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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Your BI and MP rates are based on the likelihood of injury to you in your vehicle. It has no relation to the likelihood of injuries you may cause to others.
You might try to provide an example that rebuts mine. It will be more effective to your arguments.
kdshapiro: "So do we in NJ because speeders are an easy pick. Much easier for example than jaywalkers."
Which futher proves my original point that traffic fines are designed more to raise revenue than improve traffic safety. Governments generally choose the path of least resistance when raising revenue.
kdshapiro: "Actually NJ studied this and found that fatalities did not decrease with increased speed. Sort of goes contrary to a now 15+ year old study that probably now holds no water."
And the New Jersey study is more accurate than a federal study conducted across the nation in exactly what way? It also flies in the face of the continual drop in the fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven since the repeal of the national speed limit in 1995.
I'd say the New Jersey study doesn't hold any water. Maybe the study's authors need to check their methodology.
kdshapiro: "That is due to the fact the people who obeyed the law still obeyed the law, but the rest of the people didn't speed up. In other words, those who were doing 65 before did 70 after. Those who did 55 before now did 65."
And your proof of this contention is found where? Studies have repeatedly found that changing speed limits on interstate highways has little effect on most drivers' speeds.
kdshapiro: "Unfortunately fatalities started creeping up again as speeds and reckless drivers now went even faster."
The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven - the accurate way to measure highway safety, as it accounts for increases in driving - has continually DECLINED since 1995, and, as of last year, stood at a record low figure. The roads are safer now than ever.
Any increase in the absolute number of fatalities occurred for two reasons:
1. As the economy kicked into high gear - which it did after 1995 - people started driving more. A healthy economy encourages more pleasure driving. But, based on fatatilies per 100 million vehicle miles driven, which accounts for the increase in driving, the roads became SAFER.
2. Motorcycles have become more popular, with a resulting increase in motorcyclist fatalities. There has been a spike in the number of fatalities among motorcyclists over the past 2-3 years. These fatalities are included in the total number of traffic deaths for each year.
Both of these factors have nothing to do with increased speed limits or people driving faster.
The absolute number of fatalities has gone up or down by relatively minute amounts since 1995, especially in view of the total numbers (about 40,000 per year).
kdshapiro: In fact, it's the speeders that cause the issues, not the people going at the speed limit, driving properly.
I don't see drivers exceeding the speed limit camping in the left lane. Considering that "failure to yield" is regularly cited as one of the top irritants of most drivers, I'd say that drivers exceeding the speed limit are not causing the "issues."
kdshapiro: "Sure, the Autobahn is exactly like the GSP by Union tolls during rush hour.
There are plenty of congested stretches on the Autobahn. It skirts major urban areas (those are the stretches with speed limits). This summer I encountered stretches where traffic came to a dead stop due to heavy volume or construction.
When traveling on the Autobahn for any length of time, you are likely to encounter a variety of traffic conditions, as it crosses both urban areas and the German countryside, and varies in the number of lanes.
Drivers, however actually slowed down for the speed limit areas, as those speed limits had some relationship to improved safety.
Which is what I originally contended - people will obey speed limits WHEN THEY HAVE AN ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP TO IMPROVED SAFETY.
Seems that Germans have figured this out, too.
kdshapiro: "In Montana where there is no speed limits the cops will nail you, if you go above 75."
That sentence is not only inaccurate, it doesn't make sense. If there is no speed limit, why would the cops nail you for going above 75 mph?
When Montana enacted its "reasonable and prudent" law in 1995, cops were on record as saying that anything under 95 mph was fine, depending on road conditions, traffic and the vehicle. At speeds above that, they would scrutinize the situation more closely.
Since that time, Montana has enacted a 75 mph speed limit after the state's highest court threw out the "reasonable and prudent" standard. A motorist cited for driving too fast for conditions challenged it in court, and the court agreed with his contention that it did not provide adequate guidelines for motorists.
Interestingly, fatalities INCREASED after Montana enacted the 75 mph speed limit. (And even now the cops have said that they aren't going to cite most people for anything under 85 mph.)
Which puts another nail into the "speed kills" coffin.
kdshapiro: "That's slower than most people in NJ drive on the turnpike. Does that make NJ or Montana a safer place to drive?"
Considering that, based on my experience, you are less likely to encounter a left-lane camper in a rural, western state than New Jersey, I'd say Montana. That, of course, has nothing to do with "speeders."
But I'm guilty of the opposite sometimes. I should tap the brakes to let people behind me know I'm going to start braking soon, or stop relying on engine braking quite so much.
On downgrades, I understand. Especially on automatics. They never seem to slow down when you take your foot off the gas.
GM was actually the first to offer airbags. Back in 1973.
As for a reason to be on the cell phone while driving... I have a good one... One time I had to drive to Seattle/Redmond for a meeting with Microsoft. During the drive, I also had to be in a conference call, as I was a required attendee. I can't pull over for the conf call, because it's 2 hours long, and I'd miss my meeting in Redmond. It wouldn't have helped to drive the night earlier, because I had meetings down here I also needed to attend. I also had a late night conference call with some people overseas, that was 3 hours long, so even if I did drive the earlier, I'd still be on the phone.
Not everyone that is on the phone while driving is distracted. Some people yes, but not all. I disagree with a previous poster who said that silence is not tolerable on a phone conversation. I never talk on the phone, just for the purpose of talking. There are plenty of times, when I stop paying attention to the phone conversation, if I'm concentrating on something like changing lanes in tight traffic or something. I personally fail to see the difference betweeen a phone converation and a conversation with a passenger.
You'd be surprised how many types of "other" distractions I see everyday on my drive to work. I even see people singing/clapping along with the radio, with no hands on the wheel...
- I don't want to be behind them because asside from the annoyance their brakle lights are useless to me as a warning signal, and their turn signals become nearly ambiguous with all the flashing lights on the back of their car. Plus, I do not trust their reactions to an emergency situation. I wonder how many of the unintended acceleration accidents were two-footed drivers;
- I don't want to be near them because they are so hung-up on maintaining speed and distance that they are not focused far enough ahead to identify danger in advance. They are dangerous;
- I would never want to buy one of their cars used - can you imagine what the transmissions and brakes must look like? Also, considering that most of the fuel we waste driving goes into braking, imagine what their fuel economy must be.
I stay clear of them. Who teaches these people to drive two-footed anyway?
That said, I might do one of the (annoying) 2-hour conference calls in the car, on a headset as well, since they are generally all listening, and my attention is usually not too focused on these things even when in my office.
If any real attention is required, or interaction is required on my part I would stop. But this sounds like a self-imposed problem. No reasonable employer would seriously require you to drive and attend a conference call at the same time. If my employer put me in that position, and would not yield on either the requirement to drive at that time, or on participation in the call, I would consider calling their bluff.
There is no rebuttal to the fallacy that speed limits are only there to enrich government coffers and not for public safety.
"Which futher proves my original point that traffic fines are designed more to raise revenue than improve traffic safety. Governments generally choose the path of least resistance when raising revenue."
No it just says there are far more speeds and far few jaywalkers.
"And the New Jersey study is more accurate than a federal study conducted across the nation in exactly what way? It also flies in the face of the continual drop in the fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven since the repeal of the national speed limit in 1995."
What makes the federal govt study accurate? Do the drop in fatalities have anything to do with better driver education, more police enforcement, better cars and maybe less to do with the increase in speed limits.
"I'd say the New Jersey study doesn't hold any water. Maybe the study's authors need to check their methodology."
I'd say the NJ study is probably more accurate than the federal study.
"And your proof of this contention is found where? Studies have repeatedly found that changing speed limits on interstate highways has little effect on most drivers' speeds."
And your proof that I'm incorrect?
"The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven - the accurate way to measure highway safety, as it accounts for increases in driving - has continually DECLINED since 1995, and, as of last year, stood at a record low figure. The roads are safer now than ever."
See comment above.
"Both of these factors have nothing to do with increased speed limits or people driving faster."
People can drive safe fast, but it is not always safe on every road to go faster than posted limits.
"I don't see drivers exceeding the speed limit camping in the left lane. Considering that "failure to yield" is regularly cited as one of the top irritants of most drivers, I'd say that drivers exceeding the speed limit are not causing the "issues.""
Correct but speeders will usually combine speeding and reckless driving, cause there is that need to speed.
"kdshapiro: "Sure, the Autobahn is exactly like the GSP by Union tolls during rush hour.
There are plenty of congested stretches on the Autobahn. It skirts major urban areas (those are the stretches with speed limits). This summer I encountered stretches where traffic came to a dead stop due to heavy volume or construction."
Most of the autobahn does have speed restrictions? do people obey them?
"Which is what I originally contended - people will obey speed limits WHEN THEY HAVE AN ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP TO IMPROVED SAFETY."
The problem is that it is you are making the call, sort of like going to the doctor having a heart attack and telling the doctor what treatment you want.
"That sentence is not only inaccurate, it doesn't make sense. If there is no speed limit, why would the cops nail you for going above 75 mph?"
Don't make me post a link. Do a search on the internet.
"When Montana enacted its "reasonable and prudent" law in 1995, cops were on record as saying that anything under 95 mph was fine, depending on road conditions, traffic and the vehicle. At speeds above that, they would scrutinize the situation more closely."
Not true anymore
Anyway this has been fun, if you pass me on the GSP, I'll probably see you in front of a trooper. Have fun speeding.
As the number of cars increased the carnage also increased, and speed limits were lowered. With the advent of the Interstate system, the limits could be raised again. What numbers did they choose? The traditional ones - 65 mph. Not for any statistical reason, and not as part of some conspiracy to raise revenues, just based on the traditional speed limits everybody was familiar with and the cars were built for.
Fast forward 40 years: Traffic has exploded, highway deaths went up to numbers higher than all of the deaths in the entire Viet Nam war - annualy! Public pressure brought on congressional pressure, and the speed-kills thing evolved. Enforcement and lowered speed limits are all they knew to throw at the problem. Still, nobody was thinking about safety, in terms of the ability of the roads and the drivers to handle speed. No, they lowered limits, resulting in more bunched-up traffic, and more accidents. So, more enforcement: a typical governmental stupidity cycle.
But in the process of throwing more enforcement and lower speed limits at the problem, police departments learned that there was a lot of money in this, money that could pay for more enforcement technology, more cruisers and (oh yeah) more overtime. What's not to love?
To this day nobody is really looking in-depth at what changes would enhance traffic safety. Too much money involved now....
Currently, about the only time a cop gets ticketed is if he happens to be speeding out of his jurisidiction, and that other jurisdiction has it in for him! Or, years ago, when Marion Barry was mayor of DC, his limo was speeding through a town in Maryland and he got pulled over. First thing he did was spout off about being the Mayor of DC. First thing the cop did was remind him he was in Maryland!
Just imagine what would happen if any public official seriously attempted to eliminate limits or advocated increasing them to realistic levels. The speed counterpart to MADD would get AAA and the insurance lobby to fight it tooth and nail, and the official would go down. Nobody is going to touch this issue, just like they don't touch the foolish excesses of DUI enforcement. With the brainwashing done to the motoring public, those dogs just won't hunt!
Like everyone else, my response is get around and away from this car asap.
And he does the same brake pedal issue... He just taps it, instead of letting go of the gas to slow down. And this is constant. We have yelled at him, cursed, made fun of him because he drives like an old lady, but nothing...He continues...
It's now getting to the point we won't even get in his car because it's nauseating. And what's worse, ON a Camry... it's bad enough how that thing floats and wallows all over the road, with his imput, it doesn't help things any. AHHHHH
My '67 Catalina's kinda fun to do that with too, because it'll throw you back in your seat. It also has a nice rumble to it that often sets off the alarms of parked cars in lots and parking garages.
I don't do it on a regular basis, though!
Here's another one. This evening on the way in to work, I was behind a mid 90s Maxima. The guy driving was driving at a decent speed, and not bothering the brake pedal. But, when he braked for curves and such, he was crossing the yellow line after slowing down. I see this all the time, usually it's "Soccor Mommies" in minivans and suvs. They brake to or below the limit, and then either cut the inside on a left turn or curve, or go wide to the right. I cringe and fear the worst, when they do this on blind corners or curves. And I hang way back. Back to the guy in the Maxima. He got a little adrenaline rush. At one point, at an intersection, I was turning right, and he decided to do same, about 10 feet past the turn poin. I had to jab the brakes to avoid him, and he had to swerve to avoid the left turners in the lane waiting. Here's were the adrenaline comes in. Sitting across the intersection, heading the way we were turning, were two local "fuzz" units. 3 seconds later lights and sirens come on and they come a running. Flew by me, as I knew they would, and slowed down at him. Luckily for him, they both turned down a side street right in front of where he pulled over. I bet his wife gave him a little for that boneheaded manuver at the intersection. I smirked and said to myself, next time be a considerate driver. This concludes my novella.
I was pretty far back (3 or more seconds following distance at the time so I certainly wasn't tailing him) and he was doing 65 in a 55 as well.
Finally after a few minutes of this I started flashing my brights each time he tapped his brakes. (You flash me I flash you) I don't think he got my message as he kept on doing it at the same intervals. Oh well.
I had a '91 Civic rental car on that trip. Discovered that, given enough of a downhill grade, it would hit 115 mph. And STILL get blown off by people in their Benzes doing 140!
Working in state government, I can assure you that speed limits are not always set to the recommendation of traffic safety engineers. The pressure is to lower speed limits, both for bogus "safety" reasons, and from the insurance companies and local governments, who are enriched by fines and surcharges from speeding tickets.
And, as I've shown with Pennsylvania's recent addition of surcharges to traffic tickets to close a budget deficit, state governments benefit from too-low speed limits, too.
kdshapiro: "What makes the federal govt study accurate? Do the drop in fatalities have anything to do with better driver education, more police enforcement, better cars and maybe less to do with the increase in speed limits."
Considering that many school districts have reduced or phased out driver education programs under budgetary pressure, I doubt that better driver education is the explanation.
Vehicles have been getting safer since the 1967 model year, when the first passenger safety standards where implemented as per the federal government's direction. The drop in the fatality rate during the 1990s can't be explained largely by safer vehicles, as cars and trucks have been getting better for decades. Plus, the vehicular fleet is not completely turned over in one or even two years. It's not as though everyone is suddenly driving vehicles with the latest safety equipment.
kdshapiro: "And your proof that I'm incorrect?"
According to a seven-year study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which speed limits were varied at 100 locations nationwide and the traffic flow studied, "raising posted speed limits by as much as 15 mph had little effect on motorists's speeds."
Going further, the report states that, "contrary to public perception...the data actually indicates that accident rates were REDUCED (emphasis added) at sites where speed limits were raised."
So, yes, you are incorrect.
kdshapiro: "See comment above."
The fatatility rates per 100 million vehicle miles driven is tabulated annually by NHTSA. The results for the previous year are widely reported in the summer (usually July).
Check out these numbers - which are the accepted, most accurate way to measure road safety - and you will discover that your original contention is, indeed, incorrect.
kdshapiro: "People can drive safe fast, but it is not always safe on every road to go faster than posted limits."
And no is saying that it is. We are saying that exceeding the speed limit ON CERTAIN ROADS isn't the crime against humanity that the "speed kills" acolytes make it out to be.
kdshapiro: "Correct but speeders will usually combine speeding and reckless driving, cause there is that need to speed."
And your proof of this is found where? Considering that people who exceed the speed limit on interstate highways have fewer accidents than other drivers, that is an incorrect assumption, based solely on your opinion.
kdshapiro: "Most of the autobahn does have speed restrictions? do people obey them?"
I don't know the percentage of the Autobahn that has posted speed limits. Considering that I observed traffic continually slowing down in speed restricted areas, I'd say that people do obey them.
kdshapiro: "Don't make me post a link. Do a search on the internet."
Considering that you originally said that Montana still has no speed limit, I'd say your link is not accurate. It may be time for a new source of information.
kdshapiro: "Not true anymore."
I never said it was still true, in the wake of Montana's enactment of a 75 mph speed limit.
kdshapiro: "Anyway this has been fun, if you pass me on the GSP, I'll probably see you in front of a trooper. Have fun speeding.
Highly doubtful.
Given recent events in the state, I'd say New Jerssy residents would do well to spend less time worrying about people exceeding the speed limit and focus on other, more important matters. Such as corruption in government, and whether the governor's boyfriends are really qualified for the positions he appoints them to.
What I thought was interesting was that they noted that car use of cellphones accounts for 40% of all cellphone use!
That same issue also had an article about Oprah's car giveaway and the impending tax disaster.
As long as my property taxes are lower because speeders are getting surcharged, I am a happy camper. To lower my property taxes I would even vote for a proposition for more enforcement on the road. Thank you for pointing that out.
"Considering that many school districts have reduced or phased out driver education programs under budgetary pressure, I doubt that better driver education is the explanation."
Maybe in Pa. but in NJ drivers ed is alive. And still gets you discounts on insurance and is necessary to get a drivers license.
"Vehicles have been getting safer since the 1967 model year, when the first passenger safety standards where implemented as per the federal government's direction. The drop in the fatality rate during the 1990s can't be explained largely by safer vehicles, as cars and trucks have been getting better for decades. Plus, the vehicular fleet is not completely turned over in one or even two years. It's not as though everyone is suddenly driving vehicles with the latest safety equipment."
Actually the 90s saw the standardization of some small but significant auto improvements that contributed to better passenger safety, thus reducing fatalities.
"According to a seven-year study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which speed limits were varied at 100 locations nationwide and the traffic flow studied, "raising posted speed limits by as much as 15 mph had little effect on motorists's speeds. Going further, the report states that, "contrary to public perception...the data actually indicates that accident rates were REDUCED (emphasis added) at sites where speed limits were raised."
The problem is I've seen other studies to the contrary. There is an old saying, lies, damn lies and statistics. This is one of a number of studies with inconclusive evidence. So I believe I am as incorrect as you.
"And no is saying that it is. We are saying that exceeding the speed limit ON CERTAIN ROADS isn't the crime against humanity that the "speed kills" acolytes make it out to be."
I never said that, but the fallacy of studies that roads are safer when the speed limit is raised. Where there is a speed differential due to speeders the road is inherently unsafe. Raising the speed limit, does not automatically reduce the fatalities.
"And your proof of this is found where? Considering that people who exceed the speed limit on interstate highways have fewer accidents than other drivers, that is an incorrect assumption, based solely on your opinion."
The proof is studies that show speeds with the speed differential responsible for car crashes due to negligent driving. Again, post a link to a study that shows me to be incorrect in my observations.
"Considering that you originally said that Montana still has no speed limit, I'd say your link is not accurate. It may be time for a new source of information."
That is true, and cops will ticket you going above 75.
"Given recent events in the state, I'd say New Jerssy residents would do well to spend less time worrying about people exceeding the speed limit and focus on other, more important matters. Such as corruption in government, and whether the governor's boyfriends are really qualified for the positions he appoints them to."
The problem is corruption won't end my life. But a speeder can, especially if driving recklessly, tailgating, cutting people off, etc. The governers sex life has nothing to do with inconsiderate driving, and frankly if he can make the road safer I don't care who he brings aboard.
As for the government and cars, 1967 was the first year that they required collapsible steering columns, and even before that the gov't was starting to have some influence in automobile safety and emissions. The government had their fingers in the auto industry's pie long before the 1990's!
Would go to Victorville just to go anywhere decent. Barstow does have the largest Mickey Ds in the U.S. Gotta count for something. And Henry Fonda went there in movie "Grapes of Wrath," should be worth a few points. Plus tons of off road racing in the area. And just about equal distance, give or take, to L.A. and Vegas.
One of my old school chums still lives there. She's a teacher in the SV school district in Yermo, just over the hill from Barstow.
Considering that I never linked a reduction in property taxes to increased revenue from traffic tickets, that certainly came from out of left field.
Property taxes, in Pennsylvania at least, are collected at the local level and are used to fund education. Property tax revenues are not added to the general fund at any level of government - state or local. Nor are revenues from traffic tickets used to reduce property taxes.
Of course, if revenues from traffic tickets in New Jersey are being used to reduce property taxes, that only strengthens the arguments of myself and many other posters that speed limits are set as much to raise revenue as anything else.
You can't have it both ways - scoffing at the idea that speed limits are set to raise revenue, and then gloating about it when the revenue from traffic tickets is used to lower your non-traffic related expenses.
kdshapiro: "Actually the 90s saw the standardization of some small but significant auto improvements that contributed to better passenger safety, thus reducing fatalities."
As Andre1969 noted, the same thing happened to vehicles during the 1960s and 1970s (safety glass, collapsible steering columns, door side beams, etc.), thus negating your point.
kdshapiro: "The problem is I've seen other studies to the contrary. There is an old saying, lies, damn lies and statistics. This is one of a number of studies with inconclusive evidence. So I believe I am as incorrect as you."
First you demanded that I provide a study to back up my statement, all the while claiming that your "studies" proved otherwise. Now, when proof is provided, all studies suddenly have "inconclusive evidence." (Your rhetorical dancing around the gist of the argument would put the late Gregory Hines and Gene Kelly to shame.) The study certainly sounded "conclusive" to me.
You asked for proof, and you got it - and from NHTSA, no less.
kdshapiro: "I never said that, but the fallacy of studies that roads are safer when the speed limit is raised. Where there is a speed differential due to speeders the road is inherently unsafe. Raising the speed limit, does not automatically reduce the fatalities."
The speed differential causes the road to be "inherently unsafe"? Someone forgot to tell the Germans on the Autobahn. The speed differential between the fastest and slowest cars can be as much as 50 mph. But the roads are safe.
The key is lane discipline, as shown by Montana's experience when there was a RISE in fatalities with the imposition of a speed limit.
kdshapiro: "The proof is studies that show speeds with the speed differential responsible for car crashes due to negligent driving. Again, post a link to a study that shows me to be incorrect in my observations."
First you say that "the proof is studies that show speeds with the speed differential responsible for car crashes due to negligent driving" (which is a little hard to follow).
Then you finish off demanding a link to a study that "shows me to be incorrect in my observations."
So which are you going by - these mysterious studies, or your observations?
kdshapiro: "That is true, and cops will ticket you going above 75."
As I said before, considering the inaccuracy of the information you provided regarding Montana's speed limit laws, anything from that post will be taken with a rock-size grain of salt until proven otherwise.
kdshapiro: "The problem is corruption won't end my life. But a speeder can, especially if driving recklessly, tailgating, cutting people off, etc. The governers sex life has nothing to do with inconsiderate driving, and frankly if he can make the road safer I don't care who he brings aboard."
This quote constitutes "Exhibit A" as to why state government in New Jersey is so corrupt and incompetent. Considering that the good governor tried to have his...special friend...appointed to a position dealing with homeland security, I'd say that the corruption in this particular case COULD end your life.
I actually don't have any control over the way it is. But the idea that speeders can reduce my property taxes sure makes me smile.
"As Andre1969 noted, the same thing happened to vehicles during the 1960s and 1970s (safety glass, collapsible steering columns, door side beams, etc.), thus negating your point."
But you are specifically citing studies that shown an increase in speed reduced the fatalities.
My guess is these studies do not take into account the safety improvements.
"First you demanded that I provide a study to back up my statement, all the while claiming that your "studies" proved otherwise. Now, when proof is provided, all studies suddenly have "inconclusive evidence." (Your rhetorical dancing around the gist of the argument would put the late Gregory Hines and Gene Kelly to shame.) The study certainly sounded "conclusive" to me. " You asked for proof, and you got it - and from NHTSA, no less.
The NJ study contradicts that study.
"The speed differential causes the road to be "inherently unsafe"? Someone forgot to tell the Germans on the Autobahn. The speed differential between the fastest and slowest cars can be as much as 50 mph. But the roads are safe."
Since when is the Autobahn comparable to the GSP during rush hour.
"First you say that "the proof is studies that show speeds with the speed differential responsible for car crashes due to negligent driving" (which is a little hard to follow). Then you finish off demanding a link to a study that "shows me to be incorrect in my observations."
I'm still waiting.
"As I said before, considering the inaccuracy of the information you provided regarding Montana's speed limit laws, anything from that post will be taken with a rock-size grain of salt until proven otherwise."
I'm waiting for some concrete information to show the contrary.
"This quote constitutes "Exhibit A" as to why state government in New Jersey is so corrupt and incompetent. Considering that the good governor tried to have his...special friend...appointed to a position dealing with homeland security, I'd say that the corruption in this particular case COULD end your life."
The corruption didn't end my life, and being in Pa I'd be worried about the potential fallout. However, to get back on topic reckless drivers who speed, tailgate and cut people off can. Especially if these drivers are driving large trucks. It's nice to try a loose cause and effect with NJ corruption and the end of life as we know it.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/letters- - - - - - - - /9753132.htm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/letters- /9753855.htm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9783094.h- - - - - - tm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9792847.h- - - - - - tm
I like this line:
"Left-lane bandits are criminals who cause road-rage fatalities."
Sorry, I can't seem to find the letter that started this.
Why not copy the relevant porttions and post them here.
Since that's not another discussion group site, I believe that
fits the rules for copying here -- with notation of source.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
These are all letters published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/letters- - - - - - - - - - /9753132.htm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/letters- /9753855.htm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9783094.h- - - - - - - tm
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/opinion/9792847.h- - - - - - - tm
Response to left-lane mentality
About the lady who said, "I'll drive in the left lane at the posted speed limit if I want to because it's the law," well, I hope Miss Right will be happy when her holier-than-thou attitude causes a traffic accident by people trying to get around her, possibly hurting or killing an innocent adult or child in the process.
The issue is not speeding but what action you take to provide safety for all. Driving the speed limit just because it is the law does not guarantee it is 100 percent right. Speed limits are suggested speeds in optimum driving conditions only. Common sense and judgment are also important factors.
GARY J. RHEAUME
Little Canada
In response to Jennifer Anderson's statement that she is within her rights to drive in the left lane when she is going the speed limit: First of all, it isn't your job to enforce the speed limit.
Move over. If people want to take a chance and speed, or to use the left lane to pass someone going just under the speed limit, the left lane should be open to them. In the metro, where most freeways are three lanes, speed-limit followers should be in the middle lane, not the right lane.
The right lane is used for exiting and entering the freeway, so stay out of it. No wonder it's so difficult to merge onto the freeway, even when I adjust my speed and plan ahead for what that right lane is doing — people are camped out in it, merrily going 55, giving others more to work around.
Just coast along in the middle lane, where the minimum de facto speed is usually 60 anyway, and leave the left lane to speeders/passers, and the right lane to mergers/exiters.
ANGELA NIMS
St. Paul
I have a couple for Jennifer Anderson. First, it states in the Minnesota Drivers manual that the left lane if for passing only. I have seen State Patrol officers interviewed on television regarding this subject stating they do not encourage people to constantly drive in the left lane.
If someone wants to speed, that's their business; it's not your job to enforce speed limits. You could be obstructing someone trying to get somewhere in an emergency.
Secondly, if you sit there in the left lane and intentionally block someone who obviously wants to get by you, just think about how upset they are probably getting. Then think about all the nuts you hear about in the news every day and the things they do when they get upset. Think about what could possibly happen if you so enrage someone that they decide to do something to let you know just how they feel. . Then ask yourself if it would be worth it.
MARK A GLEASON
Lindstrom
The left lane of any divided highway is a passing lane. The speed you are going does not matter what lane you drive. If we would all just use the passing lane for what it was intended for, there may be fewer accidents. So for all of you who ride the left lane, you should pass the vehicle you are trying to get around and get back into the right lane. As far as people driving fast in the left lane, you have no idea what their circumstances are. Maybe they are on their way to the hospital to have a baby or are trying to get medical attention for a bee sting.
Let the State Patrol control people who drive fast in the left lane. Don't try to control people's speed by driving the speed limit in the left lane.
Maybe people who like to ride the left lane should move to a different country where they always drive on the left.
D. J. MILLER
New Richmond Wis.
Left-lane mentality response
In response to Jennifer Anderson's "Left-lane mentality," I would like to share what my driving instructor told me behind the wheel four years ago. I had merged for the first time onto the interstate and was doing no more than the minimum. He told me it was imperative to accelerate and keep up with traffic, that that was more important than going the speed limit.
You are only an obstacle in the left lane when you go the speed limit and that is dangerous.
M.E. MOSNER
White Bear Lake
Passing in left lane
In response to Jennifer Anderson's Sept. 23 letter concerning driving in the left lane:
It is your right to drive in the left lane at the posted speed limit. There is no law to prevent that type of driving. However, common sense, common courtesy and a desire to be as safe as possible would dictate that you drive in the right lane unless you are passing.
GREG MAJORS
East Bethel
No permission to speed
I am a driver who will not move out of the left lane for someone who is attempting to make me drive faster than I am, which is usually faster than the posted limit right along with the rest of traffic. Should you want to move any faster, go around.
Speed limits are posted for a reason, not decoration. The Minnesota Drivers Manual states under the section "Freeway Speed and Lane Use" that you are to "Maintain the same approximate speed as surrounding vehicles, when possible, but never exceed the posted speed limits. If you are driving at a slower speed than other traffic, stay in the lane nearest to the right side of the road. Otherwise, choose the lane of traffic moving at the speed you prefer and stay in it."
This does not give permission to speed, nor ownership of the left lane to those who really want to speed. Going the speed limit would not be dangerous, as implied by some, if all drivers obeyed the rules. Those who tailgate and push others to drive too fast are the true hazards on the road.
ANNE TUCCITTO
St. Paul
Left-lane bandit Jennifer Anderson (Sept. 23) mistakenly indicated that she has a "right" to act as a vigilante and block traffic in the left lane as long as she is driving the speed limit. There is no law that authorizes her to block the left lane even if she is driving the speed limit. However, there are numerous laws that make it a crime to block the left lane, even if you are driving the speed limit.
For example, Minnesota statute 169.18 says: "Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle." The law also says: "Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such sign." The law also says: "Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane."
Left-lane bandits are criminals who cause road-rage fatalities.
DON DAME
Woodbury
So the interstate was a relatively new experience for me, and I didn't know the first thing about passing lane etiquette. My goal on the highway was to stay out of the right-most lane as much as possible. So I wasn't going into the passing lane automatically on highways with 3 or 4 lanes in each direction, but once we got out of the DC area, and I-95 went down to 2 lanes in each direction, I stayed left. I figured I was doing everybody a favor, by making it easier for merging traffic to get on at the interchanges. It didn't take long for Granddad to explain it to me, though!
One of my buddies, the one who used to have a '95 Grand Marquis, and now has an '04 Crown Vic (yet he's only like 32) has a habit of left-lane camping. Makes me nervous as hell whenever I'm riding with him, because he starts talking, singing with the radio, etc, and just loses track of his speed, often to the point that he's dropping down below the flow of traffic. When I say something to him, at least he does move over.
You don't have any control over the way traffic laws are written and how revenues from traffic fines are used? New Jersey doesn't have representative government?
Now one could argue that New Jersey has uninformed, apathetic residents, especially when it comes to understanding the relationship between speed and safety.
Incidentally, since the main purpose of traffic fines in New Jersey appears to be subsidizing the property taxes of residents, now I really don't feel the least bit guilty about exceeding the speed limit on the Garden State Parkway.
kdshapiro: "But you are specifically citing studies that shown an increase in speed reduced the fatalities.
"My guess is these studies do not take into account the safety improvements."
Wrong, because the NHTSA figures from 1995 and 1996 show a noticeable drop in the death rate per 100 million vehicle miles travelled when the nationwide 65 mph speed limit was abolished in late 1995. This decline occurred within a one-year period. The turnover of the vehicle fleet within that one-year period was not enough to influence the results. The entire vehicle fleet is not replaced within a year.
When Montana instituted a 75 mph speed limit, it experienced a rise in fatalities, as compared to when there was no numerical speed limit. Again, this occurred in a relatively short amount of time.
Safety features have been phased into the vehicle fleet over a period of 30+ years. The turnover of the vehicle fleet is fairly constant.
If anything, new vehicles last LONGER than before, thanks to improved rust-proofing and more durable drivetrains. The average age of all vehicles on American roads was increasing through the mid-1990s. (The recent spate of post-9/11 incentives, which has made new vehicles more affordable, may have driven the average vehicle age back down.)
There were MORE older vehicles in road through the mid-1990s, without the latest safety equipment, but the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven still declined.
kdshapiro: "The NJ study contradicts that study."
I guess studies are now valid again? Before they were made up of "lies, damn lies, and statistics." President Bush and Senator Kerry aren't the only ones flip-flopping in this fall season!
Considering that the NHTSA study, along with virtually every other piece of research conducted on the subject contradicts the New Jersey study, I'd say it's worthless.
kdshapiro: "Since when is the Autobahn comparable to the GSP during rush hour."
You raised this point in a previous post, when you wrote, ""Sure, the Autobahn is exactly like the GSP by Union tolls during rush hour." This argument has already been refuted.
For everyone's convenience, I'll copy my rebuttal from post #3396:
There are plenty of congested stretches on the Autobahn. It skirts major urban areas (those are the stretches with speed limits). This summer I encountered stretches where traffic came to a dead stop due to heavy volume or construction.
When traveling on the Autobahn for any length of time, you are likely to encounter a variety of traffic conditions, as it crosses both urban areas and the German countryside, and varies in the number of lanes.
Drivers, however actually slowed down for the speed limit areas, as those speed limits had some relationship to improved safety.
Which is what I originally contended - people will obey speed limits WHEN THEY HAVE AN ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP TO IMPROVED SAFETY.
Seems that Germans have figured this out, too.
Just to be sure I'm clear - the Autobahn, in certain areas, has a rush hour, too.
kdshapiro: "I'm still waiting.
Funny, so am I.
kdshapiro: "I'm waiting for some concrete information to show the contrary."
As I've shown, you were incorrect in stating that Montana has no speed limit; therefore, everything from that site is suspect until proven otherwise. As of yet, no other proof to back up your original contention has been provided.
Now, I did visit the official homepage of Montana state government. Is the site you were referring to? Here is what it said:
"As you drive Montana's roads, the Department of Justice reminds you to always wear your seatbelt, observe posted speed limit signs and never drive under the influence."
Of course a state government will tell drivers to obey posted the speed limit, which in Montana is 75 mph on interstate highways. Pennsylvania tells drivers the same thing about its 65 mph speed limit. Depending on the traffic conditions and weather, however, the Pennsylvania State Police will not pull you over for anything up to 75 mph, even though the posted speed limit on interstates is 65 mph. I've spoken to state troopers about this, and experienced it firsthand.
Even though the posted speed limit in Montana is 75 mph, that doesn't mean drivers can't exceed it up to a certain point, as was mentioned in an Autoweek article a few years ago.
kdshapiro: "The corruption didn't end my life...It's nice to try a loose cause and effect with NJ corruption and the end of life as we know it."
Because this one was nipped in the bud.
Incidentally, I find it amusing that you get worked up about people exceeding the speed limit on the Garden State Parkway, because it constitutes "breaking the law."
Meanwhile, corruption in state government - which, the last time I checked, is illegal - illicits nothing more than a yawn.
What would be even more convenient for everybody would be if you two would stop bickering. You're also way off topic.
kirstie_h
Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Interesting idea, if it's true. However, I wonder how they'd enforce it during rush hour! And on an interstate with only two lanes each way, it's going to make the right lane awfully crowded.
And now this press release words it a bit differently... http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/pressdetails.cfm?ID=161
"While traveling on an interstate highway, a vehicle may not be driven in the left lane, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle. This prohibition does not apply to authorized emergency vehicles while engaged in official duties."
Slow drivers are hazard
The writer of the Sept. 29 letter, "No permission to speed" states that she "will not move out of the left lane for someone who is attempting to make me drive faster than I am."
Hey, lady, are you trying to boil our blood more than a traffic jam does? I doubt that anyone is trying to make you drive faster.
Making faster cars pull around your slower vehicle causes even more safety hazards. The left lane bane of commuters are drivers like you who ignore the common-sense principle of "Slower traffic keep right." Imposing your speed on others is the problem. Ask any traffic official you'll find that slower drivers are the hazard, especially in the left lane. Obviously, life in the fast lane is not for you, so try public transportation.
JOSEPH COLLINS
St. Paul
Nice and safe driving
Driving in the left lane just because you think you're driving at the posted limit (the speedometer on most cars shows less than your real speed) and blocking traffic is not safe.
Slowing down to look for pedestrians in the crosswalk is safe.
I was recently annoyed by cars practically stopping when taking a right on green in Los Angeles, until I realized they were slowing to look for pedestrians. Funny how a common practice there is uncommon here.
Come on, let's not let those L.A. liberals out-nice us!
MARTIN BURKEL
Minneapolis
Speeding is breaking the law
If I am driving the speed limit in the left lane, I am not obligated to move over for Don Dame or anyone else who is breaking the law by tailgating me and speeding ("Driving statute says move right," Sept. 30). Webster's dictionary defines the word "limit" as "the greatest number or amount allowed." I am only obligated to move over if I am driving below the posted speed limit.
I will not break the law because of your selfish road-bully attitude.
BRIAN ERICKSON
North St. Paul
grbeck - Maybe the fines can be put toward my property taxes.