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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Fines are $125 and fatalities are down. The cops say traffic flow has gotten better.
Does increased police presence mean safer roads? (Upper Michigan's Source).
Reporter's grammar and report structure are weak. But we get the idea. I suspect it's more about $125 at a clip into the city's coffers than they're letting on. Maybe they can install red light and speed cameras?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nice to see LLCs mentioned anyway.
MArquette has a rush hour? :confuse:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course, both lights flash at the same intersection....
Hm, two light flashing each way at the four way, so that makes us an 8 light town.
Is that a politcal way of saying there are NO stoplights?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We also have a dearth of inconsiderate drivers, except for the occasional noisy snowmachiner cruising the neighborhood streets after a fresh snowfall.
With only a flashing light intersection, I'd say you simply have a dearth of drivers.
I think there should be a TAX on driver's that cause wrecks that end up backing up traffic. Forget traffic fines, this tax would work!
And it's not even close. By far, slightly fast drivers (slightly faster than average speed of roadway) have the least amount of accidents.
This is a study Michigan law enforcement has completed and the results are in the lastest issue of Driving Freedoms quarterly newsletter from the NMA (national motorists association).
I'll give you guys more details soon (links, charts, graphs, data). But as I knew all along, the data doesn't lie.
This is really done in the context of more passenger cars, more drivers, highest speed limits, higher speeds, more trips, etc. NHTSA
We have been over this before, yes there are more accidents at lower rates of speed. This is because 1.) Most driving is done at lower rates of speed and 2.) most high speed driving (lets say 65+ MPH) is done on roads designed to be safer.
Remember there are three types of lies, Lies, damn lies and statistics.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You've pointed out 2 factors that are not controlled in the alleged "experiment" showing that slower driving is more dangerous.
Other factors are that some older drivers go at slower speeds to be safer, realizing their lessened capabilities and that often high speed drivers who do things dangerously cause others to be involved in the accidents which they leave in their wake..
I put this kind of "data" right there with those that show red light cameras make streets safer. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If a driver slowes down to compensate for lessened capabilities its not the slower speed that makes them more dangerous, but there lesser abilities.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You pointed out that raw statistics of accidents and speed include two factors: one, that more driving is done at slow speeds, and second, that higher speed driving is sometimes done on roads which are much safer for driving at such speeds, i.e., interstates.
I added two more factors to the raw, uncorrected data, that slower speeds are sometimes involving older drivers who have lessened capacities and that higher speed drivers often cause others to have accidents.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If 75% of accidents happen at say under 50 MPH but 80% of the driving is done under 50MPH than that would support slower driving is safer.
Also while it is safer to drive 75 MPH on an interstate highway than it is to drive 65 MPH on a two lane rural road it doesn't mean that it is safer to drive 75 MPH on the interstate than it is to drive 65 on that same interstate.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Also, I've seen in the news where an accident was caused by a car "travelling too fast for conditions" but I've never read about an accident caused by a car "travelling too slow for conditions." Or driving too slow in a school zone. Or driving too slow in the slow lane on a highway. The accidents are usually caused by those too impatient and irrated with the slower car to wait.
That being said, I do agree that slow drivers shouldn't drive in the fast lane except when they're passing an even slower vehicle and should drive at least 5-10mph faster than the car they're passing, so they're not in the fast lane too long.
The statistic is meaningless. That was my point. I agreed with your two tenets and added some observations from my own area.
I recall a seatbelt traffic safety commercial about a high percentage of accidents happen within 25 miles of home. Most drivers are in slower speed areas within 25 miles of their home and consequently more accidents will happen at lower speeds.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Related to that are the people who are approaching from your left while you wait thinking that they are going straight. Then they turn right onto your street with no signal. You can see their eyes as they turn... sometimes totally oblivious to what they just did. :sick:
The way back was funny -very light traffic, I came up on a Stratus in the left lane going about 5 under. I was going the frightening speed of about 63 in a 60. He eventually moved over, but my not slowing down for him must have pissed him off, as he gave me some excited waving gestures as I moved past. Dude, wake up and stay in the rightward(completely empty) lanes if you're not capable of even doing the speed limit.
The Michigan State Police are the best law enforcement agency as far as I'm concerned since they did relevant scientific traffic studies with the goal to improve safety, and not just increase revenue. At lease one in 50 States has some integrity.
So what does the study show. Well, on Jolly Road at West Driveway they had a posted speed limit of 45 MPH and noticed that with 330 vehicles passing by, the 85th percentile (the measurement most traffic engineers agree will result in the safest roads, the best set speed limits, and the least amount of speed differentiation between drivers) was 51 MPH. This means the compliance rate to the LAW with that speed limit was a measley 37%. They then raised the speed limit to 55 MPH. They measured 264 vehicles and noticed the compliance rate jumps to 95%. The 85th percentile speed was measured at 52 MPH. A whopping 1 MPH average speed increase with the speed limit going up by 10!
"Speed Kills" advocates need to go back to the drawing board because increased speed limits don't automatically result in people speeding up.
Even better, this same type of survey was done at a freeway where 55MPH was changed to 70 MPH (a more dramatic increase of 15 MPH). The 85% speed was measured to actually reduce by 1 MPH when the speed limit was raised to 70MPH. The sample size was even bigger, at 721 and 658 vehicles measured. The 85% speed was 72 (with speed limits of 70)and 73MPH w/ speed limits at 55. This shows people drive how they feel safe and comfortable for the most part, and pay no attention to poorly posted speed limits.
Now there's a Crash Involvement vs. Speed chart/graph. Crash involvement rate is charted per 100 million miles vs. Deviation from Average speed in MPH. As you might expect, a low number of accidents occur when your driving near the average speed on the roadway. However, the old law that slower traffic results in safer roadways is a folly disproven by the facts. In fact, drivers that go 10 under average cause a lot more acccidents than drivers going 10 over (10 over happens to be closest to the bottom of the curve, especially on the freeways). This study was done on rural roads during the day, night, and freeways as well (three curves measured separately). If you drive 20 under average, you cause far more accidents then those who go 20MPH over average. IF you drive 30 MPH under average, you are involved in infinitely more accidents then those who go 30 over. The curve is much steeper for those who go slower than average versus those who go faster than average.
Based on the facts, your best bet is to drive about 10 over average on the freeway, and 5 over average on rural roads at night or in the day. That would minimize your risk of collision.
Now keep in mind this study refutes that it's just freeways that are safer than rural roads, as each were compared (in both fast and slow types of roads). Yes, there are less accidents on freeways per million miles travelled, but the curves follow the same pattern regardless. For instance, going 20 under on the freeway makes you as likely to be in a wreck as going 10 under at night on a rural road; simply because freeways are safer per mile travelled.
My common sense tells me that this might be because the slower drivers are the less capable and less skilled drivers, and therefore of course cause more wrecks. Going slower is actually the wrong thing to do; if your goal is to be in less accidents. I'd advocate that lesser drivers take lessons and improve, or get off the road. But if your gonna be on the road, keep up, because slowing down doesn't help you!
As a new Michigan resident, thanks for the laugh. :shades:
The study probably used some cell phone results.
Slow drivers do NOT cause accidents. The cause of the crash is the selfish speeder who can't keep his frustation of the slow driver under control. The speed demon personally decides to manipulate his vehicle so as to conquer the slower driver deemed to be "passive agressive". The slow driver is not the cause, the cause is the stupid reaction taken by the fast driver. Just because you are provoked is not license to control other drivers. Your reaction to a stimulus is your responsibility.
Who is seeking to control? Who is selfish? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Just keep right where you belong, and all will be well.
And here's to hoping the WSP continues to ticket LLCs.
Maybe slow drivers are involved in more accidents because of speeders, but that would be hard to prove and basically impossible to verify. A slow driver can still overreact and overcorrect and move out of his lane into faster moving traffic to his left.
Had he been driving a prudent faster speed, it would have been okay to swerve left, but since he's going so SLOW, it causes a collision when he does so with faster moving traffic.
This is exactly the tactic used by those LLC's who stay in the left lane to "control" speeders.
It would be nice if speeders didn't tailgate and slow drivers would stay to the right. Logic would seem to indicate those practices would simply solve the problem. However, there are many drivers traveling at many different speeds.
That's how you get the person going 5 over staying in the left lane blocking the person who wants to go 10 over. Yup, that person going 5 over is now an LLC too.
You mean, based on a few examples from one state, out of how many trillion (yes, TRILLION) miles are traveled on US roads every year.
With the right sample, one can prove anything.
Since when is several hundred suddenly just a few? That's a huge sample size. Certainly plenty to smooth out any variables.
IS there any reason to believe drivers in MI are different then any other State? Are their DMV laws that much different, are the requirements to be licensed all that different from anyone else?
Also, I challenge you and any car insurance company out there to show me any viable unbiased statistics of a random sample of 300 or more where (cop tickects) are in any way correlated to (accidents). I find insurance companies charging more for insurance simply due to Johnny Law to be dispicable. There simply is no relation with traffic tickets, the way traffic laws are written and enforced, and safety/accident avoidance. The system is corrupt!
I'm sure there's a lot of people that have several tickets AND several accidents on their record, and they are corrupting the data. Let's look at how many drivers have repeated multiple traffic offenses but yet NEVER EVER get into or CAUSE any accidents.
Also, if a big sample can prove anything, I'd like for you to prove that driving drunk while texting on your cell phone improves your chances of avoiding an accident.
I do think that driving conditions in MI are different than in other states. MI has something called "winter", for example.
Also, I challenge you and any car insurance company out there to show me any viable unbiased statistics of a random sample of 300 or more where (cop tickects) are in any way correlated to (accidents).
Consider that officers don't issue a ticket to the deceased. There would be little point in that.
Let's look at how many drivers have repeated multiple traffic offenses but yet NEVER EVER get into or CAUSE any accidents.
Yes, there are many lucky people out there.
I don't know why I would waste my time trying to prove that driving drunk while texting improves your chances of avoiding an accident. There's something called "common sense" that guides us in cases like that. Some people have it... some don't.
I can one up that.
In Maryland, Baltimore police and transportation officials are trying to correct a problem with 2,000 red light camera citations bearing the signature of a LONG deceased Police Officer.
Apparently, with red light cameras, and the like and their ilk, not only can dead people be accused of violations, breaking the law, and cited by video and photos, but dead police officer's can issue them.
So as to your point, since in most states the red light and photo radar ticket is only issued with a police officer's signature, apparently they do ticket dead people now. WHAT IS OUR COUNTRY coming to?
Can you tell I'm against unconstitutional photo/camera enforcement?
Is it worth the price?
Ah, I love these discussions where logic and reasoning go out the window.
Not.
You want to eliminate speed limits, ride the tails of people in the right lane who aren't going fast enough for you, and claim that more speed means safer driving? Go right ahead. Just watch out for the rest of us, please.
Strawman argument because the "Speed kills" advocates as you call them don't make that claim. The claim is basically that all other things consistant as speed increases safety decreases.
Based on the facts, your best bet is to drive about 10 over average on the freeway, and 5 over average on rural roads at night or in the day. That would minimize your risk of collision.
Do you have a link to support this? I would think that your best bet is to drive according to the road. I even know this one road for whatever reason its posted at a speed that no car could maintain 5 MPH over it for long, especially at night.
My common sense tells me that this might be because the slower drivers are the less capable and less skilled drivers
Common sense would say that the rate of speed has no relationship to the capabilities and/or skill of the driver. I would think that a skilled and capable driver might often drive slower than an unskilled driver. Simply because a more skilled and experienced driver would recognize the need to slow down much sooner than an unskilled driver.
Just remember that the faster you go the longer it takes to stop, to make turns or manuever, the less time you have to react and the easier it is to lose control if something unexpected happens.
If you disagree with me drive your car into a tree at 10 MPH then do it again at 100 MPH and see the results.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Hey in Chicago the dead can vote so why can't they sign tickets.
But seriously do you have a link to this?
Can you tell I'm against unconstitutional photo/camera enforcement?
Whats unconstitutional about it?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What isn't unconstitutional about it is a better question!
Red Light Cameras simply suck, for lack of a better word. The benefits are negligible and the downsides are downright massive.
Here's a link for you:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections
That's 10 reasons why camera enforcement is a joke. Some of those ten address the constitutionality as well. I can go into more detail as to why it's Unconstitutional, but it's probably best to read the Motions sent to courts all over the country pointing out the same thing (the reason many camera's have been taken down). In fact, my home area of San Diego is one such county where camera's were banned in the early 2000's.
We don't have photo radar in CA, but:
http://www.motorists.org/speed-cameras/objections
10 more objections.
Another terrible argument, because when speed limits were lowered to 55, safety didn't go dramatically up, and when raised back to 70/75/80 (Texas is going 85 soon) the safety doesn't go down. In fact, our speed limits today have never been higher (thank god), and safety keeps going up on our roadways and highways.