By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Many fast drivers cause accidents but are not involved.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And how is this related to driving 70 mph or so on the interstate?
We are discussing SL's here - a maximum. And by maximum we mean you can drive that if conditions permit. No one is endorsing that if a SL is 80 that you have to drive 80 mph. There is the right-lane if you want to go slower. No one is suggesting that you need to drive 80mph if it snowing, foggy, or raining. The SL is simply a maximum - during sunny, clear, low-volume times.
As I said before it really makes sense to have SL's set at any given time on any given day. We should start converting to electronic signs that can be changed by the local officials; again as maximums. If weather is worse in your spot, you still need to be responsible to adjust to a safe-speed (this is currently a responsibility of the driver, for those who are shocked to think we require people to be responsible
Or another technology would be for every vehicle to be reuqired to get a digital receiver that picks up a SL signal from a satellite - digital radio technology. Every vehicle would then know what the SL was based on weather, time, and traffic. Again this would be a maximum limit, and each driver needs to be responsible for driving slower.
Sure a vehicle is a deadly weapon - probably anything over 40 mph. 55 or 80 mph is just like drowning in 7 ft or 9 ft. of water - same result.
Speaking of infrastructure, I've read that Pickens has acquired a pipeline right-of-way in TX that he is seeking regulatory approvals for. I'd be skeptical of his claims and those of Chesapeake Energy, as well as the oil & gas industry. Remember these are the same folks who brought you $4.00 gasoline.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I still want to see the study you keep talking about, or is it a figment of someones imagination to try and justify their propensity to speed.
BTW, I said the 75+ SL is too fast for the driving population not that drivers couldn't handle 75mph. My reason is that anyone is capable of putting their foot down and holding on to a steering wheel. But that is not driving. That is hoping that nothing ever goes wrong while they are at that speed.
No but it did address your statement.
At 0 mph there would be no fatalities or injuries. So surely at speeds between 0 and 55 the fatalities and injuries increase at some rate
Again the studies I have read suggest that under a certain speed speed changes have no effect on fatalities and injuries. so 30 is as safe as 35. Above a certain speed it does increase with speed more linear than not.
If you're going to argue the safety aspect then you should argue for a SL where a traffic fatality is much, much lower than 40K.
You cannot argue the safety aspect of anything without a risk benefit analysis of it. How much risk vs how much benefit. There is always a trade off.
So you are willing to have 40K/year dead for this benefit.
That is society as a whole to address.
There are people who don't recognize the risk whatever the situation.
And it is apparent that some post on this forum.
So setting the SL at 55mph does nothing to lower the highest risk groups and behaviors.
No but it does keep other groups from making more riskier activities.
As I said I am against a national SL, it should be the individual states that decide that. If Ohio wants 55 and Nevada wants 80 then Ohio should have 55 and Nevada should have 80.
Also I have been saying that if you want to drive fast fine, but don't kid yourself into believing its any safer, or just as safe.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Its not your issue until they slam into you. Then its your issue (as well as being a little late).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's just as likely at 55 mph or 75 mph per the individual state data, we have over the last few years. The most dangerous roads and where the majority of these deadly accidents is undivided 2-lanes with the dashed yellow lines. Interstates where the traffic is divided and flowing nicely are just as safe at 80 mph as at 50 mph.
The higher speeds mean that when something goes wrong, and it does, the cars cause a lot more damage and injury and death. The crossover problem is a lot greater with the higher speeds. Ohio put cables between the north and south lanes in the grass media to reduce the number of out-of-control higher speed cars that cross over and kill/injure drivers in the opposite direction lanes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Along with the opportunity to enforce the speed, we of course had the responsibility to pick up the crash victims and investigate the cause of the collisions. I and my compatriots came to the conclusion that excessive speed in inclement weather conditions, unsafe secondary traffic violations (weaving, improper lane change, failure to yield, alcohol-drugs, driver inattention etc.) were the most frequent cause of accidents, not simply exceeding the speed limit, UNLESS accompanied by some of the above factors.
I realize this is just my opinion based on a very small microcosm of experience but some 25 years of traffic accident investigation on interstates really does not support a lowering of the SL to 55 will decrease accident occurence and severity on the Interstates by itself.
I have never had a tire blow-out in 30 years #1. I have had 18-wheeler truck tires disintegrate in-front of me and you can safely drive thru it. I've seen deer in the road, but you don't out-drive your headlights.
The rest of the things that can go wrong are mainly driver inattention, neglect or criminality, which are serious problems but ones which people are ignoring safety anyway, and a low SL on everyone is not going to address those issues. Maybe some Islamic justice or similar, might get these people to behave? But that's a whole other topic.
in the grass media
It would be more effective in the median.
I just read an AP article in the local paper and it discussed raising the driving age to 17 or 18. It quoted the Insurance Institute that the fatality/accident rate was 10X higher for teen-drivers then for people 30-55. If you want safer roads I suggest we get the worst drivers off the roads. I bet if you raised the driving age to 18 and took the keys away from repeated DUI-drivers, and tested the elderly for physical skills that the roads would be much, much safer.
How can that be? I'll give the extreme example here - a car going 35 mph hits a motorcycle going 35. There is a really good chance of a fatality here. Next, a car going 1 mph hits a motorcycle going 1 mph. I think everybody comes out ok.
So your presumption doesn't work in theory. If you mean it works in actuality, then you can't ignore the fact that fatalities have decreased on the interstate with higher speed limits.
I believe the studies are based on speeds that will kill you either way (i.e. - if you jump from a 150' cliff or a 200' cliff you'll probably die.), not as in your example; which I have also stated if you want safe roads (with the current systems we have) then 1 way is to drive very slow. 55 mph wouldn't be anywhere near slow enough, as the data from those years when we had it shows.
While he did a poor job of labelling the chart, he didn't must make up those numbers. He has plenty of supporting links on that site.
Note that the Colorado Department of Transportation link spefically states that studies have shown that "it is at the upper boundary of the speed range where crash involvement rates are the lowest."
cdn_tch: BTW, I said the 75+ SL is too fast for the driving population not that drivers couldn't handle 75mph.
There are plenty of limited access highways that can handle those speeds, and plenty of drivers as well. Plenty of areas can handle speeds faster than 75 mph (especially out West). Here in Pennsylvania the average speed is 75 mph on many limited acess highways (I-81 and Turnpike outside of the Philadelphia area, for example) with a speed limit of 65 mph, and there isn't death and carnage every other mile. Out in the Midwest and West, where roads are flatter and straighter, it's ridiculous to suggest that 80 mph or even faster is unsafe.
cdn_tch: My reason is that anyone is capable of putting their foot down and holding on to a steering wheel. But that is not driving.
Very true, but given that faster drivers are safer, one can conclude it is not the faster drivers who think that holding on to the steering wheel and pressing the accelerator is sufficient to constitute "driving." They also realize that merely following two numbers posted on a sign doesn't make them "safe" drivers.
Pennsylvania did this years ago on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, back when the speed limit was 55 mph. Even at 55 mph a head-on collision will be fatal. If Ohio just did this recently, it is way behind the times.
Incidentally, most fatal accidents occur at less than 45 mph, and fatalities on limited-access highways account for less than 3 percent of all traffic fatalities. The idea that we are killing 40,000 people a year in a traffic accidents (which includes bicycle, motorcycle and pedestrian fatalities) because people drive faster than 55 mph is nonsense. So we can put that strawman out in the cornfield where he belongs.
People driving all the time on I-95 and I-91 in ME, NH, and Vt - no carnage there either. The fatal accidents are mainly on the 2-lane side highways that are posted between 35 mph and 50 mph, where there are passing zones. Actually if the SL's were raised there - 10mph or so there would be less passing and therefore less head-ons from frusttrated drivers who did a poor job estimating the passing time.
I safely drove that road commuting for 10 years at an average of 15mph higher than the SL, so I know the SL's could be higher and still safe.
http://www.wmur.com/automotive/17426982/detail.html#comment
"More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration."
And I'm sure there are other people involved which would raise the number of fatalities due to teens.
And get the drunks off the road, what was that 1/3 of 40K, and you can cut the fatallity rate in 1/2. There's where a lot of the problem is; not whether people are driving 60, 70, or 80 in decent weather on the interstates.
the confusion stems from the EPA's classification of the Volt. Is it an electric vehicle (EV) with an onboard generator, or a hybrid vehicle that relies heavily on its electric drive? It's actually a little of both and a little of neither. The driving habits and battery-charging routines of the operator play a huge role in the classification of the Volt.
In this configuration, the Volt can slip through about 85 percent of the EPA's test cycle without even firing up the gasoline engine. Using the EPA's standard formulas to calculate fuel economy, the Volt averages over 100 mpg. The EPA doesn't think that astronomical number is fair and has revised its tests with the requirement that the Volt finish the test with its batteries close to full charge, which means the internal combustion engine must run for the entirety of the test, dropping fuel economy to about 48 mpg.
GM, of course, argues back that the EPA's new test isn't fair because the test isn't representative of the way the Volt was designed to operate and doesn't reflect the Volt's plug-in option for battery charging.
The truth lies somewhere in between, but the EPA rating assigned will play a big role in whether consumers think the $40,000 Volt is a good deal compared with the Toyota Prius and the upcoming, and even less expensive Honda Insight.
Just as I have always said. The EPA's one size fits all test STINKS. The lazy bums need to set up realistic tests for EACH technology....
The reason 17-18 year olds get into so many accidents is because of their lack of experience in driving. Raise the driving age and they'll still have the same lack of experience, just at 19-20.
If anything, we just need to increase the length of time one must hold a learner's permit before being allowed to drive.
If anything, we just need to increase the length of time one must hold a learner's permit before being allowed to drive.
Actually, we have graduated licensing to help in this. I don't know that actual details but it is something along the lines of 1) only drive with another licensed driver 2) alone, daytime 3) with passengers daytime (family is not considered a 'passenger' in this) also there is zero tolerance for BAC or moving violation (lose licence and start from step 1)
Should be good for Volt sales....a car that never needs gas, EVER! So what if your payment is $200/month higher than you would otherwise consider comfortable? You won't have to buy any gas, so there's no problem! :-)
I believe Volt testing parameters included the contingency that the driving patterns of some owners may not even cause their gas engines to fire once in a year, with the possible long-term maintenance issues that might cause....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What might be fair would be to run the generator for the highway test, but not for the city test. Or require maybe that the battery be at 50% charge at the end of the testing. Requiring that the battery end up fully charged is ridiculous, anyone sensible who buy it is not going to operate it in that way.
That would let the consumer know that their mileage could vary enormously depending on their driving pattern.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It does not matter what the EPA test ends up showing.
The various owners of the Volt will get VASTLY different MPG from each other in the car.
The people who use it for an 80 mile road trip will probably get somewhere in the high 40s and pay LESS to recharge it at home.
People like me, who would use it for a 14 mile round-trip commute, will get near or above 100 MPG and pay MORE to recharge it at home.
The EPA estimate is designed and intended to assist buyers in comparing miles per gallon of similar cars which they are shopping for. To provide an ESTIMATE of the MPG that the owner MIGHT GET. It's an ESTIMATE, People !!!
Pennsylvania did this, and it did reduce fatalities among 16-year-old drivers.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/10/news/economy/oil.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes
Unfortunately I read another article a couple of days ago that stated that even though we had record high prices on gas, not all of the costs were passed onto the consumer. In other words, gas should have been higher than the $4.11 avg. with oil at $147 a barrel.
My guess is gas will never dip below $2.00 again.
farout
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The EPA decides to give the Volt a 48 MPG rating. Joe consumer goes to the Chevy dealer sees the Volt rated at 48 MPG at $40k and then goes to Toyota and see the Prius at 48 MPG and it only costs $27k.
Which will he buy? The EPA rating can make or break a cars saleability. The EPA has an obligation to get it close or give more information. I doubt that 10% of buyers research these things on line. So that largest print on the window sticker needs to be realistic. IT IS NOT CLOSE ON MOST VEHICLES since the new test has been implemented.
My vote is give more information. Thing is, (1) will people read it, and (2) will they be able to understand it?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You can CAP THAT FOR EMPHASIS all you like.
But that still does not make it true.
The new EPA test is VASTLY superior to the old one. It's closer to reality now.
We've been over this before. If you don't believe me, then look around at other web sources. Everyone not posting as gagrice knows the new test is better.
Gary says, "The EPA decides to give the Volt a 48 MPG rating. Joe consumer goes to the Chevy dealer sees the Volt rated at 48 MPG at $40k and then goes to Toyota and see the Prius at 48 MPG and it only costs $27k. "
Bad analogy. Like I said - word of mouth will trump the EPA sticker any day. People, via car reviews and news stories, will quickly understand that the Volt will do better on certain uses (like short commutes) and that for hwy driving it will not be that great.
There has NEVER been a case when EPA results caused someone to not buy a car. If they like it, they will buy it. If they are shopping for more MPG, they will move on.
POPPYCOCK
Hey, dtwonfb, are you a fan of former Seattle Sonics guard Downtown Freddy Brown? From Iowa, Freddy quickly became a Seattle fan favorite with his long-range howitzers that won many, many Sonic games. Do tell me if there's a correlatino there, to your Edmunds nickname, K?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/127/story/565922.html
http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/fuel_label.htm
A TRUE Expert here
Ford media pipes in
Edmunds with a great explanation of the new test
J.D. Power website says average car exceeds EPA by 5%. That's pretty dang close.
But you want the REAL reason the new test is better than the old one?
The REAL reason is that now, almost every car driver can proudly say "MY car gets better MPG than the EPA estimate." This means lower fuel expenses than he/she would expect, which is a GOOD SURPRISE, unlike the BAD SURPRISE of the old tests.
Not very many drivers could say that with the old test.
Gary, Can you honestly and with a straight face say that merely because you feel the Jetta got cheated that the new test is a bad test? Do you have any other justifiable reasons than that?
The REAL reason is that now, almost every car driver can proudly say "MY car gets better MPG than the EPA estimate
you kind of open yourself up to the same criticism I have been making of the revised test ever since it was started: the test is now rating cars uniformly low. If every car is rated a certain percentage too low, it is a bad basis for comparison, as the smaller more fuel-efficient models get hammered harder in the raw numbers than big, fat gas-guzzling ones do.
A Honda Civic now looks like it will save only 20% in gas costs vs the biggest heaviest thirstiest Toyota V-6 sedan, when the reality is you will probably use HALF as much gas in the Civic in all-city driving. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If the Civic and the Corolla and the Elantra all are 5% low on the EPA sticker, it does not affect the comparison process, just like when they were 10% high it did not affect the process.
Yes, but it used to be a good basis for comparison between all vehicles with a same-type engine (gas-powered, or diesel-powered, or hybrid-powered).
Now it is an only moderately useful comparative tool between vehicles in the same size class, with a same-type engine.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Isn't that a bit like saying a new grading system is better because more students get A's under the new system compared to the old one?
But even more than that: The new test includes REAL WORLD scenarios like driving 80 miles per hour, driving with the air conditioner ON, and driving a cold vehicle for short trips.
The old test had none of that. How realistic could it have been? Not very.
I looked a week ago at CNG here in WNC and it was $2.29. Gas is in short supply here and I am not sure about diesel.
We drove to AK 3 years ago and the radios were usually talking about the NG supply in the North Slope and the local problems with environmentalists and labor wanting to take it to a port (Valdeze I think) and ship it to the States. The oil/gas companies wanted to build a pipeline.
Apparently Gov Palin got the mess fixed on her short watch and they are now starting to build the pipeline through Canada to the STATES. There should be plent of NG when this is finished not to mention the new big find of NG with the center ON LAND near Shreveport, LA... it extends to parts of TX and AR.
This NG in AK has been there waiting for the politics to get it to the STATES since 1975 or so. Thanks you green weenies.!!!
It just seemed an odd point to make. That less complaints, or more pleasant surprises, was the real reason the new test was better.
The rest of your reply argues points I was not addressing.
But yeah, their hands were forced; otherwise the oil companies were just going to keep sitting on their hands up there. More info than you want to know at AGIA.
I know where you can buy a CNG compressor station if you have a few hundred thousand and a source of methane or whatever. It would produce enough to fuel 4 or 5 cars and trucks.