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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Note: as intended = driven more than 5 mph.
My average speed during one weeks (7 days) worth of driving is a miserable 20mph, according to the OBC.
A commuter Vette would be fun on LOONG commutes. Where you start out in the country where you can stretch it's legs a bit and then you have the XM radio and stuff for slogging through traffic. But then again, so is my Civic Si. It'll do a comfortable 100 mph and still has enough torque for to make trafic a breeze. Gas mileage is high 20's to low 30's too.
Zippy is a pleasant little car to commute in, gas mileage is very consistant at 29-30 mpg, only wish she had A/C and cruise. Have put 34k miles on her in just 10 short months.
I couldn't afford to commute in a Vette!! Can you imagine not only the gas consumption but the depreciation??? :surprise:
BTW, I heard that sometimes they'll even try tracking down partial numbers. I remember reading a case where the DC cops got a partial plate reading. Somehow they tracked it down to a woman who had a totally different car from the one they photographed. I think it was some old beat-up Chevy Celebrity that hadn't even been running during the timeframe that the supposed infraction occurred. Still, they harrassed her anyway. Heck, just to avoid having the law come barking up the wrong tree is enough to make me want to run out and invest in a license plate cover!
As much as I fear red light runners, I'm not very trusting of those cameras so I'm going to have to disagree with your $1000 fine.
I meant $1000 fine for "just having" intentionally unreadable plate(s) on your car. Cameras at intersections and elsewhere are a separate issue.
What license covers are the ones that work? I recall a tv troubleshooter type clip about some and stating (true or not) that companies had gotten around the ones that wouldn't let the numbers show with the lightening. Of course the companies make most of the money from the tickets, so they are highly motivated to be sure the cameras can see the numbers through any cover.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If they really wanted to make intersections safer and cut down on the number of accidents from people running red lights, what they would do is leave the yellow interval alone, at a reasonable interval. But then, instead of having one light turn green the instant the other turns red, leave maybe a half-second interval there, where, for that brief moment, both lights are red. That'll insure that, even if someone does run through the intersection after the light turns red, that cross traffic will not have entered the intersection yet.
Many traffic lights are already set up like this, where you have the interval. It would be interesting if there was data that compared the accident rates for each type of setup.
Well, when this light changed, I hit the brakes, and hit a slick spot on the road, sliding out into the intersection. Made the camera take my picture. Since I didn't go all the way through the intersection, though, they didn't get the pic of me running it, so I never got a ticket.
The second time was on Route 40, west of Baltimore. Dark, rainy night. I knew there was a camera at one of the intersections. Light turned yellow, and I hit the brakes. Unfortunately, right at that spot there were truck ruts in the road that had filled up with water, so a-sliding I went. So, instead of skidding into the intersection, I gave it some gas, regained control, and went through the light, which netted me a $75.00 ticket.
Pissed me off, but what can you do? I could take off time from work and go to court over it. Actually, with red light tickets, I think it's some kind of different type of arbitration where you usually lose. So I could take a few hours off of work, waste my time, still have to pay the $75.00.
Most people who get these types of tickets don't "learn" anything from them. In fact, most people I talk to just get pissed by them. Lots of people will run one, pay the ticket, but then just do it again, and keep paying the ticket. Also, the human species is highly adaptive. It doesn't take long to start learning to do a quick scan upon getting to an intersection, and see which one has a red light camera and which one doesn't
The real test of whether these red light camera really work would be this...do they reduce red-light running at ALL intersections, or just the ones where the cameras were installed?
If they really wanted to make intersections safer and cut down on the number of accidents from people running red lights, what they would do is leave the yellow interval alone, at a reasonable interval. But then, instead of having one light turn green the instant the other turns red, leave maybe a half-second interval there, where, for that brief moment, both lights are red. That'll insure that, even if someone does run through the intersection after the light turns red, that cross traffic will not have entered the intersection yet.
Many traffic lights are already set up like this, where you have the interval. It would be interesting if there was data that compared the accident rates for each type of setup. "
Your take is SO LOGICAL, that it almost defies logic as to why it has been either completely over looked or bypassed.
Probably the straw that broke the back and got legislators involved.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
1) save the 'nice' car for special occasions or when one can really enjoy driving it, as opposed to
2) drive the 'nice' car all the time as even sitting in it in traffic will make that a more pleasant (or less unpleasant) experience.
I can see both sides, but I'm personally more of a 1) type. I drive about 80 miles round trip per day with some traffic issues and it's not so bad, but I don't think I'd enjoy it at all if I were doing it in a stripped-down, not-very-comfortable 'commuter' or 'beater' car.
To me, it's worth the extra $$ to be in a car I enjoy riding in.
So in the end about all it does is contributes to congestion, and increases the risk of a rear-end collision. Y'know, once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a law written, and enforced, that actually does some good, and is enforced fairly, instead of just finding new and annoying ways to fleece and endanger the taxpayers.
And then, to top it all off, these cops are sooo concerned about people going a few mph over the speed limit, yet occasionally I'll almost get run down by one when I go out to get my mail, as he comes flying over the blind hill. One of these days, I'm gonna flag one of them down and let him know that I've been pulled over for doing less over the speed limit than what he was just doing, and also in less dangerous circumstances!
That's really the key, right there. It is not about drivers' speeds vs. the "speed limit." It is about flow of traffic. Sure, it would be assinine for an officer to have a clocker in his car and pull over a random "speeder" who was traveling with the flow of traffic just to make an example out of him. So, the decision is that a camera that takes a photo of all speeding cars is more equitable and you the the situation Andre described above. Just ticket those who are NOT flowing with traffic! There are always vehicles that dart in and out of lanes, speed up, slow down, tailgate, etc. Get those drivers if they are creating a safety problem, and let the rest be! On the other hand, if you are the only driver on the road (within reason), then watch out! You are fair game if you are > than SL! *shrugs*
If anything, all of these impartial "traffic control" measures create a tension within the drivers avoiding them that they probably tend to drive faster in the less urban areas just to release the tension.
Maybe I am just too practical, but it seems so obvious. The police force wouldn't even need to generate so much revenue if it did not waste so much on marginal technologies. The "To Serve and Protect" motto has become "To Serve Tickets and Protect our Budget." :surprise:
The red light camera situation is similar to me lending my hammer out to my neighbor, who then proceeds to bludgeon his wife to death with it because she burnt his pot roast. Why should I be held responsible for that? I didn't do it. Go after the truly guilty party, and not an easy target. If it's too much trouble to go after the guilty party, then that's your loss...leave the innocents alone!
I'm intrigued by the comments about "sports cars" being not worth much if you can't do 100+. Geez, any car can do that (well almost)...to me, the benefit is crisp, responsive and stable handling, cornering, etc. and acceleration. I absolutely want to be in that car all the time. My RSX is a joy to drive, tho bumper to bumper is no fun in anything.
Oh, and denali856, I think you meant you were type #2.
Hey, no one else is on topic, either :=)
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Subaru Crew Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
There was this one..... oh, man! I have 3 recollections that could lead to somthing.... uh.... I have to go.
I agree I have had the elantra over 100 a few times
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well as we are driving this way some idiot makes a left turn onto our street in the same direction we are going. It was obvious he didn't see me on the other side of the truck as he did this at the very last second and I didn't see him until he was shooting into my lane. I took my foot off the gas and started to verge off the road to try to avoid hitting this guy when he evidently saw me and tried to maneuver himself onto the medium. In doing so this idiot lost control spun out in front of the pickup truck which broad sided him.
Ever since then I cringe when I see some jerk dart out like that thinking the other lane is empty.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's the problem. I can't tell you the last time I saw any patrols on any of the highways I travel on. As long as people can continue to get away with it, they're going to keep speeding. In the meantime, our highways will continue to be a free-for-all-drive-at-your-own-risk danger zone!
As long as the irresponsible credibility-free powers that be can continue to fail to prove that their rules and especially the enforcement patterns of said rules exist for safety and not money, it won't change.
If safety was a real issue, you wouldn't see a limit above 40-50.
"How many times have I gone down 2-lane rural type roads (55 MPH Limit) and someone at an intersection turns onto my path"
Every single time I drive in rural areas around here that happens to me. I will usually just look for a clear spot and pass, the lines on the road can go to hell. Then I might slow way down after I pass, as a returning of a favor.
I saw a news report the other day where they are talking about bringing back the 55 mph limit to "conserve energy". Yeah right. And then they turn around and give tax breaks to SUV's OVER a certain gross weight. Yeah right.
I know that I am more capable and attentive if I am driving alone with radio off or only on music and of course no cell phone use. I think that I am not as attentive if I am having a conversation with my wife in the car. Not sure.
Ideally, drivers should be compartmentalized in a strong glass cage, maybe that is gray smoked, with no NAVI, no cell phone use, except when the car is stopped, and sound deadening from the kids and wife or spouse in the passenger area. It would be interesting to see experiments on this matter comparing my scenario with a typical SUV with spouse riding along, kids in tow, spouse chatting, and driver also on cell phone.
I resisted cellphone useage even though I had one from work while driving...
Our other car has OnStar. I learned quickly that a quick call on that was as distracting as dialing and talking on a cellphone, even though i t's hands free.
My current cellphone is distracting. I hit the right lane and slow down if I get a call. I rarely make a call, usually to the spouse.
Cellphone useage while driving needs to be illegal and that needs to be enforced (lot'za luck).
I watch drivers making left hand turns in traffic at stoplights between oncoming cars, engrossed in cell conversations as they wait and as they turn. Totally distracted... OFten they sit rather than go between cars, holding up cars behind them waiting to turn.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My question then is will they make any type of conversation with the driver illegal, that includes listening to the radio and talking with passingers?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You know you know talking to a passenger is a completely different style of conversing than talking on a cellphone. With a passenger, pauses as you concentrate on driving are understood; long pauses on a cellphone as not understood by the recipient of the call nor are long pauses done by most talkers. And listening to a radio is completely different than listening to a cellphone talking to you. I tune out radio often while concentrating on driving.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So I don't think the radio is nearly as distracting as a cell phone call. Unless maybe it's talk radio and you are arguing with Rush/Al Franken/whomever.
Yes, talking on the cellphone is less distracting, since you are not tempted to look at the other person occasionally :=)
I don't agree at all. I think a conversation with a person in the vehicle is potentially just as distracting. It's just that cell phone usage is more PC to crtiticize. I do it all the time, and it's common for me (or the other party, who sometimes is also driving) to say "just a sec" when a pause is necessary. The bottom line is to exercise judgement as to priorities...which some do not do, but this is not unique to cell phone usage.
It's just like cell usage on my commuter train (LIRR)...sure, a loud converser is annoying, but no more than loud non cell conversations. In fact, the cell one is less annoying, since you get a break occasionally when the other person talks and you can't hear it. It's just that complaining about cell usage is in vogue, but no one would think to say "please stop talking to the person next to you" but I've witnessed several incidents of "cell rage" when folks will complain...some have almost come to blows. Now, if some folks would just figure out that you don't have to shout into the phone.......
It's that difficulty in communication that makes people try to talk loudly to compensate for their lack of connection in real space with the person that is the distraction with cellphone useage that is greater than person-to-person talk in the same car.
>"just a sec"
That time it takes to say "just a sec" may be the difference between having and not having an accident, if the talker notices at all that something is happening.
>
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, no, actually it's that folks are used to regular phones that amplify your own voice into your earpiece and cell phones don't do this. Once you realize this, you also realize that talking in a normal voice is heard quite fine. It's just that most folks don't know it. Or can't overcome the impulse to overcompensate.
That time it takes to say "just a sec" may be the difference between having and not having an accident...
No different from an in-vehicle non-cell discussion. And if it needs more immediate attention, you skip the "just a sec" and explain later. In both cases one needs to exercise good judgement and care...no more for one or the other. I understand that my POV here is not a common or popular one, but I think it's right. A shocker, right? :=)
I seem to recall studies that have proven that talking on the phone is much more distracting than conversing with passengers, but no, I don't have links to it.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Hmmm, passenger as warning device :=) True, but if the passenger notices and the driver doesn't, they're in deep stuff.
In any case, this is besides the point...it wasn't whether one type of discussion is more helpful, but rather which is more distracting. If the passenger is able to warn, this becomes "good" distraction...proving my point...more distraction by the in-vehicle person.
Yes, I've seen those studies....as I recall, they were not conclusive re those two types as much as compared to eating, radio twiddling, etc.
That didn't work for the mother with a couple of kids in her van coming up onto heavy traffic area and changed lanes to left to avoid the slowdown in right lane at junction of two interstates and hit the rear of a slow or stopped semi while she was talking to her mother or sister perhaps 5 miles away. Distracted by cellphone useage so she didn't realize the semi in left lane also had slowed down due to backed up traffic. The traffic in right lane usually slowed and left lane usually kept moving, she changed lanes quickly while talking on phone according to witnesses. Fatal.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Thats rather idiotic, just because someone is still yakking doesn't mean that you have to listen. When someone darts out in front of you so what if the guy on the other end of the phone is still talking? You take care of the problem at hand then later ask that person to repeat themselves.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't remember where I saw this on the web, but the number one distraction was dealing with food/beverage in the car prior to an accident/fatality.
I think it's ok for us to disagree, but I don't think cell phones are any more distracting than other conversations let alone other kinds of distractions. Make the other party a pair of toddlers and giving them cell phones in the back seat might be an improvement.
One thing's for sure...allowing distractions to reduce one's focus on the #1 priority (the road) is worse than inconsiderate.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
IT's the level of concentration people give to a cellphone vs what they should give to the kids in the car or a passenger with them. There is a difference. I resist talking while driving (TWI) because I realized with the workphone that it lowered my level of driving focus.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Frankly, I think it's more a question of what can be enforced. One can be observed using a cell phone and given a citation. One cannot be cited for speaking, let alone listening. Too bad, it could be useful:
"You haven't been listening to a word I've said, have you?!?"
"Can't, dear, it would be illegal."
or
"Didn't I tell you about tonite?"
"Was I driving at the time, dear?"