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
The worst part? They are about to enter a store where they will be WALKING. So saving that short distance in the parking lot is pointless, and very inconsiderate to all those they are blocking due to laziness.
Good point. I see a lot of sports cars in the nightly news crunched and in pieces, two or more, because the driver felt they had a car that was more capable than joe blow (me) in that old LeSabre at 72 mph. It's amazing how capable people think they are at avoiding accidents one four patches of rubber contact patches about the size of postcards!!! That's what's controlling your car's physics properties at 80 and 90.
The most inconsiderates are those tailgating because they're in pickups or suburbans with high headlights and the ability to see over the top of my car.
Then there's the van that pulls up as you're trying to make a right turn and they block your view of oncoming traffic...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Except that it hasn't turned out that way. If this were true, there would be a double whammy - one, the higher speeds would cause more accidents (less reaction time, etc.) and, two, the resulting accidents would be more severe. These two factors would send fatalities rates skyrocketing, as speeds have increased over the years, and people are cruising along faster than ever. It hasn't happened, and it won't happen.
Incidentally, I drove on the Pennsylvania Turnpike this Sunday from the Bedford, Pa., interchange to the Blue Mountain Interchange. I drove at the safe, comfortable speed of 80 mph the whole way (one hopes and prays that no one on this site is clueless enough to believe that traveling at that speed is dangerous).
Most vehicles were traveling at about the same speed. The biggest "risk," incidentally, was posed by the driver in the Park Avenue traveling at...65 mph. Forced virtually every other driver to brake and then manuever around him. Now who was increasing the "risk" to everyone else?
li_sailor: If interstate speed limits were repealed, the death rate would skyrocket.
Didn't happen in Montana. As a matter of fact, at one point when the "reasonable and prudent" law was in effect, the fatality rate hit record LOWS. The fatality rate ROSE when the state instituted a 75 mph speed limit, in response to a State Supreme Court decision holding the "reasonable and prudent" standard was too vague, and therefore not enforceable.
No, they wouldn't. If you look at NHTSA statistics, you would see that most fatlaities occr at lowe speeds, in urban traffic. Not becuase of the lower speed (obviously), but becuase that's where there is more interaction and manuevering.
...the safe, comfortable speed of 80 mph...
It can be very safe. But not as safe as 75, all else being equal.
Didn't happen in Montana.
But it did happen in most of the other 24 states that raised speed limits in '95 & '96. You can always find an outlier, but it proves nothing, except that outliers exist.
My first ticket ever, I was trying to follow a group of cars and fell behind. I sped up to about 56 in a 45, and a cop nailed me. Actually I was annoyed that the guy leading our pack was driving so fast, as if he was trying to lose us. Some people have NO idea how to lead a caravan.
Another ticket, I was speeding up to pass someone. I routinely speed up to pass someone, clear them completely, before returning to the right lane and resuming my normal speed. Frequently, I need to drive faster than I would like because so many people instinctively speed up as someone is trying to pass them (and then slow down as soon as you slow down). So of course as I tried to pass this minivan, he speeds up, I speed up, and the cop nails me. I explained the situation but the cop doesn't care.
Imagine it is completely empty. I SWEAR by my girlfriend's pet cat, if I park my car in the last spot in the last row furthest from the entrance, when I come back in five minutes, there will be some POS coupe with long, heavy doors parked next to me.
I dunno how to shake this curse. It just never seems to fail, and I have the dings to prove it.
So given a few years of data AFTER the speed limit was raised to 65 mph:
1. The over all fatality rate went down rather than up
2. The miles traveled went up
3. The trips made increased
4. The population of passenger vehicles keeps rising
5. The population of license drivers keeps rising
6. On certain roads the speed limits are actually 70 to 75 mph (still higher)
7. (From another since closed thread) the population of "killer" suv's is at the HIGHEST (12%)
So in fact, JUST the REVERSE happened from the Pundits safety and environmental dire predictions. In fact the USA roads are the SAFEST in recorded history!!
And again, if folks are interested in their own individual states, I have posted the NHTSA link.
On a practical level, unless one drives in all 50 states, DC and PR etc., one really only needs to be concerned with the state/s one drives IN!!
Yikes- that would eliminate about half the American drivers right off the bat! Amazing!
I'm intrigued by the extensive dialog about inconsiderate drivers, LLC's, slowpokes, tailgaiters, speeders- all a road menace in any good drivers book. But I'll have to say, as someone who drives a lot, for business and pleasure, the majority of close-calls I've had have far & away been from inattentive drivers yakking on cell phones. It's an absolute epidemic. Some of these people completely forget they are driving. Add speeding and/or inconsideration and you have a veritable molotov cocktail. As a sales guy, I have curtailed my cell phone usage to open highway, mostly with a headset. And believe me, it wasn't easy. Yet, the close calls I've had have reinforced the fact that talking on a phone and driving just don't mix, especially in traffic or congested areas. Some states have banned cell phone usage while driving, all need to take a serious look at this- with the volume of cars increasing right along with the numbers of cell phone users (especially young people- who not only talk but text-message while they drive), the problem continues to worsen. How many accidents are caused by phone-yakkers that aren't documented as such? Lots. I hate laws and mandates (in MA, we have a mandatory seat belt law- I don't believe in it, but I've been wearing a seatbelt for over 20 years, long before the law was passed, regardless) but cell phone usage is one area that is easy to control. It's hard to enforce decency and common courtesy, but eliminating an unsafe distraction like cell phone usage is a big step toward much safer roads and simple to implement. And it might even lessen the incidence of road-rage episodes.
Most elephants don't turn on a dime, or stop on one either. The ones that do, most can't afford. So, we have all these charging elephants, with inconsiderate drivers at the helm. It's no wonder they don't tip their elephants at a higher rate than they already do.
But what do I know, I deliver peanuts for a living, maybe that's why the elephants are always tailgatin me?
justify going that fast, (I am extremely lucky to survive)
About drivers not caring about anybody else and lack of attention to driving is to blame for alot of fatalites and of course dui, where i live there has been 12 fatal accidents in the past 96 hrs, i am fustrated because it should not be this way if everybody would just be considerate fo all other motorists and stop all of the stupid crap, people need to realize that cars can be extremelt dagerous if not done properly, thats all I have to say, thanks.
As for drunk driving it is easy to save lives by applying some reasoning there also. MADD pushed for lower alcohol levels to be defined as drunk driving. America loves to change definitions rather than solve problems. All the police need do is be posted outside of bars and wait until someone comes out and gets behind the wheel. But they won't because it would negatively impact the bar business. It is about money not lives, as are the majority of speeding tickets.
If YOU want to follow ALL laws then stay in the right lane. If YOU are one of those that complain about "speeders" breaking the law then stay in the right lane. That's where all the "perfect" drivers are. Driving the speed limit.
As far as the dangers of going 90mph vs. 70mph. That's MY risk. Not yours. I choose to flaunt the laws of physics by driving that fast. I know that if I have a blowout at 70 or 90, I still may die. If I hit a deer, dog, or cat...That's my problem. But if I'm doing a 90 mph and possibly causing so much carnage why would someone want to purposely get in my way? I mean I'm out of control!!!
Looking at percentages makes more sense than 'actual numbers' because the number of cars on the road is going up, up, up as well.
It is actually your view which hides the true facts. Yes, the number of fatalities may be going up, but as others in this forum have shown, when the speed limits were raised the percentage of fatalities per car on the road or per mile traveled decreased.
The true facts speak for themselves in this case.
Wouldn't reducing the percentage also reduce the headcount?
What doesn't make sense about using percentages? A percentage is just an expression of the numbers of one statistic as related to another.
My issue with looking at just the headcount is that it does not take into account the total number of cars on the road. In other words, it is not a true meausure of safety. Looking at just a headcount; how would you ever know if a change in fatalities was due to safety or just a change in the number of cars on the road?
Say a new safety measure is implemented. A couple of years go by, and the headcount of fatalities has stayed the same. Well, what happened to your safety measure? What you would fail to see there is that the number of cars on the road went up, so the percentage actually decreased.
the fatalities in NJ went up for two years in a row before leveling off after the speed limit was raised.
Was that a headcount or a percentage? Overall, across all 50 states, the percentage went down.
It is others' risk as well as yours. It's ridiciulous to say that speeding on I75 near Marietta is no one's business other than the driver's.
As for telling people to stay in the right lane if they don't like flagrant speeding..., that too is ridiculous.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ah, I see, you're right. You just needed to repeat it 8 times. It was wrong the first 7, but now it has become right. What was I thinking?
Does it really matter?
"My issue with looking at just the headcount is that it does not take into account the total number of cars on the road."
I understand that point. But we try to rationalize the headcount, by comparing it against miles driven, when we should be reducing the headcount. Trying to say fatalities were down as a percentage of miles driven, is just too meaningless.
Well, I don't think it is meaningless. If the number of fatalities per mile is down, then I feel safer during every mile that I drive.
But sure, you can go after the actual head count. A no brainer would be to go after the drink and drive habit set. Another would be that a DUI that causes a fatality or accident should be treated now as a criminal matter like murder in the first degree, felony assault with a deadly weapon, etc. etc., and civil matter as in wanton disregard for life limb etc (or whatever it is called, and in triple payment to the injured party/s party. ie such as punitive damages etc etc. I would not want to break the news to you but "AIN"T" going to happen!!
I was stunned to find out that the City of San Francisco has 2,200 fatalities (per year) of cars and pedestrians!! Percentage of fault has been shown to lie with the pedestrians' The average mph at the time of the accidents were 5- 15 mph!!! I am sure the other so called "walkable" cities have the same issues like NYC, Portland, Boston, etc etc.
Only in that my training as a math/stat major tends to find these numbers at this level meaningless. But I'm not going to say any more on the subject. You can feel better if you want to know the percentage went down. Oh yes, I graduated with a 4.0 out of college.
Rural is I-16 going through south Ga.
Rural is I-20 from Atlanta to Birmingham or Augusta.
That's rural. As far as 90 in Marietta. That may be a little fast. But if you don't do 80 on 285, you'll get run over.
So after graduation, how are you finding the "real world"?
Ah, I see, you're right. You just needed to repeat it 8 times. It was wrong the first 7, but now it has become right. What was I thinking?
Ok li sailor please explain how it is wrong. If you say speed kills then, as I explained, 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph because remember ... speed kills and 2 mph is a higher speed than 1 mph.
You math is correct, it's your reasoning that's flawed.
NJ does not control what happens in CA. CA does not control what happens in NY!!??
So a more ball park metric is each states' results. But then again, if you drive in Southern CA, why do you care what gives in Northern CA?
I hope that 4 year of college with a 4.0 does not dial out some elements of common sense!?
Actually, I never said that. That's a sound bite that really means nothing (or everything, as we've seen). What I said was that higher speed means higher risk (all else being equal, like the speed of the rest of traffic)...of accidents and of fatalities.
...[to say that] 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph...
It's not. I never said it was wrong to say that. What was 'wrong' was to say that "it" (recognition of reality) 'leads' to going 1 mph. It doesn't. Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't.
In effect, that is what is going on in the IIHS and the NHTA agency statistics.
It's not. I never said it was wrong to say that. What was 'wrong' was to say that "it" (recognition of reality) 'leads' to going 1 mph. It doesn't. Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't.
Agreed li sailor, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think we can also agree that to know where the risk and benefit actualy intersect we need to first enforce keep right except to pass, no use of phone while driving etc. Once there is lane discipline we can determine at what speed the risk may be too high, if at all.
Not sure what you mean there. They show the risks, but not the benefits.
As to your prior post, I'm not sure at all what your point was there...I'm not aware of any fatality stats at the national or state level that are meaningless.
And your point (which I've seen you make before) about "not caring what the stats are in other states" escapes me as well. There are a set of variables that affect fatalities in any geographical area...but there are far more similarities than differences. People and roads are pretty much the same across the US...and even weather is similar across large sections.
You seem to be saying, nihilistically, that accident and fatality data is generally meaningless. I couldn't disagree more.
Well, I think all of those things involve risk, though "keep right to pass" is more of an efficiency/consideration thing, rather than a safety thing...but these are all variables, which must be balanced...hopefully 'well' by intelligent, knowledgeable drivers. Oh well, one can dream
But as an independant variable (all else being equal), higher speed undeniably increases risk.
Me, I see it as related and agree there are similarities as well as differences.
But then you usually find a way to twist what has been said!?
If you look at the safety of the autobahn keep right except to pass absolutely is a safety thing and probably the biggest safety "thing". The faster cars would be going straight in the left lane rather than attempting to get around vehicles. It would allow for far higher speed while decreasing the risk on US highways.
For me the remedy has been for a long long time, pass as the situation, safety, etc. dictates, whether it be left, right, etc.
"A new Louisiana law takes effect tomorrow aimed at so-called "rolling roadblocks" - drivers who tie up traffic by not going fast enough in the left lane. The law carries fines of up to 175 dollars and 30 days in jail for first offenders. The law was passed this year with proponents saying a cure was long overdue for slowpokes who insist in getting in the left passing lane and staying there.
Lieutenant William Davis, a state police spokesman, says there will be no warning or grace period under the law. Citations for "rolling roadblocks" could begin at just after midnight tonight.
The law applies to drivers who are in the left lane of a multilane highway - outside municipal limits - and are traveling at the same speed as the car beside them in the right lane. Included are interstates and four-lane U.S. and Louisiana highways. "
Source: http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2174629
You guys probably have already seen this, but seemed appropriate for the conversation.
http://www.danrutherford.com/PressReleases/leftlanereminder.htm
And within that article it sites other states as below:
"Illinois is not the first state to consider such legislation. South Carolina already has a left lane law and a Texas law requires highway signs stating: “slower traffic keep right” and “left lane for passing only.” Collier County, Florida limits use of the left lane by large trucks and Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington are also considering left lane restrictions on highways." - (Obviously written before Louisiana passed their law.)
Even for a motorcycle cop, the "omg it's a cop let's slow down" effect is going to make it unlikely that pulling over LLCs will increase traffic speeds.