ice is an interesting thing. Depending on the temperatures, even slick intersections like this gain much more tackiness than they might have at, say, zero or +20. At +30, some of these intersections are nearly impossible to get a car to a full stop. In this case, I think the driver may have just not been familiar with the road (on the road he was driving, the 4-way stops are just sort of random and intended as a "traffic calming" measure). The driver seems to have not recognized the intersection soon enough, tried to brake, and realized quickly that the best bet was just to blow it.

    I agree, all things considered. I'm just glad I took a second look and noticed what was about to happen. Only point of improvement to the scenario would have been for the driver to blow the horn with enthusiasm to warn everyone that he was out of control.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    xwesx said:

    I saw an Audi A4 ruin their suspension last Sunday. I was driving in an area that's not exactly rural but wasn't exactly suburban either, it was an area of transition between the two. I was on a two lane road, 55 MPH SL and I was going 60 give or take. All of a sudden I saw this Audi fly up behind me and just sit there on my rear end. He must have been pushing 90 coming up on me.

    Now shortly after this we come to a railroad crossing and I slow way down. Evidently this joker didn't like that and since there was no oncoming traffic he moved into the oncoming lane gunned it and flew pass me.

    Now two things I must say, first is that it is illegal to pass at a railroad crossing and secondly when someone slows down for a railroad crossing there usually is a very good reason. This particular crossing needs some major work done on it to bring it up to be a rough crossing. You should have seen that car bounce when it hit those tracks, the guy almost lost control.

    And yes there was a sign declaring it a rough crossing.

    Hahahaha. Sometimes that is the best justice achievable. I fondly recall a similar instance when driving on Chena Hot Springs Road, about ten years ago, and the road surface was just crumbling apart. There were numerous small and large pot holes in the road, some of which extended all the way across the lane (or further). I was driving a 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan, and behind me was a small red sedan (a Neon, if memory serves). The driver was just riding up my rear end, for miles and miles. Traffic was not heavy, but at least regular enough that passing was difficult.

    After a time, I approached a pot hole that was around 6' round. I straddled it with my van, and moved only very casually to do so, and the driver behind me was completely unaware of it approaching. BOOM! That guy went into the hole at 60 mph, dust went everywhere, and he quickly pulled to the side of the road. Tailgating problem solved! :D
    I just want to let everyone know my old Neon was not red :smile: It was blue.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    xwesx said:

    stickguy said:

    roads do look slick. And gotta say, looks way too cold and that dark at 8:40 in the AM with snow on the ground, you could not offer me a job that pays enough to live there!

    Ice is an interesting thing. Depending on the temperatures, even slick intersections like this gain much more tackiness than they might have at, say, zero or +20. At +30, some of these intersections are nearly impossible to get a car to a full stop. In this case, I think the driver may have just not been familiar with the road (on the road he was driving, the 4-way stops are just sort of random and intended as a "traffic calming" measure). The driver seems to have not recognized the intersection soon enough, tried to brake, and realized quickly that the best bet was just to blow it.

    I agree, all things considered. I'm just glad I took a second look and noticed what was about to happen. Only point of improvement to the scenario would have been for the driver to blow the horn with enthusiasm to warn everyone that he was out of control.
    Ha... probably doesn't want to raise the eyes of an LEO reading the paper eating a donut if there is one nearby. Might not want to draw that audible attention, if there's a chance they visually missed the violation.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
    Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396
    andres3 said:

    I just want to let everyone know my old Neon was not red :smile: It was blue.

    Hah! Comedy gold, sir. Well played. :D
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
    Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
    Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

    Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

    Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

    Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
    Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
    Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

    Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

    Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

    Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
    You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right :smile:

    Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

    Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

    "Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

    I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    edited January 15
    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
    Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
    Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

    Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

    Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

    Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
    You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right :smile:

    Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

    Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

    "Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

    I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.
    Oh I am sorry, I didn't know the laws of physics are different in Australia. I suppose that water freezes at different temps there too.

    Of you wish I could dig some and find the ones in the US, but you would find something wrong with them.

    Edited to add: I do believe that the Cirillo study was done in the US, the Midwest if memory serves.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    While not an inconsiderate drive the number of squirrels that ran out in front of me on the way to work was very high. There were 8 or 9 that did it on my 14 mile commute.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396
    That is surprisingly high. We get that some years with hares here; the population cycles on a 17-year basis, and I think that either last year or this coming summer is supposed to be the peak year for them. Every morning last summer I would see upwards of a dozen or more either on our small property or along our small feeder road. I actually hit one with my bike, and it about took the front wheel out from under me. I don't think it was injured, at least not to the point it made any indication of such as it continued scurrying on its way without even a sound.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396
    edited January 15
    This morning, I had another driver speed up to try to prevent me from changing lanes ahead of them. I seriously don't get the mentality at all, but I didn't let it phase me. I just pulled in anyway, let them get mad "because I cut them off" (even though they really cut themselves off), and just smiled and waved as we both dropped our children off at the same school. LOL

    I'm sure the lady will feel smugly self-righteous as she relays the incident to all her friends: How she was so innocent, didn't do anything, and I'm just that jerk in the Audi. :D
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,207
    edited January 15
    latest trend on highways: "road-trains" of MLC or LLCs all texting and all tailgating with the one in front locked onto a vehicle in adjacent right lane, refusing to pass it, keeping huge space in front so all the texting can proceed unimpeded and no other drivers can pass.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    edited January 16

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
    Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
    Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

    Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

    Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

    Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
    You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right :smile:

    Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

    Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

    "Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

    I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.
    Oh I am sorry, I didn't know the laws of physics are different in Australia. I suppose that water freezes at different temps there too.

    Of you wish I could dig some and find the ones in the US, but you would find something wrong with them.

    Edited to add: I do believe that the Cirillo study was done in the US, the Midwest if memory serves.
    The laws of physics are not different in Australia, but their so-called "studies" show preposterous presumptions, assumptions, and other styles of gymnastics (including outright deception) far beyond the typical bias you'll find in most scientific studies of any sort.

    It is so bad I just immediately discount Australian sources of traffic safety data. I do the same with the INSURANCE propaganda firm, IIHS, but at least with the IIHS it doesn't take but a couple minutes of reading to fully debunk every report they publish. Usually their conclusions just don't match the data in their own reports. Or they fail to use rates when talking about figures, and other word play to try and mislead the public into believing utter nonsense.

    EXAMPLE:

    The red light camera industry pays so-called scientists statisticians to make up a term called the "halo effect"

    This is where they don't like the fact that camera'd intersections have more collisions than non-camera intersections. So they make up a term (Halo), and say that the presence of red-light cameras provides a shield of safety over the whole city and all adjacent intersections. With this definition, they can then cherry-pick the safest intersections (with the least amount of collisions) and attribute that "reduction in collisions" to their own intersection with cameras installed. Sort of like using the placebo control group data as your own data when it betters your own.

    YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP! The truth is better and scarier than fiction.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    edited January 16

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    andres3 said:

    my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

    Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
    Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

    One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
    Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

    There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

    Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

    Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
    1. Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
    2. Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
    3. Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
    4. Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

      If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
    Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
    While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
    Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
    Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

    Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

    Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

    Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
    You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right :smile:

    Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

    Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

    "Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

    I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.
    Oh I am sorry, I didn't know the laws of physics are different in Australia. I suppose that water freezes at different temps there too.

    Of you wish I could dig some and find the ones in the US, but you would find something wrong with them.

    Edited to add: I do believe that the Cirillo study was done in the US, the Midwest if memory serves.
    And Cirillo is the one that concluded there is no evidence up to the present time to alter Solomon's original curve.

    I'm pretty sure Cirillo had access to those so-called Australian studies done prior many years prior to 2003. I don't think it gets any clearer then that.

    Just saw a video of a semi truck ramming vehicles because they decided it was a good idea to stop on a foggy day on what appeared to be a high speed highway or Interstate. The authorities were already telling the idiots to get off the road, but it was too late, that kind of speed differential is too high up on the curve. I could post video after video showing anecdotal evidence that speed differentials cause collisions. Was the truck driver going too fast for conditions? Absolutely! Would a collision have been avoided by cars not going 0-5 MPH on the high speed road? Absolutely!
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    OK I see if it agrees with you it's perfect if it doesnt its preposterous.

    As for red light cameras as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. Both sides giving contradictory studies supporting their bias. Cutting through the propaganda it seems to be neutral.

    But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396

    But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

    Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253

    OK I see if it agrees with you it's perfect if it doesnt its preposterous.

    As for red light cameras as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. Both sides giving contradictory studies supporting their bias. Cutting through the propaganda it seems to be neutral.

    But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

    The studies are actually pretty consistent (relatively) when you look at it as a whole. Often, for a single intersection, the differences do fall withing limited sample size and time error.

    Even pro-camera City Officials will often admit "Yes, they do increase collisions, but I like that trade-off since the more serious T-bones are reduced in favor of more rear-enders" or some argument to that effect. How many increased collisions (and property damage) is one THEORETICAL limb or life saved worth? That's where a debate on facts could start.

    Any study on redlight cameras I've seen that reports "reduced collisions" is always making presposterous claims such as the "halo safety" effects I mentioned, in order to pump up those numbers.

    If something is preposterous it is preposterous. I look at data objectively and logically, without any pre-concieved notions. I don't see the anti-camera side using intersections WITH CAMERAS to argue that the safety benefit of that intersection comes from intersections without cameras.

    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    xwesx said:

    But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

    Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh
    Well... I can see how if I, or a loved one was involved in one of those 2 collisions, the 100% increase and "doubling" of collisions, I'd be mad at the government for implementing a policy KNOWN TO INCREASE collisions. IMO it is reckless and incompetent for the government to do things that are known to cause more collisons. Period. End of Story. No further discussion needed.

    The fact that these cameras cost tax payer money to implement, install, maintain, and use is just icing on the cake. But it is not about the money, or is it?
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    edited January 17
    Here's a whopper. From my hometown of Sacramento, CA!!!! I wouldn't think a leftist liberal government like that found in Sacramento and in California could write such truth, but they have:

    https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Data-Maps/Speed-Limits

    Key takeaways:
    1. SPEED LIMITS AND COLLISIONS
      People frequently ask to lower the speed limit on residential streets to make their streets safer and more livable. It is a common misconception that speed limits signs reduce collisions. Studies indicate that no significant change in average vehicle speeds has occurred after the posting of new or revised speed limit signs. In fact, research shows no direct relationship between posting speed limits and collision frequency.
    Wow, our government so rarely writes anything with such logic and truth. This is going to make the myth-believing crowd angry!
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

    Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh
    Well... I can see how if I, or a loved one was involved in one of those 2 collisions, the 100% increase and "doubling" of collisions, I'd be mad at the government for implementing a policy KNOWN TO INCREASE collisions. IMO it is reckless and incompetent for the government to do things that are known to cause more collisons. Period. End of Story. No further discussion needed.

    The fact that these cameras cost tax payer money to implement, install, maintain, and use is just icing on the cake. But it is not about the money, or is it?
    It appears that you are not to knowledgeable with regards to statistics. The number of accidents at an intersection per year is not static. and has to change by whole numbers. Hence a change of one either up or down is statistically insignificant regardless of the starting number. An increase of one is insufficient and therefore cannot be attributed to the red light camera.

    Since the average intersection has less than one accident per year you would have to increase the number of accident much greater than 100 percent to make a real case. Now intersections that have or had red light cameras are signaled and have more traffic than the average intersection I would presume they have more accidents but how much more. I for one would like to see not only the raw data on the accidents but data on traffic congestion over the same time. Remember traffic accidents increase as the roads become more congested.

    Tell me what do you think about people fighting against policies that could save hundreds of lives every year?

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 15,924
    andres3 said:

    Here's a whopper. From my hometown of Sacramento, CA!!!! I wouldn't think a leftist liberal government like that found in Sacramento and in California could write such truth, but they have:

    https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Data-Maps/Speed-Limits

    Key takeaways:

    1. SPEED LIMITS AND COLLISIONS
      People frequently ask to lower the speed limit on residential streets to make their streets safer and more livable. It is a common misconception that speed limits signs reduce collisions. Studies indicate that no significant change in average vehicle speeds has occurred after the posting of new or revised speed limit signs. In fact, research shows no direct relationship between posting speed limits and collision frequency.
    Wow, our government so rarely writes anything with such logic and truth. This is going to make the myth-believing crowd angry!
    I dont think that means what you think it means.

    2008 Sebring Ragtop, 2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,207
    edited January 20
    Which is most/less/least considerate when arriving at a sudden yellow-light in a city with redlight cameras: 1. Avoid citation by slamming on brakes? 2. Avoid citation by flooring it and tailgating? 3. Maintain speed and get cited, taking one for the team? My choice is usually #2. Be careful out there!
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 35,241
    No one ever does 3 intentionally. I will stop for a yellow even without cameras. If that means people behind me have to stop instead of roaring through dead red, that’s their problem.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,396
    I guess it depends on the timing for me. I tend to default to stopping unless the light turns yellow at such a time that it is impractical to stop at my given speed. In Alaska, a red light citation occurs if the vehicle was not in the intersection at the time the light turned red. This means that if you weren't in the intersection by the time the light turned, then you had plenty of time to stop - no excuses.

    I know that there are some states that differ on this (e.g., if you're in the intersection when the light is red, then bad on you). I apply my SOP to all locations.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253

    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

    Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh
    Well... I can see how if I, or a loved one was involved in one of those 2 collisions, the 100% increase and "doubling" of collisions, I'd be mad at the government for implementing a policy KNOWN TO INCREASE collisions. IMO it is reckless and incompetent for the government to do things that are known to cause more collisons. Period. End of Story. No further discussion needed.

    The fact that these cameras cost tax payer money to implement, install, maintain, and use is just icing on the cake. But it is not about the money, or is it?
    It appears that you are not to knowledgeable with regards to statistics. The number of accidents at an intersection per year is not static. and has to change by whole numbers. Hence a change of one either up or down is statistically insignificant regardless of the starting number. An increase of one is insufficient and therefore cannot be attributed to the red light camera.

    Since the average intersection has less than one accident per year you would have to increase the number of accident much greater than 100 percent to make a real case. Now intersections that have or had red light cameras are signaled and have more traffic than the average intersection I would presume they have more accidents but how much more. I for one would like to see not only the raw data on the accidents but data on traffic congestion over the same time. Remember traffic accidents increase as the roads become more congested.

    Tell me what do you think about people fighting against policies that could save hundreds of lives every year?
    I agree a single or even a few intersections over a few years may not provide a sufficient sample size. No argument there.

    Saving hundreds of lives a year sounds like a good cause for all parties and all people of any political affiliation or background. However, at what cost? And who's paying for it?

    There is a limit on how much "safety" we can all logically afford. Law of diminishing returns certainly applies here. The evidence on "saving hundreds of lives" yearly should be rock solid and conclusive to undertake changes that bring on a lot of negative effects, both intended, predicted, and those other negative effects that perhaps were not intended, the usual unpredictable or UNINTENDED consequences of ill-thought out change.

    Tell me, what do you think about people fighting for policies to remain in place (status quo) that are shown to be underperforming from their own predictive data, or worse, performing counter-productively to their intended benefits (making things even worse, ie; killing even more people). Vision Zero is guilty of this. Results come in that they made things worse, not better. Usual reaction is not admitting "oh, we were fools and we were wrong, sorry abou that." The typical beuaraucratic response is "more of the same, we need MORE of the same, and it'll work next time!" You get this reaction despite royally failing initially. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Doubling down on "more of the same" is tantamount to doing the same thing.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    edited January 24

    andres3 said:

    Here's a whopper. From my hometown of Sacramento, CA!!!! I wouldn't think a leftist liberal government like that found in Sacramento and in California could write such truth, but they have:

    https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Data-Maps/Speed-Limits

    Key takeaways:

    1. SPEED LIMITS AND COLLISIONS
      People frequently ask to lower the speed limit on residential streets to make their streets safer and more livable. It is a common misconception that speed limits signs reduce collisions. Studies indicate that no significant change in average vehicle speeds has occurred after the posting of new or revised speed limit signs. In fact, research shows no direct relationship between posting speed limits and collision frequency.
    Wow, our government so rarely writes anything with such logic and truth. This is going to make the myth-believing crowd angry!
    I dont think that means what you think it means.
    LOL. It means exactly what it says. It's written very clearly and simply. Extremely forthright and straightforward.

    What do you think it means? :smile:

    I know many in the "speed kills" myth believing crowd rely on presumptions and assumptions that fly directly in the face of the facts quoted above.

    Things like, "people will always do 10 over." Never mind that a Corolla (among many other cars) can't do 130 MPH so maintaining 10 over if the speed limit was set at 120 would be impossible, let alone even probable. Anyone that's put any thought or logic into driving and traffic safety knows that "people will always go 10 over" is patently false.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,253
    Left lane camper low IQ logic often entails "Why should I (Insert stupidity here) if I'm going the speed limit?"

    I don't understand the logic, so I must ask:

    If you believe going the speed limit makes you immune to all passing lane rules and laws, why don't you believe driving the getaway car at the speed limit should make robbing a bank legal?
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD 2.0T
Sign In or Register to comment.