The only one I see with any potential is the electric minivan.
That makes the most sense to me. I would like a Jeep Wrangler with a small 4 cylinder diesel engine. It would be ideal for long trips in the back country. Not sure why Jeep only builds them for foreign sale. Unless they cannot get the emissions down. Are they still tied closely to Mitsubishi? They have some EVs being used in Japan I believe.
Don't get me wrong, I do love speed, but I also love to be alive and slow down and drive appropriately for road/climate conditions... what a concept, huh?
If I can't see the road in front of me or the surface under my wheels, I take it a little easy. It's not a difficult idea to follow. But I guess if one sits up high and is disconnected, and maybe gets an ego boost from that, the brain can stop using logic.
Of course, then some will take it too easy...the driving manuever of choice here in the snow is just to panic and stop.
I think you nailed it right on when you said that those sitting up high in the SUV's and pick-em-up trucks get a "false sense of confidence". It's part of the American birthright to sit up high in our vehicles and drive like we own the road...apparently.
steve, yeah, I don't always know the different districts in Seattle. But, there's a Dick's Drive-In on Holman Road. That might be in the Wallingford district of Seattle. I went to that one on Holman Road a lot. Also, there's a Dick's on Lake City Way in NE Seattle. There's one on Capitol Hill, just east of downtown Seattle. There's two more that I know of. One's in the University(of Washington)District and the other one is about a block from Key Arena, next to the Seattle Center, where the 1962 World's Fair was. That one is known as the Queen Anne Hill Dick's. Man, I could always count on a delicious Dick's Deluxe burger or a Dick's Special. The Special has no cheese but it has a delicious mixture of lettuce, onions and sauce that makes for a wonderful eating experience.
One thing that would've taken me off my commute if I had commuted from the city of Seattle from a job to up north, where I always lived when living in that area, would be Dick's Drive-In restaurants. Forget about a $50 meal in the revolving Space Needle restaurant, when you can eat a delicious Dick's hamburger and get a greasy, potato skin-left-on the fries order of fries and a Coke or chocolate milkshake, man. I'm starting to get hungry for lunch as I type this!
Another thing that frustrated me about living in the Seattle area. Dick's Drive-In decided to stay only in the Seattle area. They didn't put one up north in Edmonds, Lynnwood or Everett! Wherever they locate they'll do well, but the creators of the restaurant wanted to keep it in Seattle. Oh well.
It's funny...I actually think of lowering my car an inch or so now and then, but I back off, thinking of how the Beirut-quality roads around here would feel with an already rigid suspension. I never bought into the "sit up high" idea...maybe because I am taller than average already. Doesn't get me going.
I've been through Seattle many times, never been to Dicks. Some of those fries and a shake would hit the spot.
I think it is short-sighted and naive to think that vehicle testing and MPG ratings are not also linked to the clean air responsibilities of the EPA.
As far as I know, they're really not. There are emission standards for that...so many grams per mile of NOx, etc. I believe striving for low emissions can often actually result in lower efficiency.
Of course the EPA would never do anything to hold up diesel technology. When will you admit they are just another corrupt agency in a corrupt government.
Well, that would be admitting to something which is merely a figment of your imagination.
I will admit to figments of MY OWN imagination, but not some else's.
And in the same manner in which you have zero proof that the EPA is corrupt in regard to the EPA mileage tests, you have zero proof that the EPA is holding up diesel engine cars.
EVEN WHEN I take a spreadsheet in which YOU commented upon and use data in that sheet to PROVE beyond a shadow of ANY DOUBT that the Jetta TDI was not jobbed, you STILL will not admit you were wrong.
what do you mean by clean the air? i had a focus that was pzev rated just like a prius. the gas mileage ratings were 25/33. how can this be? gm and ford had electric only vehicles in the 90's. why can't i find them on the epa site?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Rated just like a Prius but not as clean. Even when you take two PVEZs, it's obvious that the one rated 25/33 is not as clean as the one rated 48/45.
And the Prius is technically rated as AT-PZEV, which is a slightly different classification than regular PZEV. This is a certification given to just a handful of vehicles and stands for Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle. What all that means is that the car gives off 70 percent less smog-forming emissions than the average car. This also means that there are almost no fuel leaks or fuel vapors escaping from the fuel system.
The AT-PZEV certification requires the SULEV exhaust standard linked with the ability to meet a zero-fuel-evaporative standard, a 150,000-mile durability demonstration, extended emissions system warranty, and technology deemed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to advance future fuel cell vehicles.
There are no gasoline engine cars which have achieved an AT-PZEV rating.
The EPA test system is not setup for electric cars. They do not use diesel or gasoline by the gallon, so cannot be assigned a "miles per gallon" figure.
The could be assigned a "cost per mile" which could then be correlated to gasoline equivalents.
AT-PZEV means it has a battery. the criteria you posted is the same as the focus i had. the 150k number for the prius is only for california. every other state is 100k. i think you are making conclusions based on the way you think things work.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
There are no gasoline engine cars which have achieved an AT-PZEV rating.
That is because the mnemonic was derived for the hybrids. Just so we are clear here. A PZEV rated car getting 40 MPG actual will be just as clean in every way as an AT-PZEV rated hybrid getting 40 MPG actual.
Don't be confused by the erroneous EPA ratings game. :P
CO2 emission is directly related to the amount of fuel used. Not some number on a window sticker.
that's the U-District Dick's Drive-in. 45th Avenue was the tipoff for that one. Dick's pays a tad more than McDonald's or Burger King or Jack-In-The Box, too. A coupla dollars an hour more, and they assist worker's in getting various "perks" to help them get in to and through college, too. Just a simple, intelligent organization whose fast food absolutely blows away the other fast food joints. Most big cities no doubt have these types of places, I've seen them on those cable food shows.
now you're making me wonder how Chrysler is doing with their little subcompact Hornet. The one they are/were/are collaborating with Chery Motors of China with. Not much in the way of announcements lately from Chery or Chrysler on this new Hornet. The little Hornet should be built and it should be sold worldwide, including developing markets, immediately. Is Dodge keeping it under wraps, like their all-EV developments?
I read something along the lines of the Hornet being "put on hold" or words slightly similar, while Chery and Dodge continue to develop a variant of the Chery A1 for Dodge to slap their badge on and sell in places like South America and India. The Hornet would be one that would fit right in to the electric-propulsion mode idea, small and sub-sized and sporty looking. Anybody else heard "boo" about the Hornet from Chery/Dodge?
CO2 emission is directly related to the amount of fuel used.
This is true. However, the CAFE standards were not created in order to limit CO2 emissions. CO2 is not regulated by the EPA as a pollutant at all. The emission standards of cars are for pollutants such as NOx, hydrocarbons and CO.
While greater fuel efficiency would likely be related to lower emissions of HC and CO as those are products of incomplete combustion, this is not the case for NOx. In fact for NOx, it tends to be the opposite, optimising for low NOx would tend to make a less efficient engine. The EPA standards currently are met by equipping cars, no matter how fuel efficient they are, with catalytic converters not by designing an engine capable of meeting the standards without add on controls.
While there may be some connections, CAFE standards were not created for purposes of controlling NOx, HC, or CO. There are explicit standards, expressed in grams per mile, that must be met for these pollutants.
explorerx4 says, "AT-PZEV means it has a battery."
Actually, no. Having a battery has nothing to do with it.
AT PZEV: Advanced Technology PZEVs AT PZEVs meet the PZEV requirements and have additional "ZEV-like" characteristics. A dedicated compressed natural gas vehicle, or a hybrid vehicle with engine emissions that meet the PZEV standards would be an AT PZEV.
And:
AT PZEV—Advanced Technology PZEV Compressed natural-gas or hybrid vehicles that meet SULEV standards for tailpipe emissions, have a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty, zero evaporative emissions, as well as include advanced technology components.
There are no gasoline-only cars which are AT-PZEV. This is as clean as you can get without being ZEV.
Tis true that the EPA has set no limit or standard or regulation on CO2 emissions, but it does measure CO2 emissions and includes CO2 measurements in their calculations. The EPA has resisted establishing such a regulation by claiming it has no authority to do so, ostensibly by claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant. A claim that has effectively been denied I think in part because they shoot themselves in the foot in with language from their own regulations.
Light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks must calculate and report the weighted mass of each relevant pollutant, i.e., THC, CO, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, CH4, NOX, and CO2in grams per vehicle mile.
Part of what makes all this so confusing and maddening is that the EPA really does not measure miles per gallon, at least not in the way that we might commonly think about measuring MPG. They measure emissions. They measure the byproducts of combustion. This is in keeping with the EPA's charge to protect the environment. The data reflects how efficiently a fuel has been burned, and does not reflect how far a car traveled while burning that fuel. They take that data and calculate estimated MPG. It is a convoluted and complex process that ultimately estimates MPG rather than measuring MPG. We have known since the beginning that the calculation produced a high result, and even under the new test it still does. So, those results of that calculation is further massaged to get to the numbers you and I see on those window stickers.
Some may claim that this process is erroneous, but it is a highly controlled process intended to get at least somewhat consistent results. Despite the controls, the assumptions, stipulations, simulations, predictions, and other factors are susceptible to outside political influence. We have been arguing about all that since the beginning.
You and me and most of the automotive press usually employ a much simpler method. Fill up the car, drive for a while, fill up again. Divide the number of miles driven by the amount of fuel consumed. Voila. Not nearly as controlled, ends up with a wide variety of results, but a whole lot simpler.
You are a bit mistaken on the EPA test process. They do in effect measure the gallons used and miles driven and divide the numbers to get mpg.
The EPA determines fuel used based on measuring the carbon in the exhaust, which is then used to calculate the amount of fuel burned during the test. I don't see any problem with that, the carbon in the exhaust will be equal to the carbon in the fuel and from that the gallons of fuel used can be calculated. I would guess that they do this because it is more precise than trying to measure the volume of fuel used in a 10 mile highway run (for example).
They drive the cars on a dynamometer so that all cars are tested under controlled conditions. Not sure what else they could do, if consistent test conditions are desired.
I understand how the test is performed. I also appreciate that the test is controlled to achieve consistent and reliable results. Point is that the EPA is not really too concerned with measuring how far a car will travel on a given volume of fuel, but that using data gathered by the EPA, MPG can be and is estimated rather than specifically measured.
The fueleconomy.gov site distills the process down to something that is more easily digested by someone without a chemical engineering degree. One look at the Code of Federal Regulations reveals it is much more complicated than simply dividing the number of miles by the amount of fuel consumed. Lots of weighting of the various factors at play takes place. This doesn't work so well in a brochure:
(h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on test fuel specified in §86.113–04(a), the fuel economy in miles per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:
yes, you are correct, a battery is not required for AT-PZEV. the only cng vehicle for sale i know of is the civc gx. go down to the local dealer and try to buy one.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Drive as fast as you want. Tell that set of reasons you should be able to drive above the speed limit to the state patrolman. Report back on his reaction!
I've found State Patrolman to all generally be the same and they all have these traits:
1) Unreasonable 2) Complete disregard for Safety 3) Complete disregard for Reasonability 4) Completely stubborn 5) Complete ignorance of the fact that they are providing ZERO useful service and wasting tax payer money with every minute they work. 6) Complete disregard for the truth. 7) Disinterested in facts.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Many fast drivers cause accidents but are not involved.
That's an impossibility and illogical, to say the least.
If a fast driver is not involved, then they didn't CAUSE the accident. Plain and simple. Just because one driver commits a driver error, it is no excuse or reason for another driver to cause an accident or death with another car.
Perhaps a collision is unavoidable, but I do believe you have a duty to mitigate the damages by driving in a competent and SAFEST manner possible. Blaming a fast driver for "making you nervous and fidgety" is wrong when the real culprit was that you choked under pressure and couldn't handle the vehicle you were driving properly or efficiently in a dangerous situation. It's simple, when someone does something stupid, don't do something even worse to magnify the problem.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Speed is almost NEVER the cause of an Accident, anywhere, at anytime.
Speed won't do it, ever, because an accident requires negligence and/or incompetence on one or more parties involved (if two cars or more are involved).
If it's not negligence or lack of attention, then it is some catastrophic event similar to being hit by a lighting bolt (like a blown tire). Both occur with such rarity that it doesn't make sense to lower the speed limits for extremely rare events like that. I'm sure someone out there has invented a lighting bolt suit of armour and shield, but you don't see people wearing one during a thunder storm.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I've found State Patrolman to all generally be the same and they all have these traits:
1) Unreasonable 2) Complete disregard for Safety 3) Complete disregard for Reasonability 4) Completely stubborn 5) Complete ignorance of the fact that they are providing ZERO useful service and wasting tax payer money with every minute they work. 6) Complete disregard for the truth. 7) Disinterested in facts.
Actually, it is the speeders on the road that fit this description much better than the Troopers.
It is the chronic speeders that are unreasonable, who think that somehow when they are traveling faster than everyone else THEY are SAFER. They don't like to deal with the reality of physics (stopping distances grow exponentially with speed, mileage goes DOWN with speed). They will argue their points over and over again like a broken record ignoring the preceding.
They also have a tendency to over estimate their driving ability and the importance of THEIR time behind the wheel when going from point A to point B.
Many fast drivers cause accidents but are not involved.
That's an impossibility and illogical, to say the least.
Wrong again. These fast drivers take risks. They tailgate, they change lanes too close in front of others, and at times if it wasn't for the person being passed hitting the brakes, they would be side swiped at speed. That is when someone can lose control or be rear ended by another vehicle. So yes, a driver can CAUSE an accident without being involved in it.
With oil running out, gas cost is rising every few months, and people's saving are getting less every year, do you think the US government should bring back the 55 mph max speed limit again in all states like they once did in the 70s fuel-crisis era. Although 55 mph speed is very slow for many people and probably will not get the job done for most people, there are many benefits if we all drive 55 mph speed MAX again on highway:
1. It's the most fuel-efficient speed you can get in a vehicle. You can get more than 40 MPG in a gasoline Honda Accord or Toyota Camry by driving only 55 mph with A/C turned off.
2. We can save more than 30% of the oil supply before it is completly depleted.
3. When driving 55 mph, you get to be in your car longer (assuming new) and enjoy the interior comfort around you. Plus, it's more relaxing and fun to drive, and you can multitask more easily at the same time, such as taking cell phone calls, eating snacks, writing notes, or reading papers.
4. It can increase the engine life of the vehicle.
5. It may (or may not) reduce the chance of getting into an accident.
This was originally posted back in Dec/07.
My answer is, 55? probably not. i think 65 is a reasonable enough speed for the majority of drivers out there and the vehicles that they have.
Would there be a net savings of fuel if the SL were lowered? Absolutelly! Once a car/truck gets into top gear and into a rev range where the engine is not lugging, then any increase in speed lowers fuel efficiency.
Increase engine life? I would guess that the difference in engine wear between 2 cars, one going 55 and the other 70, over a 100K-150K life would probably be minor
>Many fast drivers cause accidents but are not involved. That's an impossibility and illogical, to say the least. If a fast driver is not involved, then they didn't CAUSE the accident. Plain and simple. Just because one driver commits a driver error, it is no excuse or reason for another driver to cause an accident or death with another car.
That statement is so wrong. A speeding driver makes lane changes attempting to gain a few feet to speed on down the road. They cut in on someone causing a reaction on their part that has another vehicle hitting them. This is only one of many possible scenarios.
Everyone needs to think back to newspaper or television reports about an accident and note the times the comment was another driver did something that caused the accident but they LEFT THE SCENE. Their car was able to go on or never made contact. A typical pattern is with trucks and someone causing them to take action which then results in an accident.
A speeding driver makes lane changes attempting to gain a few feet to speed on down the road. They cut in ...
I thought we were talking interstate roads here? Are you talking about interstates in the most densely urban areas? because I just drove the NY Thruway, and RT 80 and 81 in PA, and the cars and trucks are spaced a minimum of 25 yards apart. Most of the time the spacing was 100 yards. So we all drove along in the 65mph zone between 70 - 80 mph with no problems. For the most part slower drivers who wanted to drive 65mph stayed right.
I didn't see 1 accident or near-miss. The closest I had to an accident was in the city the other day when an oncoming car with an 18-yr old coming towards me cut across my lane into his driveway.
I consider the interstates at ANY SSPEED to be safer than the 2-lane highways and city roads.
cdn_tch: It is the chronic speeders that are unreasonable, who think that somehow when they are traveling faster than everyone else THEY are SAFER. They don't like to deal with the reality of physics (stopping distances grow exponentially with speed, mileage goes DOWN with speed). They will argue their points over and over again like a broken record ignoring the preceding.
Except, of course, that it has been proven that faster drivers are involved in fewer accidents on limited access highway than those who drive the speed limit or slower.
So someone sounds like a broken record, but it isn't the more informed drivers who realize that the "speed kills" nonsense is baloney.
cdn_tch: Wrong again. These fast drivers take risks. They tailgate, they change lanes too close in front of others, and at times if it wasn't for the person being passed hitting the brakes, they would be side swiped at speed. That is when someone can lose control or be rear ended by another vehicle. So yes, a driver can CAUSE an accident without being involved in it.
And so can a SLOW driver cause an accident without being involved in it. They can force other drivers to pass them, or merge at 45 mph on a limited access highway (I've seen this one happen far too often), to name two examples. Your post proves nothing.
cdn_tch: My answer is, 55? probably not. i think 65 is a reasonable enough speed for the majority of drivers out there and the vehicles that they have.
And, once again, you really do need to get out more if you think that 65 mph is a reasonable speed limit for the entire nation. Newsflash - it's not 1945 anymore.
imidazol97: Everyone needs to think back to newspaper or television reports about an accident and note the times the comment was another driver did something that caused the accident but they LEFT THE SCENE. Their car was able to go on or never made contact. A typical pattern is with trucks and someone causing them to take action which then results in an accident.
Generally, it's best to make sure that the articles you cite support your case, and are relevant to the topic at hand.
The first deals with an accident on a road that WASN'T a limited-access highway. (Note that it contains this sentence: "The pickup truck veered back onto the highway and across the center line into eastbound traffic — striking Schneider’s patrol car head-on at highway speeds.") A limited access highway either has a grassy median to divide traffic, or at least a guardrail.
We are talking about speed limits on limited access highways. This article is irrelevant.
The second article details an accident that was caused by a drunk driver. I know of no one on this thread who is advocating driving while drunk. So, this article is irrelevant, too.
Except, of course, that it has been proven that faster drivers are involved in fewer accidents on limited access highway than those who drive the speed limit or slower.
Please post the study where this is proven. I have yet to get a straight answer from you on this one as you keep on harping about the proof yet you cannot seem to be able to provide it.
So I will ask again. Provide a link to the STUDY (not somebodys blog) where this proof exists.
Until you do that I must continue to ignore your rants that faster drivers are in some miraculous way safer than the rest of society.
And so can a SLOW driver cause an accident without being involved in it. They can force other drivers to pass them
Nobody can force someone to pass in an unsafe manner. That is the choice of the person doing the passing.
And no, speed doesn't kill. It is rapid deceleration that kills!
cdn_tch: Please post the study where this is proven. I have yet to get a straight answer from you on this one as you keep on harping about the proof yet you cannot seem to be able to provide it.
So I will ask again. Provide a link to the STUDY (not somebodys blog) where this proof exists.
It was posted awhile back, when you earlier tried to dismiss the information, and here was my response; unfortunately, your appear to understand it about as well as you do public service bulletin boards:
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."
Search through the posts to find it.
cdn_tch: Until you do that I must continue to ignore your rants that faster drivers are in some miraculous way safer than the rest of society.
This from the person who rants that the top speed limit should be 65 mph. You really DO need to get out more. Not to mention provide evidence that 65 mph is the maximum safe speed on a highway system that was designed for cars of the 1950s to drive at 75 mph.
Newsflash - both road design and car design have improved since 1956. Perhaps you have missed these improvements?
cdn_tch: Nobody can force someone to pass in an unsafe manner. That is the choice of the person doing the passing.
Completely missing the point. And also showing a very unsophisticated understanding of how to promote highway safety, but one that the "speed kills" folks foolishly cling to. The simple fact is that drivers need to merge at safe speeds and BLEND with the flow of traffic to prevent people from having to make sudden manuevers. The idea that oncoming traffic should be expected to slam on their brakes for slowpokes is hardly a good way to promote highway safety.
cdn_tch: And no, speed doesn't kill. It is rapid deceleration that kills!
Sure...except that faster drivers on limited access highways are less likey to undergo that rapid deceleration in the first place.
And again you did not post a link to the scientific study. Pointing to someone else's comments does not make it true.
The link was to a brochure from a gov't department. Studies have little things in them like hypothesis, methodology, raw data, analysis and then a scientifically based conclusion.
Newsflash - both road design and car design have improved since 1956. Perhaps you have missed these improvements? Newsflash - driver design has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse...
The idea that oncoming traffic should be expected to slam on their brakes for slowpokes If they have to slam on their brakes when coming up upon slower traffic, then they are not paying attention and should slow down to a speed at which they can understand what is happening in front of their vehicle.
Nobody can force someone to pass in an unsafe manner. That is the choice of the person doing the passing.
Exactly my point. Same as a speeding driver can't force a slow one to cause an accident by slamming his brakes, swerving, or doing some other unsafe reaction. You can only force someone into an accident with you and that person, not other vehicles. No one says you have to choose to swerve to avoid a fast, safe, slow, or dangerious driver. If someone cuts in front of you and will side swipe you, maybe letting them hit you is the best option rather than make the dumb decision to slam on your brakes which could cause a 10 car pileup collision. Either way, no one that is untouched in an accident can directly cause an accident. The physics just aren't there. Your car's momentum cannot be affected by anyone else unless someone hits you in some manner. In any other case, your car's momentum was affected by only yours truly, as you have the accelerator, the decelerator, and the steering wheel with which to change the physics involved.
Have you ever stopped to think that bad drivers that cause accidents will always dream up, fabricate, invent excuses like (the fast driver made me do it) in order to not take blame or responsibility for their own faults? Oh yeah, it wasn't my fault, the flying pig made me swerve!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
A speeding driver makes lane changes attempting to gain a few feet to speed on down the road. They cut in on someone causing a reaction on their part that has another vehicle hitting them. This is only one of many possible scenarios.
Wrong!
CAUSING a reaction is an untrue statement in your comment above. You could perhaps argue in a roundabout way that they influenced a reaction on the part of the other driver, but in the end the reaction was that driver's own will power and decision. Without contact, there is no change in speed or direction caused by another vehicle. Perhaps the driver should have accepted a no-fault accident involving 2 vehicles occurring instead of the alternative AT FAULT 10 car pile-up due to their own poor judgment.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
cdn_tch: And again you did not post a link to the scientific study. Pointing to someone else's comments does not make it true.
The link was to a brochure from a gov't department. Studies have little things in them like hypothesis, methodology, raw data, analysis and then a scientifically based conclusion.
Yes, the Colorado Department of Transportation just makes these things up.
cdn_tch: Newsflash - driver design has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse...
Proof please...you are entitled to your opinion, but considering that the roads are safer than ever, the facts don't support it.
cdn_tch: If they have to slam on their brakes when coming up upon slower traffic, then they are not paying attention and should slow down to a speed at which they can understand what is happening in front of their vehicle.
Yes, this is very handy advice when people merge on to a 75-mph limited access highway at 45 mph.
Obviously you don't spend too much time in the real world, do you? You certainly don't seem to be well-informed about traffic safety issues.
As for lowering the speed limit - sorry to break it to you, but even the federal tovernment says it won't do much good in slowing people down or reducing accidents. Here are the findings of study conducted by federal government on the effects of speed limits:
"The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents. (emphasis added)
The simple fact is that in Pennsylvania, the REAL speed limit is 70-75 mph on limited access highways, even though the posted limit is 65 mph, and out west (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada), it's about 80+ mph.
Artificially lowering speed limits because people think that 80 mph is "too fast," or because they apparently lose bladder control at that speed (the solution there is Depends), or they "know" that slower is always somehow "safer" is a waste of time, money and law enforcement resources.
Andres3, your are mixing too many things together that don't go together.
Someone who chooses to pass another vehicle is making a choice. Someone who is about to be sideswiped has no choice in the matter.
maybe letting them hit you is the best option I was sideswiped in the city once at less than 25mph. The other driver hit the passenger door and front quarter panel. I was knocked over by a lane and a half. At 60 mph I would not have had any chance of regaining control. So your flippant comment about just let someone hit you at highway speeds is absolutely ridiculous and downright dangerous.
The two extremes are both a hazard. Neither of these type of drivers is thinking of anything or anyone but themselves. In Missouri when a driver pulls in freeway traffic from the on ramp and they are doing 35 mph in a 70 mph highway, nine times out of ten the drivers car has Kansas plates! But these air heads just don't give a crap about anything but themselves. Then too are the drivers that zoom right up to your your [non-permissible content removed] and pass you when you are doing 75 mph. These type of drivers are total jerks! Neither one of these type of drivers have any justification for such stupid driving.
No matter what scientific study you use these type of drivers do cause accidents, and most likely just cause others to get injured rather than themselves.
Someone who chooses to pass another vehicle is making a choice. Someone who is about to be sideswiped has no choice in the matter.
You always have a choice. You should see this bad driver coming from a mile away if you are a good driver. You can slow down and let them have the room to change lanes. You can speed up to let them have room behind you. You can change lanes to the left, you can change lanes to the right, you can swerve, you can do many things to avoid being hit without slamming on your brakes in such a manner as to cause more accidents. So your flippant comment about just let someone hit you at highway speeds is absolutely ridiculous and downright dangerous.
I'm not saying you let someone hit you if other better options are available and open. However, perhaps if you had been driving as fast as everyone else you would have been 100' in front of this lunatic already and wouldn't have been sideswiped in the first place?
I am saying that it is possible you could get into a situation where letting someone hit you and cause a no fault accident on your part is the best option when the alternative is a 20 car pileup or some other more serious disaster. Also, if you know they are about to sideswipe you, you should be ready for impact and not be thrown 1-1/2 lanes over from someone's simple lane change.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Artificially lowering speed limits because people think that 80 mph is "too fast," or because they apparently lose bladder control at that speed (the solution there is Depends), or they "know" that slower is always somehow "safer" is a waste of time, money and law enforcement resources.
:P
I have to say, that is one of the best, most hilarious, well written, and classic paragraphs ever written in the history of mankind!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Here's the official data from Austria. See P. 63 which shows that more and more people have been speeding over the last 10 years, and then look at P. 68 and see that the fatalities on the roads have been decreasing. And if you look thru more of the official government statistics you'll see that despite the 130kmh (81 mph) speed limit they have comparable fatality rates to the U.S. And I would guess that Austria being rather small is at least as densely populated as the U.S. Enjoy!
>The idea that oncoming traffic should be expected to slam on their brakes for slowpokes
>If they have to slam on their brakes when coming up upon slower traffic, then they are not paying attention and should slow down to a speed at which they can understand what is happening in front of their vehicle.
Comments
That makes the most sense to me. I would like a Jeep Wrangler with a small 4 cylinder diesel engine. It would be ideal for long trips in the back country. Not sure why Jeep only builds them for foreign sale. Unless they cannot get the emissions down. Are they still tied closely to Mitsubishi? They have some EVs being used in Japan I believe.
Don't get me wrong, I do love speed, but I also love to be alive and slow down and drive appropriately for road/climate conditions... what a concept, huh?
Of course, then some will take it too easy...the driving manuever of choice here in the snow is just to panic and stop.
steve, yeah, I don't always know the different districts in Seattle. But, there's a Dick's Drive-In on Holman Road. That might be in the Wallingford district of Seattle. I went to that one on Holman Road a lot. Also, there's a Dick's on Lake City Way in NE Seattle. There's one on Capitol Hill, just east of downtown Seattle. There's two more that I know of. One's in the University(of Washington)District and the other one is about a block from Key Arena, next to the Seattle Center, where the 1962 World's Fair was. That one is known as the Queen Anne Hill Dick's. Man, I could always count on a delicious Dick's Deluxe burger or a Dick's Special. The Special has no cheese but it has a delicious mixture of lettuce, onions and sauce that makes for a wonderful eating experience.
One thing that would've taken me off my commute if I had commuted from the city of Seattle from a job to up north, where I always lived when living in that area, would be Dick's Drive-In restaurants. Forget about a $50 meal in the revolving Space Needle restaurant, when you can eat a delicious Dick's hamburger and get a greasy, potato skin-left-on the fries order of fries and a Coke or chocolate milkshake, man. I'm starting to get hungry for lunch as I type this!
Another thing that frustrated me about living in the Seattle area. Dick's Drive-In decided to stay only in the Seattle area. They didn't put one up north in Edmonds, Lynnwood or Everett! Wherever they locate they'll do well, but the creators of the restaurant wanted to keep it in Seattle. Oh well.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I've been through Seattle many times, never been to Dicks. Some of those fries and a shake would hit the spot.
As far as I know, they're really not. There are emission standards for that...so many grams per mile of NOx, etc. I believe striving for low emissions can often actually result in lower efficiency.
fueleconomy.gov site talking about air pollution and emissions
Gas mileage (MPG), greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution ratings, and safety information for new and used cars and trucks
In the same sentence, the EPA puts mpg ratings and air pollution. Seems related to me.
This is very good.
This tells who "Mr. X" was:
Mr. X = Erik Stork (heretofore known as Stork The Dork)
Of course the EPA would never do anything to hold up diesel technology. When will you admit they are just another corrupt agency in a corrupt government.
I will admit to figments of MY OWN imagination, but not some else's.
And in the same manner in which you have zero proof that the EPA is corrupt in regard to the EPA mileage tests, you have zero proof that the EPA is holding up diesel engine cars.
EVEN WHEN I take a spreadsheet in which YOU commented upon and use data in that sheet to PROVE beyond a shadow of ANY DOUBT that the Jetta TDI was not jobbed, you STILL will not admit you were wrong.
Sad.
i had a focus that was pzev rated just like a prius. the gas mileage ratings were 25/33. how can this be?
gm and ford had electric only vehicles in the 90's.
why can't i find them on the epa site?
And the Prius is technically rated as AT-PZEV, which is a slightly different classification than regular PZEV. This is a certification given to just a handful of vehicles and stands for Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle. What all that means is that the car gives off 70 percent less smog-forming emissions than the average car. This also means that there are almost no fuel leaks or fuel vapors escaping from the fuel system.
The AT-PZEV certification requires the SULEV exhaust standard linked with the ability to meet a zero-fuel-evaporative standard, a 150,000-mile durability demonstration, extended emissions system warranty, and technology deemed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to advance future fuel cell vehicles.
There are no gasoline engine cars which have achieved an AT-PZEV rating.
The EPA test system is not setup for electric cars. They do not use diesel or gasoline by the gallon, so cannot be assigned a "miles per gallon" figure.
The could be assigned a "cost per mile" which could then be correlated to gasoline equivalents.
i think you are making conclusions based on the way you think things work.
That is because the mnemonic was derived for the hybrids. Just so we are clear here. A PZEV rated car getting 40 MPG actual will be just as clean in every way as an AT-PZEV rated hybrid getting 40 MPG actual.
Don't be confused by the erroneous EPA ratings game. :P
CO2 emission is directly related to the amount of fuel used. Not some number on a window sticker.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I read something along the lines of the Hornet being "put on hold" or words slightly similar, while Chery and Dodge continue to develop a variant of the Chery A1 for Dodge to slap their badge on and sell in places like South America and India. The Hornet would be one that would fit right in to the electric-propulsion mode idea, small and sub-sized and sporty looking. Anybody else heard "boo" about the Hornet from Chery/Dodge?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
This is true. However, the CAFE standards were not created in order to limit CO2 emissions. CO2 is not regulated by the EPA as a pollutant at all. The emission standards of cars are for pollutants such as NOx, hydrocarbons and CO.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/airpoll.shtml
While greater fuel efficiency would likely be related to lower emissions of HC and CO as those are products of incomplete combustion, this is not the case for NOx. In fact for NOx, it tends to be the opposite, optimising for low NOx would tend to make a less efficient engine. The EPA standards currently are met by equipping cars, no matter how fuel efficient they are, with catalytic converters not by designing an engine capable of meeting the standards without add on controls.
While there may be some connections, CAFE standards were not created for purposes of controlling NOx, HC, or CO. There are explicit standards, expressed in grams per mile, that must be met for these pollutants.
Actually, no. Having a battery has nothing to do with it.
AT PZEV: Advanced Technology PZEVs
AT PZEVs meet the PZEV requirements and have additional "ZEV-like" characteristics. A dedicated compressed natural gas vehicle, or a hybrid vehicle with engine emissions that meet the PZEV standards would be an AT PZEV.
And:
AT PZEV—Advanced Technology PZEV Compressed natural-gas or hybrid vehicles that meet SULEV standards for tailpipe emissions, have a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty, zero evaporative emissions, as well as include advanced technology components.
There are no gasoline-only cars which are AT-PZEV. This is as clean as you can get without being ZEV.
Light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks must calculate and report the weighted mass of each relevant pollutant, i.e., THC, CO, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, CH4, NOX, and CO2in grams per vehicle mile.
Title 40: Code of Federal Regulations (the regulations governing the EPA measurements of automotive exhaust emissions)
Part of what makes all this so confusing and maddening is that the EPA really does not measure miles per gallon, at least not in the way that we might commonly think about measuring MPG. They measure emissions. They measure the byproducts of combustion. This is in keeping with the EPA's charge to protect the environment. The data reflects how efficiently a fuel has been burned, and does not reflect how far a car traveled while burning that fuel. They take that data and calculate estimated MPG. It is a convoluted and complex process that ultimately estimates MPG rather than measuring MPG. We have known since the beginning that the calculation produced a high result, and even under the new test it still does. So, those results of that calculation is further massaged to get to the numbers you and I see on those window stickers.
Some may claim that this process is erroneous, but it is a highly controlled process intended to get at least somewhat consistent results. Despite the controls, the assumptions, stipulations, simulations, predictions, and other factors are susceptible to outside political influence. We have been arguing about all that since the beginning.
You and me and most of the automotive press usually employ a much simpler method. Fill up the car, drive for a while, fill up again. Divide the number of miles driven by the amount of fuel consumed. Voila. Not nearly as controlled, ends up with a wide variety of results, but a whole lot simpler.
The EPA determines fuel used based on measuring the carbon in the exhaust, which is then used to calculate the amount of fuel burned during the test. I don't see any problem with that, the carbon in the exhaust will be equal to the carbon in the fuel and from that the gallons of fuel used can be calculated. I would guess that they do this because it is more precise than trying to measure the volume of fuel used in a 10 mile highway run (for example).
They drive the cars on a dynamometer so that all cars are tested under controlled conditions. Not sure what else they could do, if consistent test conditions are desired.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
The fueleconomy.gov site distills the process down to something that is more easily digested by someone without a chemical engineering degree. One look at the Code of Federal Regulations reveals it is much more complicated than simply dividing the number of miles by the amount of fuel consumed. Lots of weighting of the various factors at play takes place. This doesn't work so well in a brochure:
(h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on test fuel specified in §86.113–04(a), the fuel economy in miles per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:
mpg = (5174 × 104 × C × CWF × SG)/[((CWF × HC) + (0.429 × CO) + (0.273 × CO2)) × ((0.6 × SG × NHV) + 5471)]
Where:
HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2= Grams/mile CO2as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
NHV = Net heating value by mass of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
SG = Specific gravity of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
In essence it is weight per mile that is then converted to distance per gallon.
Hey, it produces the result it produces. It is consistently high. It gets adjusted. We live with it.
the only cng vehicle for sale i know of is the civc gx.
go down to the local dealer and try to buy one.
I've found State Patrolman to all generally be the same and they all have these traits:
1) Unreasonable
2) Complete disregard for Safety
3) Complete disregard for Reasonability
4) Completely stubborn
5) Complete ignorance of the fact that they are providing ZERO useful service and wasting tax payer money with every minute they work.
6) Complete disregard for the truth.
7) Disinterested in facts.
That's an impossibility and illogical, to say the least.
If a fast driver is not involved, then they didn't CAUSE the accident. Plain and simple. Just because one driver commits a driver error, it is no excuse or reason for another driver to cause an accident or death with another car.
Perhaps a collision is unavoidable, but I do believe you have a duty to mitigate the damages by driving in a competent and SAFEST manner possible. Blaming a fast driver for "making you nervous and fidgety" is wrong when the real culprit was that you choked under pressure and couldn't handle the vehicle you were driving properly or efficiently in a dangerous situation. It's simple, when someone does something stupid, don't do something even worse to magnify the problem.
Speed won't do it, ever, because an accident requires negligence and/or incompetence on one or more parties involved (if two cars or more are involved).
If it's not negligence or lack of attention, then it is some catastrophic event similar to being hit by a lighting bolt (like a blown tire). Both occur with such rarity that it doesn't make sense to lower the speed limits for extremely rare events like that. I'm sure someone out there has invented a lighting bolt suit of armour and shield, but you don't see people wearing one during a thunder storm.
1) Unreasonable
2) Complete disregard for Safety
3) Complete disregard for Reasonability
4) Completely stubborn
5) Complete ignorance of the fact that they are providing ZERO useful service and wasting tax payer money with every minute they work.
6) Complete disregard for the truth.
7) Disinterested in facts.
Actually, it is the speeders on the road that fit this description much better than the Troopers.
It is the chronic speeders that are unreasonable, who think that somehow when they are traveling faster than everyone else THEY are SAFER. They don't like to deal with the reality of physics (stopping distances grow exponentially with speed, mileage goes DOWN with speed). They will argue their points over and over again like a broken record ignoring the preceding.
They also have a tendency to over estimate their driving ability and the importance of THEIR time behind the wheel when going from point A to point B.
Many fast drivers cause accidents but are not involved.
That's an impossibility and illogical, to say the least.
Wrong again. These fast drivers take risks. They tailgate, they change lanes too close in front of others, and at times if it wasn't for the person being passed hitting the brakes, they would be side swiped at speed. That is when someone can lose control or be rear ended by another vehicle. So yes, a driver can CAUSE an accident without being involved in it.
1. It's the most fuel-efficient speed you can get in a vehicle. You can get more than 40 MPG in a gasoline Honda Accord or Toyota Camry by driving only 55 mph with A/C turned off.
2. We can save more than 30% of the oil supply before it is completly depleted.
3. When driving 55 mph, you get to be in your car longer (assuming new) and enjoy the interior comfort around you. Plus, it's more relaxing and fun to drive, and you can multitask more easily at the same time, such as taking cell phone calls, eating snacks, writing notes, or reading papers.
4. It can increase the engine life of the vehicle.
5. It may (or may not) reduce the chance of getting into an accident.
This was originally posted back in Dec/07.
My answer is, 55? probably not. i think 65 is a reasonable enough speed for the majority of drivers out there and the vehicles that they have.
Would there be a net savings of fuel if the SL were lowered? Absolutelly! Once a car/truck gets into top gear and into a rev range where the engine is not lugging, then any increase in speed lowers fuel efficiency.
Increase engine life? I would guess that the difference in engine wear between 2 cars, one going 55 and the other 70, over a 100K-150K life would probably be minor
That's an impossibility and illogical, to say the least.
If a fast driver is not involved, then they didn't CAUSE the accident. Plain and simple. Just because one driver commits a driver error, it is no excuse or reason for another driver to cause an accident or death with another car.
That statement is so wrong. A speeding driver makes lane changes attempting to gain a few feet to speed on down the road. They cut in on someone causing a reaction on their part that has another vehicle hitting them. This is only one of many possible scenarios.
Everyone needs to think back to newspaper or television reports about an accident and note the times the comment was another driver did something that caused the accident but they LEFT THE SCENE. Their car was able to go on or never made contact. A typical pattern is with trucks and someone causing them to take action which then results in an accident.
speeding driver left scene after causing accident
speed and alcohol-left scene
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought we were talking interstate roads here? Are you talking about interstates in the most densely urban areas? because I just drove the NY Thruway, and RT 80 and 81 in PA, and the cars and trucks are spaced a minimum of 25 yards apart. Most of the time the spacing was 100 yards. So we all drove along in the 65mph zone between 70 - 80 mph with no problems. For the most part slower drivers who wanted to drive 65mph stayed right.
I didn't see 1 accident or near-miss. The closest I had to an accident was in the city the other day when an oncoming car with an 18-yr old coming towards me cut across my lane into his driveway.
I consider the interstates at ANY SSPEED to be safer than the 2-lane highways and city roads.
Except, of course, that it has been proven that faster drivers are involved in fewer accidents on limited access highway than those who drive the speed limit or slower.
So someone sounds like a broken record, but it isn't the more informed drivers who realize that the "speed kills" nonsense is baloney.
cdn_tch: Wrong again. These fast drivers take risks. They tailgate, they change lanes too close in front of others, and at times if it wasn't for the person being passed hitting the brakes, they would be side swiped at speed. That is when someone can lose control or be rear ended by another vehicle. So yes, a driver can CAUSE an accident without being involved in it.
And so can a SLOW driver cause an accident without being involved in it. They can force other drivers to pass them, or merge at 45 mph on a limited access highway (I've seen this one happen far too often), to name two examples. Your post proves nothing.
And, once again, you really do need to get out more if you think that 65 mph is a reasonable speed limit for the entire nation. Newsflash - it's not 1945 anymore.
Generally, it's best to make sure that the articles you cite support your case, and are relevant to the topic at hand.
The first deals with an accident on a road that WASN'T a limited-access highway. (Note that it contains this sentence: "The pickup truck veered back onto the highway and across the center line into eastbound traffic — striking Schneider’s patrol car head-on at highway speeds.") A limited access highway either has a grassy median to divide traffic, or at least a guardrail.
We are talking about speed limits on limited access highways. This article is irrelevant.
The second article details an accident that was caused by a drunk driver. I know of no one on this thread who is advocating driving while drunk. So, this article is irrelevant, too.
If 70 was considered fine for someone in a 1955 Chevy, why would 65 be the limit for a far more advanced 2008 car?
Please post the study where this is proven. I have yet to get a straight answer from you on this one as you keep on harping about the proof yet you cannot seem to be able to provide it.
So I will ask again. Provide a link to the STUDY (not somebodys blog) where this proof exists.
Until you do that I must continue to ignore your rants that faster drivers are in some miraculous way safer than the rest of society.
And so can a SLOW driver cause an accident without being involved in it. They can force other drivers to pass them
Nobody can force someone to pass in an unsafe manner. That is the choice of the person doing the passing.
And no, speed doesn't kill. It is rapid deceleration that kills!
So I will ask again. Provide a link to the STUDY (not somebodys blog) where this proof exists.
It was posted awhile back, when you earlier tried to dismiss the information, and here was my response; unfortunately, your appear to understand it about as well as you do public service bulletin boards:
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."
Search through the posts to find it.
cdn_tch: Until you do that I must continue to ignore your rants that faster drivers are in some miraculous way safer than the rest of society.
This from the person who rants that the top speed limit should be 65 mph. You really DO need to get out more. Not to mention provide evidence that 65 mph is the maximum safe speed on a highway system that was designed for cars of the 1950s to drive at 75 mph.
Newsflash - both road design and car design have improved since 1956. Perhaps you have missed these improvements?
cdn_tch: Nobody can force someone to pass in an unsafe manner. That is the choice of the person doing the passing.
Completely missing the point. And also showing a very unsophisticated understanding of how to promote highway safety, but one that the "speed kills" folks foolishly cling to. The simple fact is that drivers need to merge at safe speeds and BLEND with the flow of traffic to prevent people from having to make sudden manuevers. The idea that oncoming traffic should be expected to slam on their brakes for slowpokes is hardly a good way to promote highway safety.
cdn_tch: And no, speed doesn't kill. It is rapid deceleration that kills!
Sure...except that faster drivers on limited access highways are less likey to undergo that rapid deceleration in the first place.
The link was to a brochure from a gov't department. Studies have little things in them like hypothesis, methodology, raw data, analysis and then a scientifically based conclusion.
Newsflash - both road design and car design have improved since 1956. Perhaps you have missed these improvements?
Newsflash - driver design has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse...
The idea that oncoming traffic should be expected to slam on their brakes for slowpokes
If they have to slam on their brakes when coming up upon slower traffic, then they are not paying attention and should slow down to a speed at which they can understand what is happening in front of their vehicle.
Exactly my point. Same as a speeding driver can't force a slow one to cause an accident by slamming his brakes, swerving, or doing some other unsafe reaction. You can only force someone into an accident with you and that person, not other vehicles. No one says you have to choose to swerve to avoid a fast, safe, slow, or dangerious driver. If someone cuts in front of you and will side swipe you, maybe letting them hit you is the best option rather than make the dumb decision to slam on your brakes which could cause a 10 car pileup collision. Either way, no one that is untouched in an accident can directly cause an accident. The physics just aren't there. Your car's momentum cannot be affected by anyone else unless someone hits you in some manner. In any other case, your car's momentum was affected by only yours truly, as you have the accelerator, the decelerator, and the steering wheel with which to change the physics involved.
Have you ever stopped to think that bad drivers that cause accidents will always dream up, fabricate, invent excuses like (the fast driver made me do it) in order to not take blame or responsibility for their own faults? Oh yeah, it wasn't my fault, the flying pig made me swerve!
Wrong!
CAUSING a reaction is an untrue statement in your comment above. You could perhaps argue in a roundabout way that they influenced a reaction on the part of the other driver, but in the end the reaction was that driver's own will power and decision. Without contact, there is no change in speed or direction caused by another vehicle. Perhaps the driver should have accepted a no-fault accident involving 2 vehicles occurring instead of the alternative AT FAULT 10 car pile-up due to their own poor judgment.
The link was to a brochure from a gov't department. Studies have little things in them like hypothesis, methodology, raw data, analysis and then a scientifically based conclusion.
Yes, the Colorado Department of Transportation just makes these things up.
cdn_tch: Newsflash - driver design has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse...
Proof please...you are entitled to your opinion, but considering that the roads are safer than ever, the facts don't support it.
cdn_tch: If they have to slam on their brakes when coming up upon slower traffic, then they are not paying attention and should slow down to a speed at which they can understand what is happening in front of their vehicle.
Yes, this is very handy advice when people merge on to a 75-mph limited access highway at 45 mph.
Obviously you don't spend too much time in the real world, do you? You certainly don't seem to be well-informed about traffic safety issues.
As for lowering the speed limit - sorry to break it to you, but even the federal tovernment says it won't do much good in slowing people down or reducing accidents. Here are the findings of study conducted by federal government on the effects of speed limits:
"The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents. (emphasis added)
The simple fact is that in Pennsylvania, the REAL speed limit is 70-75 mph on limited access highways, even though the posted limit is 65 mph, and out west (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada), it's about 80+ mph.
Artificially lowering speed limits because people think that 80 mph is "too fast," or because they apparently lose bladder control at that speed (the solution there is Depends), or they "know" that slower is always somehow "safer" is a waste of time, money and law enforcement resources.
Someone who chooses to pass another vehicle is making a choice. Someone who is about to be sideswiped has no choice in the matter.
maybe letting them hit you is the best option
I was sideswiped in the city once at less than 25mph. The other driver hit the passenger door and front quarter panel. I was knocked over by a lane and a half. At 60 mph I would not have had any chance of regaining control. So your flippant comment about just let someone hit you at highway speeds is absolutely ridiculous and downright dangerous.
They used a chart from some unnamed study. Where is the original study?
No matter what scientific study you use these type of drivers do cause accidents, and most likely just cause others to get injured rather than themselves.
farout
You always have a choice. You should see this bad driver coming from a mile away if you are a good driver. You can slow down and let them have the room to change lanes. You can speed up to let them have room behind you. You can change lanes to the left, you can change lanes to the right, you can swerve, you can do many things to avoid being hit without slamming on your brakes in such a manner as to cause more accidents.
So your flippant comment about just let someone hit you at highway speeds is absolutely ridiculous and downright dangerous.
I'm not saying you let someone hit you if other better options are available and open. However, perhaps if you had been driving as fast as everyone else you would have been 100' in front of this lunatic already and wouldn't have been sideswiped in the first place?
I am saying that it is possible you could get into a situation where letting someone hit you and cause a no fault accident on your part is the best option when the alternative is a 20 car pileup or some other more serious disaster. Also, if you know they are about to sideswipe you, you should be ready for impact and not be thrown 1-1/2 lanes over from someone's simple lane change.
I have to say, that is one of the best, most hilarious, well written, and classic paragraphs ever written in the history of mankind!
Here's the official data from Austria. See P. 63 which shows that more and more people have been speeding over the last 10 years, and then look at P. 68 and see that the fatalities on the roads have been decreasing. And if you look thru more of the official government statistics you'll see that despite the 130kmh (81 mph) speed limit they have comparable fatality rates to the U.S. And I would guess that Austria being rather small is at least as densely populated as the U.S. Enjoy!
http://www.kfv.at/fileadmin/Publikationen_englisch/VUS2005-englisch.pdf
>If they have to slam on their brakes when coming up upon slower traffic, then they are not paying attention and should slow down to a speed at which they can understand what is happening in front of their vehicle.
Great point.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,