Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

stickguy · January 2020

roads do look slick. And gotta say, looks way too cold and that dark at 8:40 in the AM with snow on the ground, you could not offer me a job that pays enough to live there!

snakeweasel · January 2020

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.

While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.

snakeweasel · January 2020

xwesx said:
This morning, a school bus blew through a four-way stop going ~30mph. I was at the intersection, stopped, and started to pull out when I did a double-take in the direction of the bus. Something told me that the guy was coming in too hot, so I just waited a moment longer. Sure enough, he slams on the brakes for a moment, realized there was no possible way the icy conditions would allow for a stop, then just drove right on through. Thankfully, he was the only one at the intersection who was not paying attention.

A similar thing happened to me yesterday morning. The difference was it was at a traffic light and the driver made a right turn on red in front of me. Not sure if he came to a full stop at the light but I had to make an emergency maneuver to avoid him or her.

imidazol97 · January 2020

Tailgaters surprised:

I had a Mercedes tailing me on I75 years back. There was a plastic separator skipping around on the road with the currents from vehicles passing it. Thin plastic about 4 x 4 that looked like it went between layers of auto parts in wooden crates bound for the local GM assembly plant.

I straddled the piece but the suction under my car lifted it and it plopped right onto the hood and windshield of the aggressive MB sedan driver. LOL

xwesx · January 2020

snakeweasel said:
A similar thing happened to me yesterday morning. The difference was it was at a traffic light and the driver made a right turn on red in front of me. Not sure if he came to a full stop at the light but I had to make an emergency maneuver to avoid him or her.

Never fun to have happen, but at least we can write about it here without the addendum of "damage this," "broken that," to add to the bill.

xwesx · January 2020

stickguy said:
roads do look slick. And gotta say, looks way too cold and that dark at 8:40 in the AM with snow on the ground, you could not offer me a job that pays enough to live there!

Ice is an interesting thing. Depending on the temperatures, even slick intersections like this gain much more tackiness than they might have at, say, zero or +20. At +30, some of these intersections are nearly impossible to get a car to a full stop. In this case, I think the driver may have just not been familiar with the road (on the road he was driving, the 4-way stops are just sort of random and intended as a "traffic calming" measure). The driver seems to have not recognized the intersection soon enough, tried to brake, and realized quickly that the best bet was just to blow it.

I agree, all things considered. I'm just glad I took a second look and noticed what was about to happen. Only point of improvement to the scenario would have been for the driver to blow the horn with enthusiasm to warn everyone that he was out of control.

andres3 · January 2020

xwesx said:

snakeweasel said:
I saw an Audi A4 ruin their suspension last Sunday. I was driving in an area that's not exactly rural but wasn't exactly suburban either, it was an area of transition between the two. I was on a two lane road, 55 MPH SL and I was going 60 give or take. All of a sudden I saw this Audi fly up behind me and just sit there on my rear end. He must have been pushing 90 coming up on me.

Now shortly after this we come to a railroad crossing and I slow way down. Evidently this joker didn't like that and since there was no oncoming traffic he moved into the oncoming lane gunned it and flew pass me.

Now two things I must say, first is that it is illegal to pass at a railroad crossing and secondly when someone slows down for a railroad crossing there usually is a very good reason. This particular crossing needs some major work done on it to bring it up to be a rough crossing. You should have seen that car bounce when it hit those tracks, the guy almost lost control.

And yes there was a sign declaring it a rough crossing.
Hahahaha. Sometimes that is the best justice achievable. I fondly recall a similar instance when driving on Chena Hot Springs Road, about ten years ago, and the road surface was just crumbling apart. There were numerous small and large pot holes in the road, some of which extended all the way across the lane (or further). I was driving a 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan, and behind me was a small red sedan (a Neon, if memory serves). The driver was just riding up my rear end, for miles and miles. Traffic was not heavy, but at least regular enough that passing was difficult.

After a time, I approached a pot hole that was around 6' round. I straddled it with my van, and moved only very casually to do so, and the driver behind me was completely unaware of it approaching. BOOM! That guy went into the hole at 60 mph, dust went everywhere, and he quickly pulled to the side of the road. Tailgating problem solved!

I just want to let everyone know my old Neon was not red

It was blue.

andres3 · January 2020

xwesx said:

stickguy said:
roads do look slick. And gotta say, looks way too cold and that dark at 8:40 in the AM with snow on the ground, you could not offer me a job that pays enough to live there!
Ice is an interesting thing. Depending on the temperatures, even slick intersections like this gain much more tackiness than they might have at, say, zero or +20. At +30, some of these intersections are nearly impossible to get a car to a full stop. In this case, I think the driver may have just not been familiar with the road (on the road he was driving, the 4-way stops are just sort of random and intended as a "traffic calming" measure). The driver seems to have not recognized the intersection soon enough, tried to brake, and realized quickly that the best bet was just to blow it.

I agree, all things considered. I'm just glad I took a second look and noticed what was about to happen. Only point of improvement to the scenario would have been for the driver to blow the horn with enthusiasm to warn everyone that he was out of control.

Ha... probably doesn't want to raise the eyes of an LEO reading the paper eating a donut if there is one nearby. Might not want to draw that audible attention, if there's a chance they visually missed the violation.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.

Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.

xwesx · January 2020

andres3 said:
I just want to let everyone know my old Neon was not red It was blue.

Hah! Comedy gold, sir. Well played.

snakeweasel · January 2020

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.

Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.

You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right

Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

"Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.

snakeweasel · January 2020

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right

Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

"Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.

Oh I am sorry, I didn't know the laws of physics are different in Australia. I suppose that water freezes at different temps there too.

Of you wish I could dig some and find the ones in the US, but you would find something wrong with them.

Edited to add: I do believe that the Cirillo study was done in the US, the Midwest if memory serves.

snakeweasel · January 2020

While not an inconsiderate drive the number of squirrels that ran out in front of me on the way to work was very high. There were 8 or 9 that did it on my 14 mile commute.

xwesx · January 2020

That is surprisingly high. We get that some years with hares here; the population cycles on a 17-year basis, and I think that either last year or this coming summer is supposed to be the peak year for them. Every morning last summer I would see upwards of a dozen or more either on our small property or along our small feeder road. I actually hit one with my bike, and it about took the front wheel out from under me. I don't think it was injured, at least not to the point it made any indication of such as it continued scurrying on its way without even a sound.

xwesx · January 2020

This morning, I had another driver speed up to try to prevent me from changing lanes ahead of them. I seriously don't get the mentality at all, but I didn't let it phase me. I just pulled in anyway, let them get mad "because I cut them off" (even though they really cut themselves off), and just smiled and waved as we both dropped our children off at the same school. LOL

I'm sure the lady will feel smugly self-righteous as she relays the incident to all her friends: How she was so innocent, didn't do anything, and I'm just that jerk in the Audi.

elias · January 2020

latest trend on highways: "road-trains" of MLC or LLCs all texting and all tailgating with the one in front locked onto a vehicle in adjacent right lane, refusing to pass it, keeping huge space in front so all the texting can proceed unimpeded and no other drivers can pass.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right

Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

"Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.
Oh I am sorry, I didn't know the laws of physics are different in Australia. I suppose that water freezes at different temps there too.

Of you wish I could dig some and find the ones in the US, but you would find something wrong with them.

Edited to add: I do believe that the Cirillo study was done in the US, the Midwest if memory serves.

The laws of physics are not different in Australia, but their so-called "studies" show preposterous presumptions, assumptions, and other styles of gymnastics (including outright deception) far beyond the typical bias you'll find in most scientific studies of any sort.

It is so bad I just immediately discount Australian sources of traffic safety data. I do the same with the INSURANCE propaganda firm, IIHS, but at least with the IIHS it doesn't take but a couple minutes of reading to fully debunk every report they publish. Usually their conclusions just don't match the data in their own reports. Or they fail to use rates when talking about figures, and other word play to try and mislead the public into believing utter nonsense.

EXAMPLE:

The red light camera industry pays so-called scientists statisticians to make up a term called the "halo effect"

This is where they don't like the fact that camera'd intersections have more collisions than non-camera intersections. So they make up a term (Halo), and say that the presence of red-light cameras provides a shield of safety over the whole city and all adjacent intersections. With this definition, they can then cherry-pick the safest intersections (with the least amount of collisions) and attribute that "reduction in collisions" to their own intersection with cameras installed. Sort of like using the placebo control group data as your own data when it betters your own.

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP! The truth is better and scarier than fiction.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.
Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:
Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.
Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.
While those factors make it safer it dosen't mean that it's not safer to go slower on an interstate.
Solomon Curve indicates going slower than average pace of traffic is highly hazardous, and the curve has been duplicated in every decade since the 60's with similar results.
Actually it has been duplicated multiple times with varying results.

Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening found no increase in risk when driving slower than the average driver.

Julie Cirillo came to the same conclusion as Solomon but notice a significant number of accidents involved cars that had slowed down to make a turn. Adjusting the data to account for this found that the curve was more neutral that Solomons.

Adelaide University found the exact opposite of what Solomon found.
You do realize that Adelaide, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening all have one thing in common, they are all from Australia, home of the scamera automated traffic enforcement manufacturing cabal. Everything out of Australia, is essentially perjured testimony, but if you want to put it on the stand, that's your right

Just know that if you resort to using Australia-based sources as your sources, I"m not the only one that will question your integrity and honesty.

Julie Cirillo summed it up nicely in modern times (2003):

"Notwithstanding the many studies over the years, in testimony before the Ohio Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on June 10, 2003, Julie Cirillo, Former Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), testified that "up to the present time there has been no evidence to alter Solomon’s original finding that variance from the mean operating speed is a major contributor to accidents".

I repeat "no evidence." Junk science, maybe. Evidence? None.
Oh I am sorry, I didn't know the laws of physics are different in Australia. I suppose that water freezes at different temps there too.

Of you wish I could dig some and find the ones in the US, but you would find something wrong with them.

Edited to add: I do believe that the Cirillo study was done in the US, the Midwest if memory serves.

And Cirillo is the one that concluded there is no evidence up to the present time to alter Solomon's original curve.

I'm pretty sure Cirillo had access to those so-called Australian studies done prior many years prior to 2003. I don't think it gets any clearer then that.

Just saw a video of a semi truck ramming vehicles because they decided it was a good idea to stop on a foggy day on what appeared to be a high speed highway or Interstate. The authorities were already telling the idiots to get off the road, but it was too late, that kind of speed differential is too high up on the curve. I could post video after video showing anecdotal evidence that speed differentials cause collisions. Was the truck driver going too fast for conditions? Absolutely! Would a collision have been avoided by cars not going 0-5 MPH on the high speed road? Absolutely!

snakeweasel · January 2020

OK I see if it agrees with you it's perfect if it doesnt its preposterous.

As for red light cameras as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. Both sides giving contradictory studies supporting their bias. Cutting through the propaganda it seems to be neutral.

But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

xwesx · January 2020

snakeweasel said:
But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:
OK I see if it agrees with you it's perfect if it doesnt its preposterous.

As for red light cameras as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. Both sides giving contradictory studies supporting their bias. Cutting through the propaganda it seems to be neutral.

But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.

The studies are actually pretty consistent (relatively) when you look at it as a whole. Often, for a single intersection, the differences do fall withing limited sample size and time error.

Even pro-camera City Officials will often admit "Yes, they do increase collisions, but I like that trade-off since the more serious T-bones are reduced in favor of more rear-enders" or some argument to that effect. How many increased collisions (and property damage) is one THEORETICAL limb or life saved worth? That's where a debate on facts could start.

Any study on redlight cameras I've seen that reports "reduced collisions" is always making presposterous claims such as the "halo safety" effects I mentioned, in order to pump up those numbers.

If something is preposterous it is preposterous. I look at data objectively and logically, without any pre-concieved notions. I don't see the anti-camera side using intersections WITH CAMERAS to argue that the safety benefit of that intersection comes from intersections without cameras.

andres3 · January 2020

xwesx said:

snakeweasel said:
But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.
Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh

Well... I can see how if I, or a loved one was involved in one of those 2 collisions, the 100% increase and "doubling" of collisions, I'd be mad at the government for implementing a policy KNOWN TO INCREASE collisions. IMO it is reckless and incompetent for the government to do things that are known to cause more collisons. Period. End of Story. No further discussion needed.

The fact that these cameras cost tax payer money to implement, install, maintain, and use is just icing on the cake. But it is not about the money, or is it?

andres3 · January 2020

Here's a whopper. From my hometown of Sacramento, CA!!!! I wouldn't think a leftist liberal government like that found in Sacramento and in California could write such truth, but they have:

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Data-Maps/Speed-Limits

Key takeaways:

SPEED LIMITS AND COLLISIONS
People frequently ask to lower the speed limit on residential streets to make their streets safer and more livable. It is a common misconception that speed limits signs reduce collisions. Studies indicate that no significant change in average vehicle speeds has occurred after the posting of new or revised speed limit signs. In fact, research shows no direct relationship between posting speed limits and collision frequency.

Wow, our government so rarely writes anything with such logic and truth. This is going to make the myth-believing crowd angry!

snakeweasel · January 2020

andres3 said:

xwesx said:

snakeweasel said:
But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.
Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh
Well... I can see how if I, or a loved one was involved in one of those 2 collisions, the 100% increase and "doubling" of collisions, I'd be mad at the government for implementing a policy KNOWN TO INCREASE collisions. IMO it is reckless and incompetent for the government to do things that are known to cause more collisons. Period. End of Story. No further discussion needed.

The fact that these cameras cost tax payer money to implement, install, maintain, and use is just icing on the cake. But it is not about the money, or is it?

It appears that you are not to knowledgeable with regards to statistics. The number of accidents at an intersection per year is not static. and has to change by whole numbers. Hence a change of one either up or down is statistically insignificant regardless of the starting number. An increase of one is insufficient and therefore cannot be attributed to the red light camera.

Since the average intersection has less than one accident per year you would have to increase the number of accident much greater than 100 percent to make a real case. Now intersections that have or had red light cameras are signaled and have more traffic than the average intersection I would presume they have more accidents but how much more. I for one would like to see not only the raw data on the accidents but data on traffic congestion over the same time. Remember traffic accidents increase as the roads become more congested.

Tell me what do you think about people fighting against policies that could save hundreds of lives every year?

snakeweasel · January 2020

andres3 said:
Here's a whopper. From my hometown of Sacramento, CA!!!! I wouldn't think a leftist liberal government like that found in Sacramento and in California could write such truth, but they have:

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Data-Maps/Speed-Limits

Key takeaways:

SPEED LIMITS AND COLLISIONS
People frequently ask to lower the speed limit on residential streets to make their streets safer and more livable. It is a common misconception that speed limits signs reduce collisions. Studies indicate that no significant change in average vehicle speeds has occurred after the posting of new or revised speed limit signs. In fact, research shows no direct relationship between posting speed limits and collision frequency.
Wow, our government so rarely writes anything with such logic and truth. This is going to make the myth-believing crowd angry!

I dont think that means what you think it means.

elias · January 2020

Which is most/less/least considerate when arriving at a sudden yellow-light in a city with redlight cameras: 1. Avoid citation by slamming on brakes? 2. Avoid citation by flooring it and tailgating? 3. Maintain speed and get cited, taking one for the team? My choice is usually #2. Be careful out there!

stickguy · January 2020

No one ever does 3 intentionally. I will stop for a yellow even without cameras. If that means people behind me have to stop instead of roaring through dead red, that’s their problem.

xwesx · January 2020

I guess it depends on the timing for me. I tend to default to stopping unless the light turns yellow at such a time that it is impractical to stop at my given speed. In Alaska, a red light citation occurs if the vehicle was not in the intersection at the time the light turned red. This means that if you weren't in the intersection by the time the light turned, then you had plenty of time to stop - no excuses.

I know that there are some states that differ on this (e.g., if you're in the intersection when the light is red, then bad on you). I apply my SOP to all locations.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

xwesx said:

snakeweasel said:
But my favorite on this was on my home town when the anti camera people were complaining that at on intersection with a red light camera the number of accidents doubled. It went from 1 to 2.
Hahah! Yeah, everyone loves to cite meaningless stuff like that. An intersection at an overpass here, and the local government wants to put in a roundabout. There's absolutely no need for it, yet they claim that it is a safety issue.... with one injury collision there in the past ten years! They claim that it is "the most dangerous intersection of its kind in Alaska." I told the lady, "Well, that data tells me that this type of intersection is incredibly safe overall, not that this one is dangerous." I think their real motivation is that they know this area of the road needs major repairs soon, and if they can push this roundabout "upgrade" through, the federal government will pick up 90% of the tab, which makes the project cheaper for them overall. /sigh
Well... I can see how if I, or a loved one was involved in one of those 2 collisions, the 100% increase and "doubling" of collisions, I'd be mad at the government for implementing a policy KNOWN TO INCREASE collisions. IMO it is reckless and incompetent for the government to do things that are known to cause more collisons. Period. End of Story. No further discussion needed.

The fact that these cameras cost tax payer money to implement, install, maintain, and use is just icing on the cake. But it is not about the money, or is it?
It appears that you are not to knowledgeable with regards to statistics. The number of accidents at an intersection per year is not static. and has to change by whole numbers. Hence a change of one either up or down is statistically insignificant regardless of the starting number. An increase of one is insufficient and therefore cannot be attributed to the red light camera.

Since the average intersection has less than one accident per year you would have to increase the number of accident much greater than 100 percent to make a real case. Now intersections that have or had red light cameras are signaled and have more traffic than the average intersection I would presume they have more accidents but how much more. I for one would like to see not only the raw data on the accidents but data on traffic congestion over the same time. Remember traffic accidents increase as the roads become more congested.

Tell me what do you think about people fighting against policies that could save hundreds of lives every year?

I agree a single or even a few intersections over a few years may not provide a sufficient sample size. No argument there.

Saving hundreds of lives a year sounds like a good cause for all parties and all people of any political affiliation or background. However, at what cost? And who's paying for it?

There is a limit on how much "safety" we can all logically afford. Law of diminishing returns certainly applies here. The evidence on "saving hundreds of lives" yearly should be rock solid and conclusive to undertake changes that bring on a lot of negative effects, both intended, predicted, and those other negative effects that perhaps were not intended, the usual unpredictable or UNINTENDED consequences of ill-thought out change.

Tell me, what do you think about people fighting for policies to remain in place (status quo) that are shown to be underperforming from their own predictive data, or worse, performing counter-productively to their intended benefits (making things even worse, ie; killing even more people). Vision Zero is guilty of this. Results come in that they made things worse, not better. Usual reaction is not admitting "oh, we were fools and we were wrong, sorry abou that." The typical beuaraucratic response is "more of the same, we need MORE of the same, and it'll work next time!" You get this reaction despite royally failing initially. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Doubling down on "more of the same" is tantamount to doing the same thing.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
Here's a whopper. From my hometown of Sacramento, CA!!!! I wouldn't think a leftist liberal government like that found in Sacramento and in California could write such truth, but they have:

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Data-Maps/Speed-Limits

Key takeaways:

SPEED LIMITS AND COLLISIONS
People frequently ask to lower the speed limit on residential streets to make their streets safer and more livable. It is a common misconception that speed limits signs reduce collisions. Studies indicate that no significant change in average vehicle speeds has occurred after the posting of new or revised speed limit signs. In fact, research shows no direct relationship between posting speed limits and collision frequency.
Wow, our government so rarely writes anything with such logic and truth. This is going to make the myth-believing crowd angry!
I dont think that means what you think it means.

LOL. It means exactly what it says. It's written very clearly and simply. Extremely forthright and straightforward.

What do you think it means?

I know many in the "speed kills" myth believing crowd rely on presumptions and assumptions that fly directly in the face of the facts quoted above.

Things like, "people will always do 10 over." Never mind that a Corolla (among many other cars) can't do 130 MPH so maintaining 10 over if the speed limit was set at 120 would be impossible, let alone even probable. Anyone that's put any thought or logic into driving and traffic safety knows that "people will always go 10 over" is patently false.

andres3 · January 2020

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21659

What's your interpretation of this "drive right" law?

andres3 · January 2020

Left lane camper low IQ logic often entails "Why should I (Insert stupidity here) if I'm going the speed limit?"

I don't understand the logic, so I must ask:

If you believe going the speed limit makes you immune to all passing lane rules and laws, why don't you believe driving the getaway car at the speed limit should make robbing a bank legal?

dordeduca · April 2020

I found on the net some pictures with impressive cars but also photography tricks. How long do you think I was taught to take such pictures? https://4photographers.blogspot.com/2020/04/tutorial-photoshop.html

snakeweasel · July 2020

Not exactly an inconsiderate driver but strange none the less. I was on a road one lane in each direction 35 MPH speed limit, there was one car quite a bit ahead of me that I was slowly gaining on, I was doing a bit under 40. A pickup truck came up behind me fast enough for me to keep an eye on but not enough to concern me.

Well at this point the road opens up to 2 lanes in each direction, the car ahead of me stays in his lane so he is in the left lane and I take the right lane. Now the pickup passes me and sits behind the other car. Now mind you that other car is far enough ahead of me to pass me, merge into the right lane and pass the other car with no problem. But he doesnt and I eventually passed both of them.

Just after I pass them the truck jumps back behind me and we approach a red light. At the light the other car gets into the left turn lane and the pick up truck quickly changes lanes and pulls up next to me at the light. The light turns green and I floor it, no not really just a very mild acceleration until I hit just over the speed limit. However I leave the pickup truck way behind me. I'm driving the Sebring which isn't a very fast car so he should have easily kept up with me if not gotten ahead of me.

Anyway after I got ahead of him he changed lanes an got behind me again. Now mind you all this time I was in no way trying to keep him from passing of wad I going fast. He had plenty of opportunity to get pass me.

Anyway after a few blocks from the stop light I pulled off the road and stopped. not sure what the pickup driver was doing.

ronsteve · August 2020

It's been rainy here in Louisville, so the last few nights seem to feature at least 2-3 drivers with completely unnecessary high beams. And each morning there's at least a few idiots that need to take the Snyder's long sweeping curve just before LaGrange Road at 50 mph, leaving me with the choice of sitting behind them, or dive-bombing past them before I exit.

But the Idiot of the Week was driving a riced-out Honda Fit on Friday evening. He looked like he was approaching a 4-way stop a little fast, but not enough to scare me out of taking my turn. He turned, so he was then coming up behind me, and maybe a quarter mile down the road I slow a bit as a vehicle in front of me was making a left turn. After another mile and a half, I had to come to a stop behind another car that was waiting to make a left. At that time, I heard him revving his engine and could just make out that he was flashing his lights at me (so close behind that I could only see maybe half his hood in my rear view). Once the car in front of me cleared, we were on our way again, and he was flashing his lights as he closed up to tailgate me. I slowed to the 35 mph SL briefly, then accelerated away enough that there was a decent gap as the SL increased to 45. Of course, the one signal light on the rest of the trip was red, and he revved his engine as he sat behind me waiting for the light (I was probably 3rd or 4th in line). Once it turned green, I turned right and he went straight, and that was the end of it. Still wonder WTF his problem was.

xwesx · June 2023

I rode my bicycle to work this morning for the first time this year. I am happy to report that, aside from the general cluelessness that tends to pervade the driving public when it comes to small vehicles on (or near) the roads, I encountered no jerks or near-misses! I hope I find the same amount of tolerance on the way home tonight!

andres3 · February 3

snakeweasel said:
I have witnessed the speeding up while being passed ideal numerous times around here, on highways and surface streets both. It fits in with the local passive aggressive attitude. They will almost always give up and slow back down once you've moved past.

My guess is that there is a physcological reason for this in may cases. I would bet that alot of drivers don't realize they do it. It's just a natural reaction to match speeds with the "group". I know I have done it without even thinking, but when I have realized it I try to get back to my old speed.

Passing on the right is fine in WA anyway, here's the law:

I am pretty sure it is legal in every state as long as you don't leave the road i.e. you are in a designated lane.

So in other words, completely oblivious inept, incompetent driving causes it.

andres3 · February 3

stever said:
There have been a slew of aggressive driving posts in here recently, including members advocating illegal actions, and many of those posts have been removed.

As a reminder the Membership Agreement provides "We do not allow the promotion of illegal conduct or activities or fraudulent schemes in the Community Services. Specifically, you may not advocate illegal conduct, such as street racing, reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

Additionally this discussion is about other lousy drivers we see running our errands or on our commutes. It's not about other posters.

For the record, was reading some old emails and this characterization of promoting illegal conduct is absurd at best. Illogical for certain.

andres3 · February 3

hammerhead said:

xwesx said:

Mr_Shiftright said:
Ah, yes, --autonomous cars---one more instance of the Iron Fist of Technology squeezing the juice out of the sweet plum of life.

(I thought that was rather good, actually, if a bit overwrought)

Indeed!

In my attempt to be a realist, I am going to surmise that we're about five years out from rollout of self-driving modes on *some* car models in some instances. Most likely relegation of these early roll-outs will be in luxury lines. In twenty years, self-driving modes will be widespread to the point that human driving will account for the minority of driving miles. Forty years (TOPS), human driving BANNED in this country except on controlled courses.

Damn; I just depressed myself big time.

"From my cold, dead hands..."

Looks like you were a bit bullish on those predictions. Here we are halfway into your 20 year prediction.

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles