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
Any ways my point is that if your going to say "reduce the speed and save lives" the ultimate conclusion to that is to slow down so much that even if two buffoons run into each other head on at top speed they will do little more than scratch the bumpers. The issue is that speed is not the issue but rather inexperienced and poorly trained drivers are to blame.
As it has been stated before reducing speed is going to have little effect on this simply because you can get into a deadly accident at 40 MPH and even less. The greatest benefit in reducing accidents is a better trained driver.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I can remember, in other forums, those that insisted that it was the "driver" that mattered, nothing else. As if an Excursion t-boning an Accord would have the same result as a Cooper t-boning an Accord (all else equal).
I find the notion that 2 vehicles colliding at a combined 60 mph would have the same result as those same 2 at a combined 170 mph to be equally inane.
"The driver" is undoubtedly the most important factor governing the possibility of an accident. But it's not the only one and in terms of the result, there are a host of other factors.
High speed raises the risk of an accident (lower response time, less stability, etc) and increases the severity of the result. This is obvious.
tazereli:
Protecting kids is a noble effort but not with my car...
Too late, we already have speed limits.
alfox:
I would focus less on finite causes (e.g. cell phones) and more on poor driving.
If that focus would result in improvement, I would agree. Trouble is that it's unlikely. Poor driving is largely caused by inabilities, bad judgement and plain stupidity, IMO.
Note that I'm not saying that I think that governors are the answer. Just that I don't agree with the reasons stated as grounds.
As for speed governors, I look at them like gun laws. Make owning a gun a criminal act, and only crimminals will own guns. Similarly, start putting speed governors in cars, and those who really want to get around them will find a way.
And the blatant thing is, if I hadn't reacted, she would've hit me! Laying into the horn should've been enough to tell her she was in danger, but no, she kept right on coming over! And then, as I passed her on the right, giving a "HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FREAKING MIND?!" look to her, she just looked back at me, kinda sad, and shrugged her shoulders as if to say "Sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it!"
Now sure, some of these accidents would have been exacerbated if we were going 85 mph or more, but let's face it...a 30-40 mph T-bone is more than enough to kill ya, especially if you're in a small car and don't have side airbags. A speed governor will make some of the idiots slow down, but they're still going to weave through traffic just as carelessly, still try to part the left lane like Charleton Heston and the Red Sea when they want to do 85 but the prevailing conditions and traffic dictate that 50-55 is more appropriate. They're still going to cut you off, tailgate, brake suddenly, get impatient, incite road rage, etc.
Probably the only thing a speed governor might prevent are those rare, late-night single vehicle crashes where someone loses control and becomes a grim statistic.
james
A lot of people are going to feel really dumb when they bring a letter in to the dealer, ranting and raving that the dealer needs to reset their speed governor. I betcha dollars to doughnuts that they're not gonna get too far. I'm no expert, but I can't imagine that the average dealer service department has the capability to modify that setting in the ECU. Aftermarket tuner garages maybe, but they're not too likely to lower the top speed...
-Jason
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
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well said, Andre, well said. The end point is choice and free will.
If it is your car and your child, set the speed governor at wherever you'd like, but try to refrain from making your neighbor's choice for him. 99% of the time drivers cause accidents, not vehicles. If you or your children did not learn how to control a vehicle before being let loose behind the wheel, what speed is of little relevance once the tires start rolling - you're an accident looking for a time to happen. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.....
But wait... wait. That would actually work toward SOLVING a problem! Nope. Nope. Will not work. Thanks for the suggestion though. :P :sick:
As far as collisions (or near collisions) go, same thing here. Nothing over 35 mph and most less than 5 mph. All of them were driver error, regardless of vehicles involved. While no injuries occurred in any of the situations, they COULD have if the vehicles would have contacted a little differently than they did.
Yes, there is no all encompassing "It's the....", but the driver IS the start and the finish - the most significant factor. In my opinion, that makes it a darned good place to start. Don't take away the driver's choices, take away the incompetence (even if it is momentary).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I can see the headlines: "Criminals in illegal car without a governor catches up to innocent victim who could not run away in her speed governed vehicle!"
I think authorities need to concentrate on what is actually causing crashes, rather than simpole solutions. Poor driver training and distractions are great places to start.
Just now I was returning from an errand. These are all suburban 2-lane roads, residential, 35 mph limit with double yellow lines in the middle. I stopped at a T intersection waiting for traffic from the left. It was clear to the right. Two cars were approaching, and the one in front signalled a right turn into my street. The one behind was almost hidden from view, but I could see him riding the yellow line waiting impatiently to get around the turning car. As the front car slowed and obviously intended to actually turn I had ample time to turn left across his path, but being fairly experienced I knew that the car behind was my greatest danger, and stayed still. As expected, when the front car turned, the maroon behind swerved across the yellow line and accelerated through the intersection.
The driver of the second car looked like a teenage boy, and it occurred to me that he hadn't yet learned that the right action in that situation would have been to stay in his lane and roll through the intersection with his foot near the brake - I was HIS greatest danger, and by accelerating around the other car he eliminated his escape route if I pulled out. Sure I'd have been at fault, but there would likely have been at least one serious injury. A bad decision that experience and training might cure. (I know... I said "might."
I saw a real winner today. I was approaching a roundabout/traffic circle near my house, a fairly calm interchange. I was behind a brand new Spectra...it didn't even have plates on it yet. The guy in it was driving very cautiously, and almost stopped before entering it even though there were no cars in it (this should have been a warning). He signalled to make a right out of the roundabout, the same way I was going. The road changes to 2 lanes in each direction immediately out of the roundabout, and it is wide open and usually pretty empty. He gets into the right lane, so I go left to pass. He then guns it as I pass him, and I figure he can to go hell, so I also gun it. I get up to about 55 (in a 35) before he gives up (I don't call it dangerous per se, as the road was empty and is wide and straight). As I complete my pass, I lay on the horn, and he has the nerve to return it. After I am a ways ahead, I hit the brakes, and he slows way down. He then stays a good distance behind me, probably under my speed (I was going 35-40 by then) until I turn off the road and he continues. I hope he was scared.
ymmv.
The 35 limit on that road is inconsiderate in itself...I would love to see the justification for it.
However, if you want to ride a motorcycle that requires a little more effort such as passing a profiency test. And that is good.
If you desire to be a truck driver of an 18 wheeler with a 53’ long box behind you, additional testing and passing a driving test is required. And that is good.
But, if you want to drive a 45’ rig, towing an additional 20’ of trailered SUV & the rig is just under nine feet wide, weighing 54,500 lbs GVWR, powered by a 515 h.p. diesel engine with the same license you use to drive your four cylinder import, you can do it. And that is NOT good, but the law allows it.
What to do? Be very aware of that motor home and especially it’s geriatric driver with thick pop bottle glasses , double hearing aids. & drool. Because he has the privilege, through licensing, to drive that behemoth right next to you on the highway and he has not been required by the state to be qualified, other than his little car driver’s license.
Be careful out there.
Except that the safest roads, based on fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven, are interstate highways, and they have the highest average speeds.
And, as has been shown on this thread, those drivers who who travel at 80 mph have fewer accidents than those who travel at 60 mph and below. Also, raising speed limits has not resulted in more fatalities or accidents.
Based on years of traffic safety results in both the U.S. and other countries, higher speeds on limited access highways do not result in more accidents or fatalities.
But accidents on these roads are rarely minor fender benders. Route 78 is a perfect example with spectacular car crashes almost every week with fatalities.
So interstates might be the safest statistically and your chances of getting into an accident is slim, but if you get into one at 80mph, there is a high probability of going anywhere but home.
Unfortunately there is no study as to the severity of non-fatality accidents. Accidents for exampe where one loses a year of their life due to debilatating injuries sustained in a horrible car crash. This is the question that I've been asking in my posts and the advocates of speed cannot provide a satisfactory answer, so let me ask again: Are there any studies showing how many accidents on these limited access roads are sever enough to have your insurance policies medical coverage kick in? In other words even if you are not killed at 80mph there is a probability you will sustain severe injuries.
Our highways just as everything else in this country have been dumbed down to the lowest common intelligence level. They were designed for 75 mph travel when cars weighed 2 tons and had axles and drum brakes. If my fully independent suspensioned, airbagged, disc braked car can't safely travel these same highways 5 mph over that speed then there is a problem.
Of course if you hit something at 80 mph it'll be rather severe. But that's like saying if you shoot someone they might die so lets confiscate all the guns.
Oh come on. Where do you come up with that? Prove it to me with real statistics that driving at 80 is safer than driving at 60 in general. That's what you're trying to infer.
Accidents at 80 are much more damaging than two cars driving at 60 would have.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And as for the interstates, yeah, most of them were designed for two ton monsters with drum brakes to take at speeds of 70-80 mph or more. However, playing devil's advocate here, I'll say that the on-ramps weren't! And I think that's where a lot of people get stupid. They'll try to take an on- or off-ramp too fast, and end up sliding off the road. Also, a lot of the interstates that were built in the 70's, 80's, and thereafter often had to be routed around private property and other established landmarks, or they were added as an afterthought through mountain ranges, and done fairly cheaply. For instance, there are stretches of I-68 in Western MD, and I-79 in West VA that I wouldn't want to try driving 80 mph the whole way through! Sure, there are stretches of it where you can do it with ease, and you probably COULD do most of it that way if you were the only car on the road. Still, as curvy as it is, this is one stretch of interstate where you really have to be paying attention to what's going on around you, and not yakking on the cell, hollering at the kids, or gawking out the window at Kristie Brinkley in the Ferrari!
Essentially, 80 mph has its time and its place. Sometimes it's perfectly safe, but often it's not. You just have to use your discretion. The problem with people today is that they often just get too hung up on a number, and try to look at things in black and white. The real world is not like that.
And those doing 60 and 65 (speed limit in this area) are doing considerably less when they do impact something.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes, I would like some proof of this too.
li_sailor: High speed raises the risk of an accident (lower response time, less stability, etc) and increases the severity of the result. This is obvious.
grbeck:Except that the safest roads, based on fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven, are interstate highways, and they have the highest average speeds.
The obvious qualification to li_sailor's post is "all other things being equal". One of those things is traffic density, which is much lower on the interstates, resulting in fewer accidents.
In fact, rural highways are the MOST dangerous( where speeds tend to run FAR lower than interstate highways)
Again if most fatalities (fully 80%) tend to happen at speeds of 45 mph and unde,. then in a manner of speaking; 20% is LESS than 80%??
I don't know about others, but if given a choice between interstates and lesser roads I will almost ALWAYS choose to take the interstates.
1) at 80 mph, if you have half a wit about you, you're paying more attention to your driving than you are at 60. Simply BECAUSE it's more critical.
2) some people may be LESS likely to pull out in front of you if they see you coming up at 80, versus 60. Of course, again, those are only the ones that have half a wit about them. The others will either pull out in front of you without looking, or if they see you speeding, suddenly they think its their civic duty to "teach you a lesson"
3) at 80 mph, chances are, you're NOT holding up traffic. At 60 mph, in many cases you'll cause people to bottleneck around you. If you're in the right lane, you might have that right, but it still makes it more dangerous. And in the left lane, it's nothing short of criminal.
Of course, there are plenty of ways to argue that 80 mph is more dangerous than 60, but hell, any 5 year old can do that! I figured it was time to throw in a few mitigating factors for the higher speed! :P
Imagine how safe the highways would be if people actually drove at the speed limit of 65 or 70 or 55 in urban areas rather than 10-20 mph above the area speed limit.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I can show you rural highways where high speeds occur regularly and there are no accidents.
I can show you interstates with 70-75 nominal speeds and there have been many terrible crashes -- here in Ohio. They even had to put up a barrier between north and south lanes in the median to try to stop some of the crossover accidents. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't work here. Show me data that's realistic and scientific with only one variable changed between groups.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
MORE dangerous on rural highways DOES NOT mutually EXCLUDE dangerous accidents on the interstate now does it?? However in per 100M miles driven interstates are FAR safer.
If you chose not to believe this, trust me, I am ok with it.
I have yet to see a rural highway "where there are no accidents." I can believe stretches of rural highways with 55+ speed limits where there are few accidents, but then meaningful accident statistics are based on miles driven. Few rural highways can match the volume of Interstates, and the few that do generally have astounding accident rates.
If you can cite credible evidence where I am wrong on this please step up.
I'll give you another NHTSA stat that might surprise you. Most accidents are caused by poor driver decision-making, followed closely by distracted drivers. The two taken together account for something like 70% of all accidents. Alcohol as a cause accounts for less than 20% - something MADD doesn't want you to know.
If you corrected driver training, including training drivers to avoid distractions, you could have a huge effect on traffic safety, even if you ignored speeding and alcohol.
Sorry, more NHTSA annecdotal evidence.
Actually this triangulates with the NHTSA data. The word picture they paint is that ALCOHOL is INVOLVED in 40% of the fatalites and accidents. It should be obvious here that 20% does not equal 40%!?
Well if one can make a leap, in accidents, one party is usually majority to wholly at fault. So for example, if I hit a drunk guy and it is MY fault, alcohol is INVOLVED. Ergo- I hit a drunk guy. So you have to ask, is it true that every time an accident happens between a sober and a DUI driver that it is always 100% the fault of the DUI driver ? Another way to ask is, does a drunk guy 100% of the time have an causal or at fault accident with another drunk guy?
(it should be by adjudication, but sadly this is not true AND is ONLY my opinion) ? In other words, regardless of who is at fault the DUI guy should be found guilty!? Shoot if that were true, I could make book on this in LAS Vegas, the bet would be like a lifetime annuity, and in truth it would be like taking candy from a baby. I am in NO WAY ADVOCATING that ANYBODY DUI's. However one would be over looking reality denying there are people who do drive this way.
If a drunk guy hits me and it is HIS fault, alcohol can be considered "a cause" of the accident. The math flows from the above example.
So in fact ,alcohol is indeed causal at 20% AND INVOLVED as NHTSA says in 40% of all fatalities and accidents.
That's no exception to what I said. The reason they are safer has nothing to do with the speed. It has to do with it being a different driving situation, for example, no intersections and a more constant speed.
...those drivers who who travel at 80 mph have fewer accidents than those who travel at 60 mph and below.
Same faulty correlation. Those doing 80 are more likely to be on an open road with no other vehicles. Driving 20 mph faster (all else being equal) does not reduce the chance of accidents. If you think it does, give us some rationale for it.
...higher speeds on limited access highways do not result in more accidents or fatalities.
Correct, compared to other modes, like local traffic, see above.
What rate?
...I don't want any government entity telling me I can't smoke.
Traffic safety (like second hand smoke) affects others and therefore is subject to regulation, rightly so.
It's worse than that, unfortunately. NHTSA calls an accident "alcohol-related" if anybody involved has a detectable BAC. That means that if only a single back seat passenger is injured and shown to have a .02% BAC it's "alcohol-related." This methodology results from intense pressure from special interest groups, such as MADD and SADD.
The real statistics of the accidents actually caused by drunk drivers? Who knows? The data is obscurred by the nonesense data collected today. Personally I'd like to know what the actual statistics are, and at what BAC drivers actually become dangerous on the average.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not Jerry Seinfeld
(Deannie)