Sorry about all that. Just seen a lot of accidents in my life by "skilled" people. On the subject of Inconsiderate Drivers, the ones I hate the most are the ones in parking lots. The ones at the grocery store that see someonewalking up their lane and decide to sit there for twenty minutes blocking traffic so that they can save themselves twenty feet of walking and get that slightly closer parking spot. We all then ahve to sit and wait for the peson t get their purchases in their car and the person feels rushed to put their things away.
The worst part? They are about to enter a store where they will be WALKING. So saving that short distance in the parking lot is pointless, and very inconsiderate to all those they are blocking due to laziness.
Yes, they all seem to want the first spot. I have heard people grip about how many handicapped spots there are! We are a lazy society. Maybe the first twenty spots should be handicapped. that way we could lose some weight on our way into the store for that ice cream.
>Skilled confident people die on our freeways every day in accidents that can be avoided where speed played a roll.
Good point. I see a lot of sports cars in the nightly news crunched and in pieces, two or more, because the driver felt they had a car that was more capable than joe blow (me) in that old LeSabre at 72 mph. It's amazing how capable people think they are at avoiding accidents one four patches of rubber contact patches about the size of postcards!!! That's what's controlling your car's physics properties at 80 and 90.
The most inconsiderates are those tailgating because they're in pickups or suburbans with high headlights and the ability to see over the top of my car.
Then there's the van that pulls up as you're trying to make a right turn and they block your view of oncoming traffic...
li_sailor: Higher speeds raise the risk of accident and the risk of injury and fatality if an accident happens.
Except that it hasn't turned out that way. If this were true, there would be a double whammy - one, the higher speeds would cause more accidents (less reaction time, etc.) and, two, the resulting accidents would be more severe. These two factors would send fatalities rates skyrocketing, as speeds have increased over the years, and people are cruising along faster than ever. It hasn't happened, and it won't happen.
Incidentally, I drove on the Pennsylvania Turnpike this Sunday from the Bedford, Pa., interchange to the Blue Mountain Interchange. I drove at the safe, comfortable speed of 80 mph the whole way (one hopes and prays that no one on this site is clueless enough to believe that traveling at that speed is dangerous).
Most vehicles were traveling at about the same speed. The biggest "risk," incidentally, was posed by the driver in the Park Avenue traveling at...65 mph. Forced virtually every other driver to brake and then manuever around him. Now who was increasing the "risk" to everyone else?
li_sailor: If interstate speed limits were repealed, the death rate would skyrocket.
Didn't happen in Montana. As a matter of fact, at one point when the "reasonable and prudent" law was in effect, the fatality rate hit record LOWS. The fatality rate ROSE when the state instituted a 75 mph speed limit, in response to a State Supreme Court decision holding the "reasonable and prudent" standard was too vague, and therefore not enforceable.
These two factors would send fatalities rates skyrocketing...
No, they wouldn't. If you look at NHTSA statistics, you would see that most fatlaities occr at lowe speeds, in urban traffic. Not becuase of the lower speed (obviously), but becuase that's where there is more interaction and manuevering.
...the safe, comfortable speed of 80 mph...
It can be very safe. But not as safe as 75, all else being equal.
Didn't happen in Montana.
But it did happen in most of the other 24 states that raised speed limits in '95 & '96. You can always find an outlier, but it proves nothing, except that outliers exist.
Yeah, I am not so sure why folks are not putting the NHTSA yearly data in perspective. I respect the fact that folks might have a more Draconian outlook, but it does not jive with the statistics.
The speed kills logic eventualy gets us to 1 mph as the safest speed. Yet no one that believes spped kills wants to address this. Just follow youer own logic down to 1 mph to understand how silly the speed kills mantra is. My suggestion is drop the speed kills thing and apply reason to get rid of the real problems that make our roads unsafe.
I got mad when I was ticketed. I'll admit that yes, I was speeding and deserved the ticket on one or two cases. But in most cases, when I speed excessively (ie 8+ over the limit), it's for a reason.
My first ticket ever, I was trying to follow a group of cars and fell behind. I sped up to about 56 in a 45, and a cop nailed me. Actually I was annoyed that the guy leading our pack was driving so fast, as if he was trying to lose us. Some people have NO idea how to lead a caravan.
Another ticket, I was speeding up to pass someone. I routinely speed up to pass someone, clear them completely, before returning to the right lane and resuming my normal speed. Frequently, I need to drive faster than I would like because so many people instinctively speed up as someone is trying to pass them (and then slow down as soon as you slow down). So of course as I tried to pass this minivan, he speeds up, I speed up, and the cop nails me. I explained the situation but the cop doesn't care.
The number of traffic fatalities has been going up, up, up. The problem is people like to hide behind percentages to hide the true facts. It should be the goal to reduce the actual number of fatalities not the percentages. We're counting dead people, not ears of corn. Fatalities have been going up since the speed limit was raised, no if's ands or buts about it.
And I bet that guy in the van was picking his nose too! Or how about the guy that pulls right up on your bumper when your stopped on a hill and you have a manual transmission. I don't roll back much but its just the thought of it.
Picture a huge parking lot, like outside a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Several hundred spaces.
Imagine it is completely empty. I SWEAR by my girlfriend's pet cat, if I park my car in the last spot in the last row furthest from the entrance, when I come back in five minutes, there will be some POS coupe with long, heavy doors parked next to me.
I dunno how to shake this curse. It just never seems to fail, and I have the dings to prove it.
I would also agree. I think a lot of folks are forgetting in years not too long in the past that the national speed limit use to be 55 mph. In fact the safety and environmental pundits predicted MASSIVE increases in CARNAGE (fatalities)should the national speed limit be raised to 65 mph.
So given a few years of data AFTER the speed limit was raised to 65 mph:
1. The over all fatality rate went down rather than up 2. The miles traveled went up 3. The trips made increased 4. The population of passenger vehicles keeps rising 5. The population of license drivers keeps rising 6. On certain roads the speed limits are actually 70 to 75 mph (still higher) 7. (From another since closed thread) the population of "killer" suv's is at the HIGHEST (12%)
So in fact, JUST the REVERSE happened from the Pundits safety and environmental dire predictions. In fact the USA roads are the SAFEST in recorded history!!
And again, if folks are interested in their own individual states, I have posted the NHTSA link.
On a practical level, unless one drives in all 50 states, DC and PR etc., one really only needs to be concerned with the state/s one drives IN!!
I predamage my cars... as soon as I buy it I let my daughter drive it for a few days... it comes back with a few dings and I get it over with quickly... she also curbs the alloy wheels real good so that way I dont have to spend hours every weekend shining and polishing them.
"They are also required to take their test with a manual transmission" (in Germany) Yikes- that would eliminate about half the American drivers right off the bat! Amazing! I'm intrigued by the extensive dialog about inconsiderate drivers, LLC's, slowpokes, tailgaiters, speeders- all a road menace in any good drivers book. But I'll have to say, as someone who drives a lot, for business and pleasure, the majority of close-calls I've had have far & away been from inattentive drivers yakking on cell phones. It's an absolute epidemic. Some of these people completely forget they are driving. Add speeding and/or inconsideration and you have a veritable molotov cocktail. As a sales guy, I have curtailed my cell phone usage to open highway, mostly with a headset. And believe me, it wasn't easy. Yet, the close calls I've had have reinforced the fact that talking on a phone and driving just don't mix, especially in traffic or congested areas. Some states have banned cell phone usage while driving, all need to take a serious look at this- with the volume of cars increasing right along with the numbers of cell phone users (especially young people- who not only talk but text-message while they drive), the problem continues to worsen. How many accidents are caused by phone-yakkers that aren't documented as such? Lots. I hate laws and mandates (in MA, we have a mandatory seat belt law- I don't believe in it, but I've been wearing a seatbelt for over 20 years, long before the law was passed, regardless) but cell phone usage is one area that is easy to control. It's hard to enforce decency and common courtesy, but eliminating an unsafe distraction like cell phone usage is a big step toward much safer roads and simple to implement. And it might even lessen the incidence of road-rage episodes.
If you want to go with the idea that physics don't apply, that is fine, go ahead. You still have yet to answer why it is that you feel it is ok to break traffic laws, but you don't shoplift. Then again, I don't know you, maybe you are shoplifting.
I see the most interesting trend of inconsiderate drivers tend to be in the "elephants" as one poster mentioned. They take their nasty habits and mix that with driving. Then they upgrade to an elephant, but don't adjust their driving styles. They expect their elephants to handle the same as their cars did before.
Most elephants don't turn on a dime, or stop on one either. The ones that do, most can't afford. So, we have all these charging elephants, with inconsiderate drivers at the helm. It's no wonder they don't tip their elephants at a higher rate than they already do.
But what do I know, I deliver peanuts for a living, maybe that's why the elephants are always tailgatin me?
I just found this forum and this one is great because where i live its got to be the worst, I drive 125 miles a day for my job and see just about everything, to people racing to the next red light, to tailgating, way over the limit, I think it comes down to people are so into them selfs and dont give a rat [non-permissible content removed] about nobody else out there, a advoid at least 2 to 5 accidents a week becaue i am a safe driver and leave plenty of room and found a couple of times where somenody purposely tried to get me to hit them(not this time buddy), and dont get me started about when it starts to rain, but i think i just get soo mad about this because last year i was rear ended at a stop light the guy who hit me was going 75mph and had skid marks about 25 ft, so do the math he was going about 100mph in a 45 zone, somebody explain why in the world could you justify going that fast, (I am extremely lucky to survive) About drivers not caring about anybody else and lack of attention to driving is to blame for alot of fatalites and of course dui, where i live there has been 12 fatal accidents in the past 96 hrs, i am fustrated because it should not be this way if everybody would just be considerate fo all other motorists and stop all of the stupid crap, people need to realize that cars can be extremelt dagerous if not done properly, thats all I have to say, thanks.
The law regarding speeding has very little to do with safety. It is arbitrary. If the law was concerned with safety the first rule they would enforce is keep right except to pass. After that they would watch for people on cell phones, eating, applying makeup etc. These are the real dangers as is proven by the statistics when speed limits were increased from 55 mph. As for drunk driving it is easy to save lives by applying some reasoning there also. MADD pushed for lower alcohol levels to be defined as drunk driving. America loves to change definitions rather than solve problems. All the police need do is be posted outside of bars and wait until someone comes out and gets behind the wheel. But they won't because it would negatively impact the bar business. It is about money not lives, as are the majority of speeding tickets.
Where they can't support 100 mph travel? I don't think anyone is advocating repealing the speed limit. I mean the interstate is 99% straight in the Southeast where I live. All this talk about the autobahn being better built is horsepucky until you decide to travel 150 mph. Most rural interstates I have been on will accomodate 100mph easily.
If YOU want to follow ALL laws then stay in the right lane. If YOU are one of those that complain about "speeders" breaking the law then stay in the right lane. That's where all the "perfect" drivers are. Driving the speed limit.
As far as the dangers of going 90mph vs. 70mph. That's MY risk. Not yours. I choose to flaunt the laws of physics by driving that fast. I know that if I have a blowout at 70 or 90, I still may die. If I hit a deer, dog, or cat...That's my problem. But if I'm doing a 90 mph and possibly causing so much carnage why would someone want to purposely get in my way? I mean I'm out of control!!!
The number of traffic fatalities has been going up, up, up. The problem is people like to hide behind percentages to hide the true facts. It should be the goal to reduce the actual number of fatalities not the percentages...
Looking at percentages makes more sense than 'actual numbers' because the number of cars on the road is going up, up, up as well.
It is actually your view which hides the true facts. Yes, the number of fatalities may be going up, but as others in this forum have shown, when the speed limits were raised the percentage of fatalities per car on the road or per mile traveled decreased.
We can agree to disagree, when it comes to traffic fatalities the goal is to reduce the headcount, not the percentage. Some percentages just don't make any sense. In addition, the fatalities in NJ went up for two years in a row before leveling off after the speed limit was raised.
the goal is to reduce the headcount, not the percentage. Some percentages just don't make any sense.
Wouldn't reducing the percentage also reduce the headcount?
What doesn't make sense about using percentages? A percentage is just an expression of the numbers of one statistic as related to another.
My issue with looking at just the headcount is that it does not take into account the total number of cars on the road. In other words, it is not a true meausure of safety. Looking at just a headcount; how would you ever know if a change in fatalities was due to safety or just a change in the number of cars on the road?
Say a new safety measure is implemented. A couple of years go by, and the headcount of fatalities has stayed the same. Well, what happened to your safety measure? What you would fail to see there is that the number of cars on the road went up, so the percentage actually decreased.
the fatalities in NJ went up for two years in a row before leveling off after the speed limit was raised.
Was that a headcount or a percentage? Overall, across all 50 states, the percentage went down.
You speeding at 90 instead of driving 70 does affect other people. When you lose control you have a high likelihood of hitting someone else as your car careens around and about, unless you live in Montana.
It is others' risk as well as yours. It's ridiciulous to say that speeding on I75 near Marietta is no one's business other than the driver's.
As for telling people to stay in the right lane if they don't like flagrant speeding..., that too is ridiculous.
"Was that a headcount or a percentage? Overall, across all 50 states, the percentage went down."
Does it really matter?
"My issue with looking at just the headcount is that it does not take into account the total number of cars on the road."
I understand that point. But we try to rationalize the headcount, by comparing it against miles driven, when we should be reducing the headcount. Trying to say fatalities were down as a percentage of miles driven, is just too meaningless.
But we try to rationalize the headcount, by comparing it against miles driven, when we should be reducing the headcount. Trying to say fatalities were down as a percentage of miles driven, is just too meaningless.
Well, I don't think it is meaningless. If the number of fatalities per mile is down, then I feel safer during every mile that I drive.
I would say you probably have some other issues that are unrelated to the facts and statistics kept. You appear to totally dismiss the facts and statistics on the subject. Or you might even not know how to integrate them. As a matter of fact, the way you answer even after I have posted the NHSTA data which indicates the state of NJ has one of the BETTER RATES!!! Want a better rate? MOVE TO VERMONT!! Want a hard example of actual head count reduction? Look at all the states and find the state with the least actual fatalities. Then move there!! (but you just might find the RATES are FAR higher!!!!???)
But sure, you can go after the actual head count. A no brainer would be to go after the drink and drive habit set. Another would be that a DUI that causes a fatality or accident should be treated now as a criminal matter like murder in the first degree, felony assault with a deadly weapon, etc. etc., and civil matter as in wanton disregard for life limb etc (or whatever it is called, and in triple payment to the injured party/s party. ie such as punitive damages etc etc. I would not want to break the news to you but "AIN"T" going to happen!!
I was stunned to find out that the City of San Francisco has 2,200 fatalities (per year) of cars and pedestrians!! Percentage of fault has been shown to lie with the pedestrians' The average mph at the time of the accidents were 5- 15 mph!!! I am sure the other so called "walkable" cities have the same issues like NYC, Portland, Boston, etc etc.
"I would say you probably have some other issues that are unrelated to the facts and statistics kept"
Only in that my training as a math/stat major tends to find these numbers at this level meaningless. But I'm not going to say any more on the subject. You can feel better if you want to know the percentage went down. Oh yes, I graduated with a 4.0 out of college.
The speed kills logic eventualy gets us to 1 mph...
Ah, I see, you're right. You just needed to repeat it 8 times. It was wrong the first 7, but now it has become right. What was I thinking?
Ok li sailor please explain how it is wrong. If you say speed kills then, as I explained, 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph because remember ... speed kills and 2 mph is a higher speed than 1 mph.
I have driven through some of those highways in the Marietta area- one heading towards Hotlanta was 12 lanes wide, and I can verify that anything below 80 was a danger to the rest of the traffic!
Only in that my training as a math/stat major tends to find these numbers at this level meaningless. But I'm not going to say any more on the subject. You can feel better if you want to know the percentage went down. Oh yes, I graduated with a 4.0 out of college.
You math is correct, it's your reasoning that's flawed.
There is a truth to your conclusion that numbers at this level might be perceived as meaningless. The NHTSA publishes the 50 state, DC and PR statistics etc. SOOOOOOO if you drive in NJ (as you indicate) for example, why would you CARE about CA, etc. etc. etc??
NJ does not control what happens in CA. CA does not control what happens in NY!!??
So a more ball park metric is each states' results. But then again, if you drive in Southern CA, why do you care what gives in Northern CA?
I hope that 4 year of college with a 4.0 does not dial out some elements of common sense!?
...please explain how it is wrong. If you say speed kills then...
Actually, I never said that. That's a sound bite that really means nothing (or everything, as we've seen). What I said was that higher speed means higher risk (all else being equal, like the speed of the rest of traffic)...of accidents and of fatalities.
...[to say that] 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph...
It's not. I never said it was wrong to say that. What was 'wrong' was to say that "it" (recognition of reality) 'leads' to going 1 mph. It doesn't. Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't.
..."Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't."...
In effect, that is what is going on in the IIHS and the NHTA agency statistics.
[to say that] 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph...
It's not. I never said it was wrong to say that. What was 'wrong' was to say that "it" (recognition of reality) 'leads' to going 1 mph. It doesn't. Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't.
Agreed li sailor, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think we can also agree that to know where the risk and benefit actualy intersect we need to first enforce keep right except to pass, no use of phone while driving etc. Once there is lane discipline we can determine at what speed the risk may be too high, if at all.
In effect, that is what is going on in the IIHS and the NHTSA agency statistics.
Not sure what you mean there. They show the risks, but not the benefits.
As to your prior post, I'm not sure at all what your point was there...I'm not aware of any fatality stats at the national or state level that are meaningless.
And your point (which I've seen you make before) about "not caring what the stats are in other states" escapes me as well. There are a set of variables that affect fatalities in any geographical area...but there are far more similarities than differences. People and roads are pretty much the same across the US...and even weather is similar across large sections.
You seem to be saying, nihilistically, that accident and fatality data is generally meaningless. I couldn't disagree more.
I think we can also agree that to know where the risk and benefit actualy intersect we need to first enforce keep right except to pass, no use of phone while driving etc.
Well, I think all of those things involve risk, though "keep right to pass" is more of an efficiency/consideration thing, rather than a safety thing...but these are all variables, which must be balanced...hopefully 'well' by intelligent, knowledgeable drivers. Oh well, one can dream
But as an independant variable (all else being equal), higher speed undeniably increases risk.
Well, I think all of those things involve risk, though "keep right to pass" is more of an efficiency/consideration thing, rather than a safety thing.
If you look at the safety of the autobahn keep right except to pass absolutely is a safety thing and probably the biggest safety "thing". The faster cars would be going straight in the left lane rather than attempting to get around vehicles. It would allow for far higher speed while decreasing the risk on US highways.
It might be where you, are but in fact it is illegal in CA. You can receive citations under various codes for doing so. On the other hand in a passing lane you can legally go app 40-45 mph in a 65 mph lane and still be legal.
For me the remedy has been for a long long time, pass as the situation, safety, etc. dictates, whether it be left, right, etc.
"A new Louisiana law takes effect tomorrow aimed at so-called "rolling roadblocks" - drivers who tie up traffic by not going fast enough in the left lane. The law carries fines of up to 175 dollars and 30 days in jail for first offenders. The law was passed this year with proponents saying a cure was long overdue for slowpokes who insist in getting in the left passing lane and staying there.
Lieutenant William Davis, a state police spokesman, says there will be no warning or grace period under the law. Citations for "rolling roadblocks" could begin at just after midnight tonight.
The law applies to drivers who are in the left lane of a multilane highway - outside municipal limits - and are traveling at the same speed as the car beside them in the right lane. Included are interstates and four-lane U.S. and Louisiana highways. "
And within that article it sites other states as below:
"Illinois is not the first state to consider such legislation. South Carolina already has a left lane law and a Texas law requires highway signs stating: “slower traffic keep right” and “left lane for passing only.” Collier County, Florida limits use of the left lane by large trucks and Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington are also considering left lane restrictions on highways." - (Obviously written before Louisiana passed their law.)
Even in areas where the police are told to enforce this, it's going to be hard to do so. Those rolling roadblocks seriously do cause small scale congestion, making it very hard for a cop car to squeeze in behind the offender. If he tries to pass on the right side, everyone in the right lane will slow to the speed limit, and he'll never get anywhere. Even for a motorcycle cop, the "omg it's a cop let's slow down" effect is going to make it unlikely that pulling over LLCs will increase traffic speeds.
Comments
The worst part? They are about to enter a store where they will be WALKING. So saving that short distance in the parking lot is pointless, and very inconsiderate to all those they are blocking due to laziness.
Good point. I see a lot of sports cars in the nightly news crunched and in pieces, two or more, because the driver felt they had a car that was more capable than joe blow (me) in that old LeSabre at 72 mph. It's amazing how capable people think they are at avoiding accidents one four patches of rubber contact patches about the size of postcards!!! That's what's controlling your car's physics properties at 80 and 90.
The most inconsiderates are those tailgating because they're in pickups or suburbans with high headlights and the ability to see over the top of my car.
Then there's the van that pulls up as you're trying to make a right turn and they block your view of oncoming traffic...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Except that it hasn't turned out that way. If this were true, there would be a double whammy - one, the higher speeds would cause more accidents (less reaction time, etc.) and, two, the resulting accidents would be more severe. These two factors would send fatalities rates skyrocketing, as speeds have increased over the years, and people are cruising along faster than ever. It hasn't happened, and it won't happen.
Incidentally, I drove on the Pennsylvania Turnpike this Sunday from the Bedford, Pa., interchange to the Blue Mountain Interchange. I drove at the safe, comfortable speed of 80 mph the whole way (one hopes and prays that no one on this site is clueless enough to believe that traveling at that speed is dangerous).
Most vehicles were traveling at about the same speed. The biggest "risk," incidentally, was posed by the driver in the Park Avenue traveling at...65 mph. Forced virtually every other driver to brake and then manuever around him. Now who was increasing the "risk" to everyone else?
li_sailor: If interstate speed limits were repealed, the death rate would skyrocket.
Didn't happen in Montana. As a matter of fact, at one point when the "reasonable and prudent" law was in effect, the fatality rate hit record LOWS. The fatality rate ROSE when the state instituted a 75 mph speed limit, in response to a State Supreme Court decision holding the "reasonable and prudent" standard was too vague, and therefore not enforceable.
No, they wouldn't. If you look at NHTSA statistics, you would see that most fatlaities occr at lowe speeds, in urban traffic. Not becuase of the lower speed (obviously), but becuase that's where there is more interaction and manuevering.
...the safe, comfortable speed of 80 mph...
It can be very safe. But not as safe as 75, all else being equal.
Didn't happen in Montana.
But it did happen in most of the other 24 states that raised speed limits in '95 & '96. You can always find an outlier, but it proves nothing, except that outliers exist.
My first ticket ever, I was trying to follow a group of cars and fell behind. I sped up to about 56 in a 45, and a cop nailed me. Actually I was annoyed that the guy leading our pack was driving so fast, as if he was trying to lose us. Some people have NO idea how to lead a caravan.
Another ticket, I was speeding up to pass someone. I routinely speed up to pass someone, clear them completely, before returning to the right lane and resuming my normal speed. Frequently, I need to drive faster than I would like because so many people instinctively speed up as someone is trying to pass them (and then slow down as soon as you slow down). So of course as I tried to pass this minivan, he speeds up, I speed up, and the cop nails me. I explained the situation but the cop doesn't care.
Imagine it is completely empty. I SWEAR by my girlfriend's pet cat, if I park my car in the last spot in the last row furthest from the entrance, when I come back in five minutes, there will be some POS coupe with long, heavy doors parked next to me.
I dunno how to shake this curse. It just never seems to fail, and I have the dings to prove it.
So given a few years of data AFTER the speed limit was raised to 65 mph:
1. The over all fatality rate went down rather than up
2. The miles traveled went up
3. The trips made increased
4. The population of passenger vehicles keeps rising
5. The population of license drivers keeps rising
6. On certain roads the speed limits are actually 70 to 75 mph (still higher)
7. (From another since closed thread) the population of "killer" suv's is at the HIGHEST (12%)
So in fact, JUST the REVERSE happened from the Pundits safety and environmental dire predictions. In fact the USA roads are the SAFEST in recorded history!!
And again, if folks are interested in their own individual states, I have posted the NHTSA link.
On a practical level, unless one drives in all 50 states, DC and PR etc., one really only needs to be concerned with the state/s one drives IN!!
Yikes- that would eliminate about half the American drivers right off the bat! Amazing!
I'm intrigued by the extensive dialog about inconsiderate drivers, LLC's, slowpokes, tailgaiters, speeders- all a road menace in any good drivers book. But I'll have to say, as someone who drives a lot, for business and pleasure, the majority of close-calls I've had have far & away been from inattentive drivers yakking on cell phones. It's an absolute epidemic. Some of these people completely forget they are driving. Add speeding and/or inconsideration and you have a veritable molotov cocktail. As a sales guy, I have curtailed my cell phone usage to open highway, mostly with a headset. And believe me, it wasn't easy. Yet, the close calls I've had have reinforced the fact that talking on a phone and driving just don't mix, especially in traffic or congested areas. Some states have banned cell phone usage while driving, all need to take a serious look at this- with the volume of cars increasing right along with the numbers of cell phone users (especially young people- who not only talk but text-message while they drive), the problem continues to worsen. How many accidents are caused by phone-yakkers that aren't documented as such? Lots. I hate laws and mandates (in MA, we have a mandatory seat belt law- I don't believe in it, but I've been wearing a seatbelt for over 20 years, long before the law was passed, regardless) but cell phone usage is one area that is easy to control. It's hard to enforce decency and common courtesy, but eliminating an unsafe distraction like cell phone usage is a big step toward much safer roads and simple to implement. And it might even lessen the incidence of road-rage episodes.
Most elephants don't turn on a dime, or stop on one either. The ones that do, most can't afford. So, we have all these charging elephants, with inconsiderate drivers at the helm. It's no wonder they don't tip their elephants at a higher rate than they already do.
But what do I know, I deliver peanuts for a living, maybe that's why the elephants are always tailgatin me?
justify going that fast, (I am extremely lucky to survive)
About drivers not caring about anybody else and lack of attention to driving is to blame for alot of fatalites and of course dui, where i live there has been 12 fatal accidents in the past 96 hrs, i am fustrated because it should not be this way if everybody would just be considerate fo all other motorists and stop all of the stupid crap, people need to realize that cars can be extremelt dagerous if not done properly, thats all I have to say, thanks.
As for drunk driving it is easy to save lives by applying some reasoning there also. MADD pushed for lower alcohol levels to be defined as drunk driving. America loves to change definitions rather than solve problems. All the police need do is be posted outside of bars and wait until someone comes out and gets behind the wheel. But they won't because it would negatively impact the bar business. It is about money not lives, as are the majority of speeding tickets.
If YOU want to follow ALL laws then stay in the right lane. If YOU are one of those that complain about "speeders" breaking the law then stay in the right lane. That's where all the "perfect" drivers are. Driving the speed limit.
As far as the dangers of going 90mph vs. 70mph. That's MY risk. Not yours. I choose to flaunt the laws of physics by driving that fast. I know that if I have a blowout at 70 or 90, I still may die. If I hit a deer, dog, or cat...That's my problem. But if I'm doing a 90 mph and possibly causing so much carnage why would someone want to purposely get in my way? I mean I'm out of control!!!
Looking at percentages makes more sense than 'actual numbers' because the number of cars on the road is going up, up, up as well.
It is actually your view which hides the true facts. Yes, the number of fatalities may be going up, but as others in this forum have shown, when the speed limits were raised the percentage of fatalities per car on the road or per mile traveled decreased.
The true facts speak for themselves in this case.
Wouldn't reducing the percentage also reduce the headcount?
What doesn't make sense about using percentages? A percentage is just an expression of the numbers of one statistic as related to another.
My issue with looking at just the headcount is that it does not take into account the total number of cars on the road. In other words, it is not a true meausure of safety. Looking at just a headcount; how would you ever know if a change in fatalities was due to safety or just a change in the number of cars on the road?
Say a new safety measure is implemented. A couple of years go by, and the headcount of fatalities has stayed the same. Well, what happened to your safety measure? What you would fail to see there is that the number of cars on the road went up, so the percentage actually decreased.
the fatalities in NJ went up for two years in a row before leveling off after the speed limit was raised.
Was that a headcount or a percentage? Overall, across all 50 states, the percentage went down.
It is others' risk as well as yours. It's ridiciulous to say that speeding on I75 near Marietta is no one's business other than the driver's.
As for telling people to stay in the right lane if they don't like flagrant speeding..., that too is ridiculous.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ah, I see, you're right. You just needed to repeat it 8 times. It was wrong the first 7, but now it has become right. What was I thinking?
Does it really matter?
"My issue with looking at just the headcount is that it does not take into account the total number of cars on the road."
I understand that point. But we try to rationalize the headcount, by comparing it against miles driven, when we should be reducing the headcount. Trying to say fatalities were down as a percentage of miles driven, is just too meaningless.
Well, I don't think it is meaningless. If the number of fatalities per mile is down, then I feel safer during every mile that I drive.
But sure, you can go after the actual head count. A no brainer would be to go after the drink and drive habit set. Another would be that a DUI that causes a fatality or accident should be treated now as a criminal matter like murder in the first degree, felony assault with a deadly weapon, etc. etc., and civil matter as in wanton disregard for life limb etc (or whatever it is called, and in triple payment to the injured party/s party. ie such as punitive damages etc etc. I would not want to break the news to you but "AIN"T" going to happen!!
I was stunned to find out that the City of San Francisco has 2,200 fatalities (per year) of cars and pedestrians!! Percentage of fault has been shown to lie with the pedestrians' The average mph at the time of the accidents were 5- 15 mph!!! I am sure the other so called "walkable" cities have the same issues like NYC, Portland, Boston, etc etc.
Only in that my training as a math/stat major tends to find these numbers at this level meaningless. But I'm not going to say any more on the subject. You can feel better if you want to know the percentage went down. Oh yes, I graduated with a 4.0 out of college.
Rural is I-16 going through south Ga.
Rural is I-20 from Atlanta to Birmingham or Augusta.
That's rural. As far as 90 in Marietta. That may be a little fast. But if you don't do 80 on 285, you'll get run over.
So after graduation, how are you finding the "real world"?
Ah, I see, you're right. You just needed to repeat it 8 times. It was wrong the first 7, but now it has become right. What was I thinking?
Ok li sailor please explain how it is wrong. If you say speed kills then, as I explained, 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph because remember ... speed kills and 2 mph is a higher speed than 1 mph.
You math is correct, it's your reasoning that's flawed.
NJ does not control what happens in CA. CA does not control what happens in NY!!??
So a more ball park metric is each states' results. But then again, if you drive in Southern CA, why do you care what gives in Northern CA?
I hope that 4 year of college with a 4.0 does not dial out some elements of common sense!?
Actually, I never said that. That's a sound bite that really means nothing (or everything, as we've seen). What I said was that higher speed means higher risk (all else being equal, like the speed of the rest of traffic)...of accidents and of fatalities.
...[to say that] 54 is safer than 55 and 53 is safer than 54 and so on till we get to 1 mph...
It's not. I never said it was wrong to say that. What was 'wrong' was to say that "it" (recognition of reality) 'leads' to going 1 mph. It doesn't. Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't.
In effect, that is what is going on in the IIHS and the NHTA agency statistics.
It's not. I never said it was wrong to say that. What was 'wrong' was to say that "it" (recognition of reality) 'leads' to going 1 mph. It doesn't. Risks and benefits must be balanced. To do this, one must assess the risk and the benefit...sometimes it's worth the risk and sometimes it isn't.
Agreed li sailor, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think we can also agree that to know where the risk and benefit actualy intersect we need to first enforce keep right except to pass, no use of phone while driving etc. Once there is lane discipline we can determine at what speed the risk may be too high, if at all.
Not sure what you mean there. They show the risks, but not the benefits.
As to your prior post, I'm not sure at all what your point was there...I'm not aware of any fatality stats at the national or state level that are meaningless.
And your point (which I've seen you make before) about "not caring what the stats are in other states" escapes me as well. There are a set of variables that affect fatalities in any geographical area...but there are far more similarities than differences. People and roads are pretty much the same across the US...and even weather is similar across large sections.
You seem to be saying, nihilistically, that accident and fatality data is generally meaningless. I couldn't disagree more.
Well, I think all of those things involve risk, though "keep right to pass" is more of an efficiency/consideration thing, rather than a safety thing...but these are all variables, which must be balanced...hopefully 'well' by intelligent, knowledgeable drivers. Oh well, one can dream
But as an independant variable (all else being equal), higher speed undeniably increases risk.
Me, I see it as related and agree there are similarities as well as differences.
But then you usually find a way to twist what has been said!?
If you look at the safety of the autobahn keep right except to pass absolutely is a safety thing and probably the biggest safety "thing". The faster cars would be going straight in the left lane rather than attempting to get around vehicles. It would allow for far higher speed while decreasing the risk on US highways.
For me the remedy has been for a long long time, pass as the situation, safety, etc. dictates, whether it be left, right, etc.
"A new Louisiana law takes effect tomorrow aimed at so-called "rolling roadblocks" - drivers who tie up traffic by not going fast enough in the left lane. The law carries fines of up to 175 dollars and 30 days in jail for first offenders. The law was passed this year with proponents saying a cure was long overdue for slowpokes who insist in getting in the left passing lane and staying there.
Lieutenant William Davis, a state police spokesman, says there will be no warning or grace period under the law. Citations for "rolling roadblocks" could begin at just after midnight tonight.
The law applies to drivers who are in the left lane of a multilane highway - outside municipal limits - and are traveling at the same speed as the car beside them in the right lane. Included are interstates and four-lane U.S. and Louisiana highways. "
Source: http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2174629
You guys probably have already seen this, but seemed appropriate for the conversation.
http://www.danrutherford.com/PressReleases/leftlanereminder.htm
And within that article it sites other states as below:
"Illinois is not the first state to consider such legislation. South Carolina already has a left lane law and a Texas law requires highway signs stating: “slower traffic keep right” and “left lane for passing only.” Collier County, Florida limits use of the left lane by large trucks and Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington are also considering left lane restrictions on highways." - (Obviously written before Louisiana passed their law.)
Even for a motorcycle cop, the "omg it's a cop let's slow down" effect is going to make it unlikely that pulling over LLCs will increase traffic speeds.