Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

andres3 · October 2013

I'll concede that you may be better able to avoid an accident that is someone else's fault in certain circumstances under certain specific conditions by going slower. The key here is that the accident is not your fault. Insurance rates won't rise. Tickets can't be issued.

In the real world I've been going nearly 20 years without an at-fault accident, so my methods must be working. You go slower where it is needed; where it is not needed; you go faster.

However, you can't twist my example to fit your ill-conceived logic.

I'm flinging myself into that car at 10 MPH so that they have virtually no time to react or avoid me. I'm not giving them 25 feet. I'm causing the accident and therefore there is nothing the car can do short of going 0 MPH.

He will have zero chance to avoid me just as the guy going 100 MPH will have no chance to avoid me; it's all in the timing.

For example, why did you choose 25 feet? Why not 2,500 feet?

At 2,500 feet the guy going 100 MPH might not even see the person at first, but certainly they will see them in time to stop. At 2,500 feet, the guy going 10 MPH won't be able to see the person blocking their lane for some time, but they will still have time to get out of the way or avoid the collision.

The only difference is the amount of time it takes them to get from one place to another.

andres3 · October 2013

I find obeying unjust laws to be wrong. I find disobeying unjust laws to be ones duty and the right thing to do. It is correct and efficient for drivers to ignore the speed limits in CA. If everyone went the speed limit I'd imagine gridlock would be 10X worse.

By the way, you can go the speed limit and still be falsely accused of speeding and given tickets. Also, there are at least 40,000 other Vehicle Codes for which they can cite you.

If they raised the speed limits then maybe I could go within 5 over.

No thrill, no high, I'm not a teenager anymore; that was a long time ago.

Yes, driving fast on a twisty canyon road is very fun in a suitable car, but on my way to get lunch on a work day having fun while driving isn't at the top of my mind; just getting from A to B safely and as efficiently as possible.

Never got a ticket carving up canyon roads though; seems to only happen when I let my guard down.

Let's be real here, I wasn't caught tripling the speed limit like some race car drivers have been caught doing on public roads. I was merely going 15 over in an under-posted by 10 zone.

Went back to the scene yesterday; the road does actually have a few side driveway/parking lot entrances/exits, but it's a long stretch of road between lights, but in addition to that, there's actually a 5th center shared turning lane. It's not 4 lanes, but 5 wide!, with the middle being used as a turning lane. The speed limit could easily be 50 here; which was basically the speed I'm accused of going.

andres3 · October 2013

An old lady who probably has caused more car wrecks in the last 10 years than I will in my entire lifetime is the last person I'd want as a judge.

andres3 · October 2013

Less likely to rear-end someone going 55 than 100 MPH? Let's think about that for a moment.

That requires another driver to be on the road, in your way, and going slower than you are. Seems to me the problem is the guy going 55 not 100. If everyone went 100 then they would have nothing to worry about. Seems like you've made a good case as to why speed limits should be set realistically and not artificially (for some Satanic purpose such as revenue enhancement; for instance).

There's a thing called a windshield and there's no reason the guy going 100 can't slow down for the guy going 55, of course the guy going 55 should move right first.

No, I don't see rear-end collisions going up mainly because you only drive 100 when it is safe to do so. If traffic does not allow it, then you can't drive 100 MPH safely even if the speed limit is 1,000 MPH.

How come airplanes don't have more rear-end collisions, they go over 500 MPH? Shouldn't they have exponentially more accidents since some of you say "speed" is so dangerous.

Surely I can brake my car faster than a 747 from equal speeds. But faster is less safe, so if planes could find a way to fly at 100 MPH should they?

backy · October 2013

If everyone went 100 then they would have nothing to worry about.

Actually, you would... there would go your idea about driving 100 reducing the chance of being rear-ended by someone! Except everyone would have less reaction time, driving at 100, than driving at a slower speed.

andres3 · October 2013

I don't think it is about reaction time at all. I would venture to guess that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999- 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all rear-enders were caused by either Car A or Car B not paying attention or being situationally aware.

But if everyone drives the same exact speed rear-enders theoretically don't happen.

backy · October 2013

But if everyone drives the same exact speed rear-enders theoretically don't happen.

And if everyone drives perfectly all the time, there's no accidents ever, no need for collision insurance, and... no need for this discussion!

Theoretically.

snakeweasel · October 2013

I'll concede that you may be better able to avoid an accident that is someone else's fault in certain circumstances under certain specific conditions by going slower.

Sorry but accidents are easier to avoid under most, if not all, conditions if you are going slower.

The key here is that the accident is not your fault.

The key here is not who is at fault, the key here is avoidance regardless of who is at fault.

Insurance rates won't rise. Tickets can't be issued.

Sorry but that's not always the case. I have know someone who got a ticket for an accident that wasn't his fault because he was going to fast. Ever hear of failure to slow down to avoid an accident?

However, you can't twist my example to fit your ill-conceived logic.

I didn't twist your example, I may of qualified it but I didn't twist it. However you are doing a good job of twisting things around. You never said doing it so that the driver had no way to avoid you.

It's a simple fact that the faster you go the harder it is to control your vehicle. Turns and lane changes have to be made more gradual and stopping takes longer. You can't sit here and tell me that even though you are making it harder to control your vehicle you are just as safe.

This is why I told Backy it is meaningless to argue this subject with some people. You won't listen to people, you throw out BS and then you try to change things around when it is thrown back at you.

Slow down, you'll live longer.

snakeweasel · October 2013

That requires another driver to be on the road, in your way, and going slower than you are.

Or it requires someone driving responsibly and doing nothing wrong and someone flying down the road way over the SL thinking that it his god given right to go as fast as he wants as long as he, and only he, thinks it is safe.

There's a thing called a windshield and there's no reason the guy going 100 can't slow down for the guy going 55, of course the guy going 55 should move right first.

There is no reason for the guy doing 100 to be doing 100. Not all roads have more than one lane in each direction, I took a 220 mile road trip with only 10 of those miles having more than one lane in each direction. Also If I am doing 55 in say a 50 MPH zone passing someone doing less than me why should I have to change anything I am doing just so you can kill yourself faster?

How come airplanes don't have more rear-end collisions, they go over 500 MPH? Shouldn't they have exponentially more accidents since some of you say "speed" is so dangerous.

See this is why you cannot argue with people like you. You just throw out crap like that which is in no way a comparison. But lets look at that. Plane, unlike cars can travel at different altitudes so one can pass over another. Secondly planes follow a very strict set of rules, they do have speed limits and are controlled by air traffic controllers. If an air traffic controller tells you to go to a certain altitude and go 500MPH and you say "screw that 600 MPH is just as safe" what do you think will happen? So if you want to make the comparison every time you get caught going over the posted speed limit give up your license and your job.

andres3 · October 2013

1. Accidents may be easier to avoid when going slower, but I like how you worded that. Just because something isn't easy does not mean the accident isn't still avoidable. It may require skill, and it may not be the easiest thing, but the accidents are still avoidable at higher speeds. Going 0.00 MPH makes most every accident avoidable (except being rammed into of course).

2. Avoidance regardless of who is at fault will cost you in wasted time and efficiency. Again, why not make the speed limits all maximized at 35 then? Why such a low bar and standard?

3. Failure to slow down to avoid an accident is an entirely different animal. You do have a duty to mitigate damages where reasonably possible, which would include slowing down to avoid an accident where possible (or simply changing lanes to avoid). If you purposely get into an accident because you think it won't be judged as "your fault" then you really are causing the accident yourself. That person should be charged with reckless driving and assault with a deadly weapon (and perhaps attempted murder). Brake checkers fit into this category in my book.

4. My point was that some accidents are unavoidable, regardless of speed. However, I stand by that if you take a shorter amount of time to go from A to B then the hazards in between A and B have less of a chance to harm you. For example, if 1 deer crosses a road on average in a 10 mile stretch per 24 hours, your chances of having one of those deer run in front of you double if you go 35 MPH instead of 70. You have twice the exposure going slow, but I'll give you that the deer will have less of a chance of survival and avoidance during the interaction with the 70 MPH car.

5. I like poking holes in your logic and arguments, and really show how silly they are. You don't like my airplane example, but I think it is perfectly valid. You mention airplanes have the option of going up or down, in addition to left or right. That is an advantage, as cars can only go right or left to avoid traffic. But what that argument all comes down to is congestion and traffic. Going 100 MPH may not be possible if traffic is too congested (even if the speed limit is 100). I know I have no problem obeying the lowly 65 Maximum Speed Limit when I'm stuck in rush-hour bumper to bumper traffic. The comparison is valid; essentially your saying if cars develop the ability to change altitude your OK with higher speed limits. The only reason to change altitude would be the same reason you'd change lanes; it all comes down to traffic and congestion.

I love the airplane example. Or how about Bullet Trains in Europe? I challenge anyone to show me that high speeds equal greater and more frequent danger in a logical manner.

I previously asked someone to show me a study that says relatively high-speed freeways are more dangerous than slower speed roadways.

The challenge stands. Saying speed kills no longer flies

gene103 · October 2013

So your point is predicated that the less time you are on the road, the chances of an accident decrease and that someone going 35 mph has twice the chance to hit that deer than someone going 70 mph. Makes sense, until you consider the following:

The deer crosses the road once in 24 hours. Lets say it crosses at mile marker X.

The deer and the car will collide if the car and the deer are both a mile marker X at the same time, agreed? Well, whether a car is going 35 mph from point A to point B, or going 70 mph, he will be a mile marker X only once during the trip. There is an equal chance of meeting up with the deer no matter what the speed. He doesnt get two opportunities to hit the deer because he is driving at half the speed. Of course, going very slow gives someone the opportunity to avoid that deer at mile marker X while someone going very fast would have minimal time to react.

Of course, if you drive from point A to point B at 100 vs 55, you will minimize the time period where you can have an accident but you will come across more cars and pedestrians during that time than someone doing 55 and will have more opportunities to interact with them.

I realize you believe have a duty to ignore unjust laws, but you will need to ignore the laws of physics to defend your posiiton

You dont need to see studies on high speed vs slower speed roads. Depending on the variables, I may be safer on the high speed road. I acknowledge that. The problems arise when a few vehicles are going much faster or much slower than the norm.

fintail · October 2013

Lots of phone holders today. First got behind a RAV4 that was weaving like a drunk - but moving faster than the usual local slowness (some of the scared-of-speed types here need to move to Seattle). Lo and behold, he had a phone cradled in the steering wheel hub and was playing with it. Then saw a woman in a current style A6 with a phone to hear ear, and a guy in an XC60 with a phone to his ear. Late model highline cars with assumed affluent drivers and standard bluetooth take the cake. Should be $500 fine to start, $5000 for the second offense, and then, watch out. If money is built from being smart and logical and lots of other fun stories, it sure likes to hide those traits.

xrunner2 · October 2013

So, Andres, when you are old, say 80-90 and in a nursing home will you advocate for unlimited speed down the corridors in your electrified wheelchair? Or, would you want the nursing home to invoke max speed controls on the wheelchairs?

backy · October 2013

You have to ask that question?

stever · October 2013

Actually, that would be my mom. Last visit I think someone jimmied the high speed on her scooter - I could actually keep up with her. She always was a hotfoot.

hammerhead · October 2013

That one made me smile, Steve. We had to have the tech come by & 'de-tune' my dad's power chair... twice! Seems he had a bad habit of running in to the paperback racks at the grocery store & taking chunks out of the woodwork & drywall at the assisted living place.
I guess if we had looked at all the 'parking by braille' evidence on his car, we could have predicted the power chair issues

xwesx · October 2013

'parking by braille' evidence on his car

Hahahaha; nicely stated!

andres3 · October 2013

I acknowledge that it may be "easier" to avoid the deer going 35 than it would going 70 (of course going 70 would likely make more noise which would keep the deer from running in front of you at an inopportune time).

Let's say the deer always crosses at mile marker X once a day for the sake of your argument; although it really should be random.

Let's assume the time of crossing during each 24 hour period is completely random though.

You never know when that deer will cross, only that it will cross once per each 24 hours. You are in, around, and near mile marker X twice as long going 35 MPH as you are going 70 MPH. Therefore you still have twice the exposure to that deer causing you trouble by going slower or half speed.

Driving is a risk. Reducing the amount of time performing that risk obviously reduces the risk in my book, which says nothing of the effects of boredom and fatigue on driving performance. All of my tickets seem to come when I'm bored and/or fatigued, always when I'm not driving the fastest I go during optimal conditions; both internal and external.

You are all assuming I'm advocating for 100 MPH cars alongside 55 MPH cars. You are also all assuming the 100 MPH is a law breaker.

In my Utopia the speed limit is 100 MPH or more. No one would be going 55, the slowest would probably be going 65-75. Lane discipline resolves most speed differential conflicts and works quite well in Europe where this is practiced (unlimited speed limits). I'm not saying speed differentials are not a problem, I'm just saying proper lane discipline solves most all of that problem.

Pedestrians where people are going 100 MPH? Not likely. I wouldn't use that sidewalk even if they built it.

The only way to say speed is dangerous is to throw in variables which really could mean "too fast for conditions." The speed limit isn't supposed to be the limit during a snow storm while driving a fully loaded double-decker bus. The speed limit should be for optimal conditions for optimal vehicles.

backy · October 2013

Your Utopia is impractical for a number of reasons. One is that high speed e.g. over 70 mph requires considerably more fuel than at slower speeds. Maybe you don't mind using up a limited resource faster (and raising prices due to increased demand), but others don't care much for that idea. I'd like to leave some petroleum for my kids and their kids etc.

Even in the supposed auto Utopia of Germany's autobahn, there ARE speed limits:

Despite the widespread belief of complete freedom from speed limits (and a lobbying effort that has the same influence and deep pockets as the American gun lobby), some speed regulations can be found on the Autobahns. Many sections do indeed have permanent or dynamic speed limits ranging from 80 to 130 km/h (50-80 mph), particularly those with dangerous curves, in urban areas, near major interchanges, or with unusually constant heavy traffic. In construction zones, the limit may be as low as 60 km/h (37 mph). Also, some sections now feature nighttime and wet-weather speed restrictions, and trucks are always regulated (see table below). That said, about two-thirds of the Autobahn network has no permanent speed limit, although there is always an advisory limit of 130 km/h (81 mph). This recommendation is generally seen for what it is-- an attempt by the government to cover itself without having to upset millions of Porsche and BMW owners/voters. However, if you exceed the advisory limit and are involved in an accident, you could be held responsible for some of the damages even if you are not at fault.

http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/autobahn.shtml

andres3 · October 2013

There are still sections with no speed limits. Advisory speed limits such as those on our yellow signs are to be ignored even more than the white signs, unless you drive a top heavy roll-over prone vehicle.

81 MPH is a step in the right direction though; I'd settle for that compromise; though for American tastes, let's round up to 85 MPH since we don't know what a Kilometer is and TX has already done so without massive carnage.

We all pay a gas tax, the more gas you use, the more tax you pay. What if everyone orders a Tesla S? Then you can go fast without using petroleum. Of course, your range may suffer.

gene103 · October 2013

Nothing wrong with your Utopia, if the drivers are skilled. Auto racing proves that. And boredom and fatigue definitely come into play which is why I agree that certain high speed roads may prove safer. You talk about optimal conditions, but the problem is you are never driving in optimal conditions because there are more drivers on the road driving at a lower rate of speed.

You are right about proximity but it's in the wrong context. It's why you are not minimizing your chances of having an accident when you are speeding although it lessens your time on the road. you are putting yourself in proximity with more cars and pedestrians during that shorter period of time.

As to you continuing to maintain that it is twice as likely to hit that deer if going 35 vs 70, well that's just not true. Ask your high school physics or math teacher. Under your premise, if a car was going one millimeter per hour, the likelihood of a collision is over 112 million greater than if going 70 mph. Does that still make sense to you? Do the math yourself.

andres3 · October 2013

Assuming the deer is brainless and will cross at a set speed regardless of what is on the road or in its way (think of it as crossing a railroad track that lacks any kind of signals or cross bars for protection).

Knowing that at least one train comes every day, would you want to cross those tracks at 1 mm/second, or 1m/second? If you go 1 mm per second you are certainly more likely to cause a collision with that train.

I'm liking this example even better to illustrate my point of time being an important variable. That train will take a few minutes of each day to cross that track. Not being on that track when it is crossing eliminates your exposure.

xrunner2 · October 2013

>>>>Nothing wrong with your Utopia, if the drivers are skilled. Auto racing proves that.>>>>

I would bet a cup of top brand coffee that the vast majority of professional auto racers in the U.S. would not want to see roads with 100 mph allowed. They are well aware of the added risks at speeds well beyond posted limits on our interstates today where there is such a huge range from worst to best and most attentive drivers. And, a range of vehicle capabilities from big suvs and jacked-up pickups to bmw's and mercedes and similar good handling vehicles.

In race series such as NASCAR and INDY, all of the cars are very close in safety, performance and capability. The drivers have all come up through the ranks in lesser race series and have proven their competence to be on a racetrack.

On public roads, the driver population includes the oldest, the most inattentive who use cell phones, and the illegal and uninsured.

stever · October 2013

Kyle Busch being the exception. :confuse: (Yahoo - but he's in good company per allleftturns.com)

gene103 · October 2013

Assuming you are blind to the approaching train, I agree with you 100%, but you have changed the parameters. You have added a large mass that essentially is stationary at point X for several minutes. That's akin to being on a bridge that is about to collapse, of course I am going to speed up to get across.
In the real world, we aren't blind to many potential dangers but you always ignore that fact. It's always one-sided regarding time. If I am not blind to that approaching train, I'd rather be going slower than faster and if I see the bridge is wobbling, I stop before it. Of course, if I didn't notice it, I would have preferred to be going fast like you. Sometimes your way will work out better but most often it won't, especially considering the severityof the crash.

xwesx · October 2013

As to you continuing to maintain that it is twice as likely to hit that deer if going 35 vs 70, well that's just not true.

You two are discussing two different things using the same example. It's actually quite funny from an observational perspective, even though it's enough to induce frustration that neither of you seem to address the other's topic.

In your example, the topic is the likelihood of hitting the deer. In Andre3's example, the topic is the likelihood of seeing the deer. Neither of you are wrong when considering time and speed in those contexts.

andres3 · October 2013

I think you explain it pretty well.

The severity of the accident matters little if it's fatal or more fatal. Hitting someone head on at 55 each is likely just as fatal as hitting someone head on at 100 MPH each.

While an accident at higher speeds is more severe, I'm finding it is less likely to happen in the first place.

gene103 · October 2013

C'mon give me a break. There is so much anecdotal evidence about people surviving head on collisions at high speeds. I can't compete with someone who states opinion as fact.
I do agree that a 100 mph head on collision would be fatal so I do believe you would cause less accidents during your lifetime than I would, simply because I have a greater chance of surviving my accident and living to be involved in another one.

fintail · October 2013

Today's two best phone users - woman in a Corolla going about 5mph around a corner playing with a phone, guy a jerky looking blacked out F-series sitting at a light and getting honked at because he's playing with the phone, and blonde woman in an H2 making an unsignalled turn and weaving around while holding a phone.

Vehicles of the last two size ranges, especially the latter, need to be forced into obtaining endorsements for operating such things.

backy · October 2013

Did you miss this part:

However, if you exceed the advisory limit and are involved in an accident, you could be held responsible for some of the damages even if you are not at fault.

Why would a driver on a German autobahn be held responsible for some damages from an accident if not at fault... only because they exceeded the advisory speed limit? That tells me that the Germans understand there's a direct correlation between increased speed and the risk of an accident. Thus if you choose to go faster than advised, you contributed towards the accident even if not legally "at fault".

While you're putting in that 80 mph speed limit (btw, 81 rounded isn't 85, but 80), be sure to also have all US freeways designed to the same specs as the autobahns, with the same rules, and also ensure all drivers on those roads drive like the Germans do.

Good luck with that!

BTW, the more gas we all use (which would happen if everyone drove 100 mph as you support), we all pay more gas tax but we also all pay higher prices per gallon due to increased demand. Not to mention higher insurance (you don't think insurers will hold rates where they are if speeds increased to 100 mph, do you?), higher maintenance costs (more wear and tear on cars at the higher speeds), and I won't even get into the higher costs due to an increase in accidents and fatalities.

snakeweasel · October 2013

You are in, around, and near mile marker X twice as long going 35 MPH as you are going 70 MPH. Therefore you still have twice the exposure to that deer causing you trouble by going slower or half speed.

Since you are at the intersection point for only an instant either way you are not anymore likely to meet up with the deer going slower. However you are more likely to avoid the deer if you meet up if you were going slower.

Pedestrians where people are going 100 MPH? Not likely. I wouldn't use that sidewalk even if they built it.

So you admit that going faster is less safe, thank you.

snakeweasel · October 2013

Nothing wrong with your Utopia, if the drivers are skilled. Auto racing proves that.

Auto racing where those highly skilled drivers are always getting into wrecks?

fintail · October 2013

Oh that old link, the one that also tells about "coercion" from flashing lights - a claim that AFAIK is undocumented. You "could" be held responsible say if you were going 200 in a blizzard, but it doesn't usually happen for those going over 130 - which is the speed that slowpokes (non-trucks) there usually settle on.

Does speed kill? (watch a couple of idiotic scaredy cats get demolished)

backy · October 2013

... but it doesn't usually happen for those going over 130 - which is the speed that slowpokes (non-trucks) there usually settle on.

Link, please. (Since you didn't like my link.)

And if higher speed isn't a problem... why does Germany penalize drivers involved in an accident, not at fault, who exceed the "advisory" speed limits?

Mr_Shiftright · October 2013

the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not evidence.

fintail · October 2013

My link is me. I've driven thousands of miles on the Autobahn. And you?

Your link also says "could", while offering nothing in support, although some of the 25 year old pics of traffic are fun. And the "coercion" story...I've ran that one by locals, who just looked at me funny. Flashing lights on the Autobahn is like self-righteously LLCing on an American interstate, lots of people do it.

The penalties are more along the lines of driving too fast for conditions, not for exceeding the "advisory" limit, which is usually only embraced by old people and the timid.

backy · October 2013

And please tell us how your driving on the autobahn for a few hours lets you know how many drivers there have been penalized over the years for driving more than the advisory speed limit?

I'm glad though that "me" (in my case with over 40 years of driving experience all over this country and in several foreign lands), is acceptable to you to back up anything I want to throw out in this discussion. I'll keep that in mind.

gene103 · October 2013

snakeweasel, first, I'm on your side, andres is way off base, but auto racers get into accidents because they are doing well over 100 mph, often inches apart. If the roads in your area were open only to NASCAR racers and they used them to get from one place to another where they wouldn't be performing racing maneuvers, there probably be a lower incidence of accidents than those same roads being driven on by you, me, and andres.

gene103 · October 2013

sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. I wrote "anecdotal evidence", where does the plural of anecdote come into play?

fintail · October 2013

A few hours? I drive fast, but not that fast

There are virtually ZERO accounts anywhere of drivers either being charged with "coercion" like the link states, or being held responsible for anything when exceeding advisory numbers but not being at fault. Nothing. Take the link with a grain of salt, like anything else.

Canuckistan isn't a foreign land :P

Uugh it's going to be awful when these boomers get into their 60s en masse, become even more shrill and self-righteous, and start screaming about speed and danger, because their own abilities are failing.

backy · October 2013

I'm not familiar with this concept, "virtually ZERO", other than its usual meaning: "I have absolutely no idea what the real number is, so I'll say 'virtually'".

Everyone will be 60 someday... if they're lucky, and don't get killed by some maniac driving 100+ mph on a highway.

With age comes perspective and maturity and wisdom. Some societies understand that. Some don't.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2013

Oh, sorry. What I meant was that a stack of anecdotes don't count as evidence any more than one anecdote does.

snakeweasel · October 2013

Assuming the deer is brainless and will cross at a set speed regardless of what is on the road or in its way

You don't know deers. Or better yet you don't know deers during mating season.

gene103 · October 2013

Mr Shift, I have never seen a study that proves walking in front of moving train is hazardous to one's health, but the anecdotal evidence I have come across leads me to believe otherwise. Hope you are on the jury if I'm ever on trial

xrunner2 · October 2013

>>>>>My link is me. I've driven thousands of miles on the Autobahn. And you?>>>>>

Driven on the Autobahn? Big deal. Now, if one said they drive regularly after midnight on Friday and Saturday nights on expressways in Chicago and survived? THAT is and accomplishment.

snakeweasel · October 2013

Driven on the Autobahn? Big deal. Now, if one said they drive regularly after midnight on Friday and Saturday nights on expressways in Chicago and survived? THAT is and accomplishment.

Now that I have done regularly.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2013

Ah, but anecdotes are hearsay. If there are witnesses, or documentation, then it isn't an anecdote. So you have to look at anecdotes as completely unproven stories. A court of law does not admit anecdotes as evidence and certainly science doesn't.

crude example: If 25 people swear they saw aliens climbing out of a space ship, and you don't have one of the laser blasters they left behind, you got nothin'.

backy · October 2013

Uhh... wouldn't the 25 people who saw aliens climbing out of a spaceship be considered witnesses?

Now, if 25 people swore that someone else TOLD them they saw aliens climbing out of a spaceship... that's hearsay (anecdote).

fintail · October 2013

Not familiar? My condolences, I know hyperbole can be confusing. Like I said, there is zero evidence of what the link claims. Need I break it down even more? It's funny that someone who has absolutely no experience in a given area can say someone else has "no idea". Oh you...

For some, age also brings along diminished capacities, and selfish clueless egos which make such declines unthinkable. A huge amount are going to stumble into old age soon and not be able to admit it. If we think there's a problem on the roads now, in another decade it will be worse. I can see how combative some are going to be already. I can see it now, shaking their fists as other cars move by.

stever · October 2013

Seems like you're getting into subjective validation now.

Kind of like how some GM/Ford/Chrysler (insert your favorite car brand here) owners do, lol.

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles