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
The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Others can read the other thread, where they will find numerous links and references that RUKing and I provided to various state highway departments, the ITE, numerous academic studies and stats from NHTSA and the FHWA, among others. I believe strongly in footnotes, and I provided quite a few of them so that anyone who is genuinely interested can read the source documents for themselves.
On both that thread and here, you just keep recyling your opinions. While it's your right to have opinions, you should consider changing them when most of the evidence is to the contrary. Go read the other thread, and perhaps you'll sort it out.
Not necessarily so. If flow were 85-90 (5 mph variation) it would be more dangerous and risky than flow of 65-70 (5 mph variation). The slower range, with same 5 mph variation, is safer.
Although cars with modest HP can attain post legal speeds, cars with mega HP make it easier for folks, and maybe also encourage them, to more effortlessly drive faster and at unsafe speeds.
You have zero evidence to support that opinion -- that is strictly your opinion, nothing more. Given that the Germans generally have much higher 85th percentile speeds yet lower fatality rates should give you a hint that your gut feeling should not be confused with a "fact".
You also had 2,100 posts to prove your point. Let others read the thread, and let them decide whether your gut feelings make more sense than the data that I presented.
yet every academic study that support higher speeds are more dangerous have been summirally dismissed without even addressing the figures.
On both that thread and here, you just keep recyling your opinions.
And you don't? you have given no concrete facts just your opinion and you picked and choose what agreed with you.
While it's your right to have opinions, you should consider changing them when most of the evidence is to the contrary.
You know I have, up until a year or even less ago I had the same opinion as you. Then I actually started to look at the figures and my arguments in a more critical light. I actually looked at the arguments the facts and the figures without a bias and guess what? I found that my opinion (which at the time mirrored yours now) was based on some fallacies and selective use of facts and figures. Once I looked at all the facts and figures in an unbiased light comparing apples to apples, I saw that increasing speed does indeed increase risk.
maybe you should try the same thing sometime.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually there is a ton of evidence to support that, just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean its not there.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If flow were 85-90 (5 mph variation) it would be more dangerous and risky than flow of 65-70 (5 mph variation). The slower range, with same 5 mph variation, is safer.
socala said:
You have zero evidence to support that opinion -- that is strictly your opinion, nothing more. Given that the Germans generally have much higher 85th percentile speeds yet lower fatality rates should give you a hint that your gut feeling should not be confused with a "fact".
That opinion comes from a respected organization, IIHS.
I recall that I did receive "A" grades (non-inflated) many years ago in high school/college physics and in college mechanics classes. Higher velocity has higher energy to dispel/dissipate. It is very simple. Also, higher, massive amounts of HP encourage drivers to go at higher velocities. A poster to this board offered evidence of this.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) states:
"In a high-speed crash, a passenger vehicle is subjected to forces so severe that the vehicle structure cannot withstand the force of the crash and maintain survival space in the occupant compartment. Likewise, as crash speeds get very high, restraint systems such as airbags and safety belts cannot keep the forces on occupants below severe injury levels.
Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways:
It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.
It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is perceived.
It increases the crash energy by the square of the speeds. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent."
Unlike anonymous posters on the internet, the IIHS "actually" does research on vehicle safety, conducts tests and shows test results on many TV networks over many years. IIHS has high credibility.
The 6,400 deaths predicted never happened, despite all of that extra kinetic energy that was supposed to destroy us all! Their models and underlying assumptions don't work when applied to the real world.
It's not ultimately about physics, it's about behavior. If it was just about physics, we would drive 5 mph in padded bumper cars to avoid any deaths at all.
It's the same principle by which flying in a 400-mph jetliner can be much safer than flying in a 125-mph Cessna -- motivating driving behavior that reduces the likelihood of encouraging behaviors that lead to crashes. That means getting people to drive at about the same speed, which in turns means letting the flow of traffic determine the limit.
Get over it -- speed and horsepower don't correlate with people colliding into one another. You didn't prove it before, don't bother trying to prove it again.
Gee that sounds like you, you have done all of that repeatedly on that other thread. You even provided studies that had no relation to the subject at hand to try to disprove the truth.
Now instead of going on personal attacks show how that statement is wrong.
Oh of course you cannot prove anything to someone who has their mind set and will not listen to anything that doesn't support their view.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Got to be careful/selective about using something just because it is from Germany. Remember the Germans and their leadership in 30's and 40's.
So many things are different there, including apparently a more respectful drivers' universe. An example talked about a lot is very good lane discipline compared to US.
Limited access highway design from them was great concept. Unlimitted speeds, especially today, is not.
Responsible drivers in Germany should be having same debate about need for massive HP in M and AMG cars as we are having on Edmunds.
You had plenty of opportunities to provide all of the data that you wanted. Anyone who wants to can read the other thread, and list out which sources were provided by whom.
You can believe whatever you like, but it's a matter of simple arithmetic to see that:
-I provided links and references to more studies than did you.
-Most every opinion that I provided had some sort of study, data and/or research to support it
-I and others provided links to industry professionals who concurred with my view. You did not.
-For what little data that you did provide, I explained flaws in your data interpretation. You simply made claims that you could not support, and repeated them as if repetition makes them so.
I'm sure that there are qualified people who agree with your position, but you are not one of them. It's a fun topic, but not with you.
It's both. Unfortunately, you might have not had physics classes in high school.
Vehicle manufacturers perhaps should be taken to task by organizations to ask them to cut down or eliminate vehicles with massive amounts of HP. This only encourages people, might be mostly men, to go over posted limits.
You've made this allegation many, many, many times on this thread, yet you have offered not one source of information that would confirm this claim.
If you'd like to show a reliable source that can validate your claim, then it would be interesting to read it and discuss it. It might or might not be true, but the fact that Europeans have higher average traffic speeds with lower-powered cars leads me to believe that there is no element of causation.
And I seriously doubt that a kid in a lowered Honda Civic is inclined to drive more slowly than his grandfather who drives a 300+ hp Cadillac. Just so long as the car is capable of delivering it, speed choices are behaviorial, and most any car is capable of speeds of 100+ mph.
me: Slalom testing is a driver-planned, test of grip, sterring response, and weight transfer over a number of seconds and transitions. The idea there is to drive smoothly, and not get the car sideways. Take any high speed driving course and you'll realize fast driving, including slaloms is about smoothness. The driver is not going to be braking and s not going to suddenly yank the wheel to its maximum travel in either direction.
If you're driving 65mph and something is in the road, it is an unplanned event that is going to cause the driver to possiblly make a severe correction while emergency braking. Driver skill will the main determinant there, unless a stability control function is avaiilable. I'd rather be in any vehicle with stability control in an emergency, then the best slaloming car that's without it.
Evidently your not because you keep bringing up your old falsehoods anytime anyone comes close to bringing up speed and increased fatality rate.
You can believe whatever you like, but it's a matter of simple arithmetic to see that:
-I provided links and references to more studies than did you.
true but providing more links to studies and more links to meaningful and relevant studies are two different things.
Case in point your provided links to 4 (I believe) studies by state highway departments about speed variance. Not one of them refuted, or even addressed, the fact that increases speed increases risk. Not only that but they offered contradictory statements and provided any figures one could check.
Again more is not better.
Most every opinion that I provided had some sort of study, data and/or research to support it
And I had pointed out flaws in those studies and or data or the fact that you selected only certain parts. Case in point you kept repeating the worn out claim that when speed limits were increased fatality rates went down, yet you failed to mention the rapidly increasing number of lives saved by such things as seat belts, safer cars and roads and better emergency response.
Once you start looking at all that subjectively the support fails.
For what little data that you did provide, I explained flaws in your data interpretation.
You failed to show any flaws, most of the time you didn't even address the data, but attacked the messenger.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think your above point is truly the crux issue and also hidden in plain sight.
I think first and formost the IIHS is a trade business organization and rightfully and or wrongfully is chartered to serve it's member agencies, i.e., insurance companies. The information we glean as insurance consumers is really not the primary purpose of why they do their schticked.
However if the agency was TRULY serious about cutting down the fatalites from app 43,000 per year to (anything)less than that), in my humble opinion, they should be advocating the 5/6/7 point safety harness, full roll cage, helmet and/or neck and torso restraints. This stuff is all tested and proven beyond a "reasonable doubt" by the racing industry, ie F1, NASCAR, SCCA, NHRA, etc etc and sorry to leave out any offended agency/s. The most salient point is folks WALK AWAY from absolutely horriffic crashes usually in excess of 100 mph.
Yet we all know these proven methods are AGAINST THE LAW.
So again, however distasteful, tragic, and un politically correct this is: losses are expected and defacto condoned.
me: well in my experience in the nice weather on the interstates, we may already be collecting data at the 80-85mph range. That is what a lot of left-lane traffic is moving at. So the current fatality rates are based on some of those speeds.
The speed limits are getting to be less and less relevant with each year. As cars have become more powerful (and safer in all respects), with older 3-speed autos and less hp being retired, people are driving faster than ever.
So it really is irrelevant whether a car has enough hp to go at the speed limit; the question really is whether it is capable of running with the flow of traffic and performing well at those speeds.
Personally if I'm on an interstate where the flow is 75-80mph, I like my Firebird humming along peacefully at 2,500 rpm or so. My old CRX would be at 4,000rpm and would have no torque left if I wanted to speedup say to move out of the right into a space on the left for on-ramp traffic.
And even the 4-cyl Camry's are getting more power each year (or redesign) so they can also do better in keeping up with the flow-of-traffic. Better gearing only goes so far, if you don't have the power for that gearing ratio.
This is a HUGE and important point. If in fact traffic does move at the 85th percentile, then defacto this indeed is what is really happening.
Again went to see another client today, early afternoon travel. 80 mph, SLOW lane ie lane #'s 3/4 . Again a SWAG I was at the 15th percentile!!!!! The only folks that I passed were fully laden tractor trailer rigs.
At this point, I feel as if I've been dragged into the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch, in which you confuse this "yes I did"/"no I didn't" routine with an informed rebuttal.
I would be pleased as punch, and the readers of the thread would learn a lot more, if you would just provide some data to back you up and play fairly. Instead, here's your typical schtick:
___________
SoCalA4: I believe Opinion X. Here is Study A (linked) and Data Point B that I have used to support my opinion.
Snake: You can't back up Opinion Y. Provide some facts.
SoCalA4: Have a look at Study A and Data Point B. Oh, and here's Data Point C and Study D. Oh, and by the way, I hold Opinion X, not Opinion Y.
Snake: You haven't provided any facts. I can't believe that you hold Opinion Y.
SoCalA4: But I don't hold Opinion Y, I hold Opinion X. Now, what have you got to say about A,B,C and D?
Snake: I want to see some facts.
SoCalA4: OK, I've given you A,B,C and D. What do you have?
Snake: Why aren't you giving me any facts?!?! I can't believe that you hold Opinion Y!!! You're just wrong!!!
___________
And so on, and so on, and so on...
I can't have a discussion with you if you are going to argue against positions I don't hold, and if you are going to refuse to acknowledge that I've provided the information that I have provided for everyone to see. It's getting to be a bit of a joke, isn't it?
me: So what do you think of the results of the current speed limits? Are you content that 40,000 fatalies occur/year? We would be totally immoral if we do something to raise that to 41,000?
If yes, isn't it immoral not to reduce from 40,000? If speed kills why are you content with the current speed limits? SShouldn't we drastically lower them, so it would be almost impossible to be killed in an auto accident? We'd only need 20hp engines then.
The practical reason is that our society is willing to accept the death and injuries, in trade for the convenience of getting somewhere relatively quickly. What we're discussing here really (and previously in the other forum) at worst, is a slight shift in road- safety.
I see nothing sacrosanct, moral or noble about the cuurrent speed limits. I really don't see the hangup that the speed limits could not be raised, if that's what people want. And it sure looks like that's what people want.
So you now realize that you have been in an argument and did not know, just as the customer on Monty. The customer on Monty willingly went in to an office seeking an argument. The customer did not realize that the argument started when he walked in and then ensued for about 3 minutes. The guy in office then wanted to charge a fee to the customer for the argument.
me: definitely, definitely agree. But people don't want to be inconvenienced to put down their cigarette or coffee, and behave in the safest manner. people want to buckle up in 2 sec. instead of 10 sec. And people rather put the forego the weight and expense of this equipment, so that they can have all the modern luxuries without adding so much weight to reduce CAFE numbers. So we accept higher death and injury rates.
People who want to improve road safety should be concentrating on these blatantly obvious improvements. It's like trying to improve fire-safety in buildings, without requiring sprinklers. But many places aren't forced to install sprinklers in older buildings, because that would be "inconvenient" to someone.
And don't even get me started about the absurdly low hurdles to get a driver's license, and the slap on-the-wrist penalties to drunk drivers.
Absolutely. I was kidding. My apologies if my sarcasm is not obvious enough.
You know I address everything you presented and called you on things that had no relation to the issue at hand.
I can't have a discussion with you if you are going to argue against positions I don't hold,
What position that you don't hold am I arguing against? are you saying you believe that increasing speed increases risk? Thats what I have argued, increasing speed increases risk. So for me to be arguing against a position you don't hold your position has to be that increasing speed increases risk. If you don't hold that position then I am arguing against a position you hold.
and if you are going to refuse to acknowledge that I've provided the information that I have provided for everyone to see
Oh I acknowledge the information you provided, Its just that much of it its either irrelevant or flawed. The rest doesn't prove anything ne way or the other. In fact I have addressed what you have presented and only what you have presented and showed what was wrong with it. On the other hand I and others have presented information and all we got was "their biased", or "Your reading that wrong" without actually addressing that data.
Case in point is that xrunnerx earlier presented The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety view on this. Did you address anything that the IIHS said? No you went off and tried to discredit the IIHS. Nuff said.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
any and all of which can cause minor to full blown fatal accidents,THEN why should I not have the right or privilege to protect myself/passengers, etc, my family from such "accidents" waiting for a place to happen?
Wife bought entire Monty DVD series at Costco a couple years ago. Much cheaper there than at Best Buy or Borders.
The endless "I'm right, you're wrong" is VERY tiresome.
1. higher limits of 65 mph
2. and defacto "greater 85 percentile" real world speed limits.
But your mention of 55 mph is indeed THE AVERAGE real time speed. So indeed while the rates are better than they have always been there still are 43,000 yearly deaths. So much for cutting fatalities by lower speeds.
However, what has not really changed much is the ACTUAL average speed, i.e., point A to point B. All you need do is to let your on board computers do the work to verify or deny it to yourself.
Again industrially it is usually expressed in hours of engine operation and actual miles. An example would be 1 hour of engine operation/60 miles= 60 mph.
So for example, on a Z06 on board computer it is extremely difficult to exceed the average speed of even 50 mph.
So, what is point of 505 HP? Those that so inclined to drive rural hilly/twisty roads for pleasure or scenery would be able to match or exceed the Z06 with a Mini Cooper (168 HP) and at legal or below average speeds. According to Edmunds, Mini beats Z06 in slalom and has better subjective "handling" rating than Z06. The Z06 would be ponderous compared to the Mini.
But, maybe Z06 drivers do not venture too often onto rural twisties. Z06's perhaps more suited to straight, level, smooth concrete/asphalt interstates and parked in front of mcmansions.
Fatalities have been going down for 80 years so there is no new news there.
Most, if not all, of the high HP cars are built for straight line acceleration and sacrifice some handling for that ability. Gee even one time in my wifes 100+/- HP daily drive I out ran a vette and a very winding road.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually the quintessential roads for a Z06 are indeed in CA and it is CA Highway One. If you are a driver enthusiast this is about as nirvana as it gets. If not, nothing lost at all.
On the other side, it has the ability to go 1000 miles in one days time. Do folks park it in front of MCMansions? I am sure they do. Just as they would a Mini Cooper.
Interesting observation for a slo mo advocate. Seems you are just afraid to admit you drive fast mo, but advocate slo mo.
Or was the vette driver going slo mo and you saw your chance to outrace it while the driver was asleep?
That bodes well for higher speed limits!!
With the possible exception of a Yugo can't any car do 1,000 miles in one days time?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So if you can cover 1000 miles in 10/12 hours 25/30 hours.
Seems you are just afraid to admit you drive fast mo, but advocate slo mo.
While I may drive faster than many, I am not the fastest out there. Also I am not a slo mo advocate. Maybe you should actually read what I write.
Or was the vette driver going slo mo and you saw your chance to outrace it while the driver was asleep?
Actually this was on state Highway 71 here in IL between Ottawa and Utica. Anyone who knows this road will tell you its pretty much level with easy curves until you get near Utica and Starved Rock State Park where it hits the bluffs along the Illinois river. Then it turns into a hilly road with nothing but twists and turns.
My wifes Accent is very nimble on curves and can handle them very well. well as things would be this Vette came up on us extremely fast flashing its lights as if to pass just as we hit the first curve of this one area. The first curve is an easy 90 degrees to the left then climbs a slight hill for maybe 75 feet then there is a sharper right curve thats maybe 100-110 degrees. Well I made the first turn and accelerated up the hill and the Vette stayed close behind, the I made the second curve and the Vette had to slow to make it. I made all those twists and turns with ease and slowly left the Vette behind.
It was a case of having a nimble little car, my driving skills (have taken defensive driving, race car driving and security driving courses), knowledge of the car and its ability and a very good knowledge of the road (I can almost drive it with my eyes closed), that allowed me to out drive the Vette on that twisting road.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't know the road of which you speak. I am glad you have a nimble car
Seems to me the Vette driver had two choices, either pass you and continue or drop back and increase the following distance. Tailgating would not be smart. Discretion is the better part of valor at times, so seems to me he took the second option. Smart move.
Road&Track has this at 3.6 sec. to 60mph, and slalom speed of 72.4mph. 425hp at 2,320Lb.
The point here is that because a car has a lot of power, it does not mean it can not be light; and whether it's much value, whether it slaloms well. If you don't like how a Vette or a Viper handles that would be a design issue separate from what sort of power the engine produces.
We'll being seeing a revolution in materials in the next 20 years, so I'm sure many of those will allow car and engine designers all sorts of improvements. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/07/C01-340435.htm
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
All cars currently have seat belts, air bags.
Better emergency response care? Hmmm... how many new trama centers are being built in your neck of the woods??