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
I've rarely seen fatalaties at 35 mph; at 60, lots more. At 80... well you know the answer. Spare me the anecdotes.
High school physics laws still apply at automobiles and highways. I proved that recently at a stop sign where the road glazes quickly when snowing; I slid right through. No friction, no stoppie... Antilock brakes, new tires, an 20 mph before I got to where it usually glazes.
I have my opinion. Others have theirs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The statistics indicate that fully 80% of the fatalities happen at speeds of 45 mph and UNDER!!
So while you want others to spare you the anecdotes, shall we discount your quote?
Would you rather be in an accident at 40 or 80 mph? I'll take the 40 any day.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Let's be reasonable.
I'll let you disagree with yourselves. May the force be with you.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There's lots of verbiage in that post, but no proof whatsoever that higher speeds result in more accidents or fatalities.
imidazol97: I've rarely seen fatalaties at 35 mph; at 60, lots more. At 80... well you know the answer. Spare me the anecdotes.
As ruking1 noted, most fatalities occur below 45 mph.
His facts beat your anecdote.
imidazol97: High school physics laws still apply at automobiles and highways.
Except that people drive in the real world, not in the world of high school physics class problems.
imidazol97: I have my opinion. Others have theirs.
As long as you recognize that what you've posted so far is an opinion, and only an opinion, you'll be fine. Others, however, are speaking from a more solid position.
"State Traffic Safety Information
For Year 2003"
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/index.cfm?Year=2003&Accessible=0
What is this statement supposed to mean? Laws of physics apply equally everywhere in the universe.
I do not understand why you are having such a hard time going from "LAWS" to its real world application, measurements and results???
Or is it because the application measurements and results dont fit the position you have taken in the argumentation? SO: DENY! DENY! DENY ???
Fact is cars CAN go above the "speed limit". That number is a near arbitrary value that really has no bearing on safety on many interstate highways. When a person gets in the left lane on an otherwise empty stretch of highway and impedes the progress of cars travelling faster, it's just rude and inconsiderate.
Right. After all, it's intuitively obvious that if one makes a sudden maneuver at 55 or at 90, the results are likely to be the same.
Likewise, if one collides with something at 90 or at 55, the results are also likely to be the same.
Right.
Denial is an ugly thing.
It's not to understand that there are two different concepts being put forth here and they are not contradictory:
1) Speed limits are often set and enforced to raise revenue.
2) Higher speeds raise the risk of accident and the risk of injury and fatality if an accident happens.
One might suspect that, unless one looked at the whole picture. The laws there are quite different...for example, the autobahn, which is regularly cited as an example, has totally different rules than the US. Yes, much of it has no speed limit...but eating, cell phone use, etc is stricly outlawed and enforced. It is maintained to a flawless state. And most significant, drunk driving is almost nonexistent dues to draconian laws pertaining to DUI.
If one removes DUI alone, the statistics are impacted tremendously.
If the speed limits on US interstates were to be lifted, the fatality rates would skyrocket.
Also with European a per capital higher alcohol consumption rate than the USA, you are not truly asserting there is non existent drunk driving in Europe?? I have taken busses in Europe where DRIVERS routinely have a "spot" during lunch. Not withstanding what I think about this, this is like the American equivalent of a soda at lunch.
I would agree with removing DUI as a source. In fact I have suggested that almost repeatedly in other threads that you have also participated. Glad to see you coming around. For my two cents, I also would support this. DUI's are involved in fully 40% (43,000 plus of USA fatalities. If eliminated as a sources, we are talking up to 17,200 per year more peoples living!!!! Perhaps this is one real reason, the powers that be keep the speed limits artificially low. Rather than attacking the problem and raising the speed limits. (the alcohol lobby being stronger than the insurance lobby and or the "public" good?)
The real questions about the other stuff is if there is a valid statistical breakdown of these factors we are almost totally ignoring it!
But still in the overall scheme of things the USA rate is one of the safest in the WORLD. And this is even after the DRACONIAN warnings about MASSIVE increased carnage prior and due to the national speed limit being raised from 55 mph to as "HIGH" as 70-75 mph in some areas. As a matter of record the RATE went DOWN !!!! And that is with 1 higher speed limits 2 more cars 3 more drivers 4 more trips 5 more miles. 6 and sadly 40% of the fatalites involving alcohol
Right, I'm not. As I said, there is far less on the roads with no speed limits.
Glad to see you coming around.
Nothing new here. I've always known that DUI is highly related to fatalities. I've only objected to some inaccurate cites you've made on the subject. Let's stick to the subject at hand, no?
... the USA rate is one of the safest in the WORLD.
I see connection from that to this discussion. The contention was that "no speed limit" roads in Europe with similar fatality rates to US proved that speed is not a factor and that is false.
As a matter of record the RATE went DOWN !!!!
This is inaccurate. In a study of 24 states where the speed limits were raised in '95 showed an increase of 15% (IIHS estimate)compared to the 6 years prior.
Of course I'm being sarcastic with those figures, but I seem to recall that the stats were a little skewed because they were mainly from areas with few data points. Kinda like measuring handgun deaths in Britain. If some working stiff goes postal and offs his wife and 3 kids, Britain's handgun death rate just shot up by 400%! :-)
I could look up what states they were, but if they didn't prove it one way then they didn't prove it the other way, either.
2) Higher speeds raise the risk of accident and the risk of injury and fatality if an accident happens.
Again we get the silly argument which eventualy leads to driving at 1 mph or walking being the safest.
One might suspect that, unless one looked at the whole picture. The laws there are quite different...for example, the autobahn, which is regularly cited as an example, has totally different rules than the US. Yes, much of it has no speed limit...but eating, cell phone use, etc is stricly outlawed and enforced. It is maintained to a flawless state. And most significant, drunk driving is almost nonexistent dues to draconian laws pertaining to DUI.
If one removes DUI alone, the statistics are impacted tremendously.
If the speed limits on US interstates were to be lifted, the fatality rates would skyrocket.
While the automobile top gun wannabe expects us to take the “Keep Right Except to Pass” to heart – he chooses to ignore the speed limit signs “because he can”. He even tries to convince the rest of us by using phrases i.e. “discourteous left lane campers” who “Impede” the flow of traffic. Speed limits are often set and enforced to raise revenue." As the wannabe top gun hopes we stay out of his “speed” lane, so we hope he stays within the posted limit. So, when you camp in the LL, just be sure your are doing at least the speed limit by driving 5 mph over what your speedometer indicates. Why yield to an idiot?
Laws are real world. For example, Kinetic energy=1/2 *m *sqr(v), which implies that the energy to be absorbed in a crash is proportional to the square of velocity,i.e. as the velocity increases, KE increases by its square. What is the difference here between the law and real life application of it? Actually, I have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, I don't think I care to find out either.
Or is it because the application measurements and results dont fit the position you have taken in the argumentation?
What position? Did I post anything on this subject?
How silly of you.
Laws are real world. For example, Kinetic energy=1/2 *m *sqr(v), which implies that the energy to be absorbed in a crash is proportional to the square of velocity,i.e. as the velocity increases, KE increases by its square. What is the difference here between the law and real life application of it? Actually, I have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, I don't think I care to find out either.
P.S. to host...
cool shoes dude
you: Again we get the silly argument which eventualy leads to driving at 1 mph or walking being the safest.
Recognition that higher speeds increase risk leads to driving at 1 mph?
I suppose the recognition that ice cream has more calories than potatoes leads one to eat only carrots.
Recognition of reality does not require adherence to ridiculous extremes. Your logic escapes me.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who disagrees.
If that's the case I don't see how anyone can say a crash at 80-85 would be significantly worse than a crash at 70. Especially enough to warrant all the "death talk" and the "speed kills" talk. in Ga the speed limit in rural areas is 70 mph and there are very few police that will write a ticket under 80mph. The whole argument has advanced beyond whether hanging in the left lane is against the law. Who cares about the law in this case. You have about as much chance of getting a ticket for LLC'ing as you do for going 7 mph over. So that's irrelevant. The main point is that a driver who decides to ride next to another car without completing the pass IS being discourteous. There's no debating that.
All the "laws of physics" talk is just lip service. Of course IF you hit something it's worse at higher speeds. But as long as I slow to a decent passing speed when around other cars, my cruising speed when there is no one for at least a 1/4 mile around me is no ones business other than the State Patrol. I couldn't care less about who is driving the other cars. I'm just trying to continue to my destination.
Additionally, the argument that the autobahn is designed for higher speeds than the interstate system is dumb. We ain't talking about 120 mph speeds here. Like I said before, the interstate system was designed for 75 mph traffic when cars weighed 3 tons, rode on bias ply tires, and had drum brakes and solid rear axles. I'm quite sure my LS400 could perform well enough to travel 85 in reasonable safety let alone the 100 mph it usually cruises in rural areas.
I tend to drive about 5 MPH over the limit. This isn't fast enough for many people. I only drive in the left lane to pass. Once I've made my pass, I move back into the right lane. I've had quite a few times where I would be passing several cars, and some a-hole will run right up on my rear bumper because he/she wants to drive 10-15 MPH over the limit. I guess they're afraid if they don't get within 1 foot of the back of my car I won't be able to tell that they want to go faster. Once I've made my pass and the tailgater goes past me, it always gives me a good feeling to see that person was also yacking on a cell phone while they were almost exchanging paint with my vehicle, all at 70 MPH!
Then we have the LLC's. I don't get these people. They drive along in the left lane, and even when the right lane is open and they can clearly see that someone is behind them and wants to pass, they will not move over. I can see these people looking at me in their rearview mirrors and yet they will not move out of the left lane. What is it with these people? I've even flashed my headlights during the daytime, and I know they've seen me doing so, and they still won't move over. I don't get these idiots.
People who don't use their turn signals because they're holding their cell phone in their left hand burn me up. Personally, I think there should be a nationwide ban on cell use while driving, and it should be strictly enforced. There's absolutely no reason anyone needs to be talking on a cell phone while they're driving. None. It's one thing if you have an emergency, but in that case you should be stopped, not driving.
As a matter of record the RATE went DOWN !!!!
This is inaccurate. In a study of 24 states where the speed limits were raised in '95 showed an increase of 15% (IIHS estimate)compared to the 6 years prior. "...
The first paragraph where you say my assertion is false is not true at all. The assertion made is YOUR's. What I said WAS... go back and read what I REALLY said.
Again the 2003 NHTSA records show the rates are down! Are individual states better or worse? Yes that is EXACTLY what I said!! As a matter of fact I also stated that one should be concerned with the overall rates if one happens to drive all the states list. And if one say only drives in NY, then what the heck does Montana have to do with what YOU do??
So I would agree with you, you should keep with the subject at hand.
The central issue is turning that so called "100% agreement" into people that ACTUALLY Keep Right Except to Pass! I think even on this more enlightened population there is a fair representation of posters saying "I have my rights in the passing lane"???
So that you dont misconstrue another one of the easy concepts. "Keep Right Except to Pass." "Slower Traffic Keep Right". is as what it says.
Bottgers: What is the speed limit for those trucks that are going 60 and have to pass the other trucks so they can go 61 on along I70?... Isn't that speed limit 55?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Time to move on. If you have a story to tell about someone who almost killed you out ther by doing something stupid behind the wheel, you're in the right place.
Thanks for your cooperation and participation.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
While I would agree with you, some folks on this board (and a lot of folks in reality) would have a hard time mentally substituting a car for that truck in the number one lane and begin the litany of why is ok to "KEEP LEFT" for ANY REASON. because.... I am five miles over, five miles under, why move right for the idiot behind, yada. yada.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
I agree and also add the willingness to take unnecessary chances to get around the LLCer.
Actually has been an interesting read the last 500 posts or so.
I would chuckle at the assertion the roads are much safer at 65 than 55, if not for the continual stream of deadly accidents on a major road, 78. The combination trucks and cars speeding do not lead to safer roads as some of the previous posts contend. In addition, studies have found the fatalities went up for two years in a row after the speed limit was raised in NJ, before leveling off.
I also understand why statistics show most fatalities occur 45 and under. I believe it is in the same vein as most accidents occur within 10 miles of home. That is to say, I spend 95% of my driving driving 50 and under, seems logical to me that statistically I have more of a probability of getting into an accident in the 95% vs 5% bracket.