Speed kills

[NickF1011]

Can't really think of a good place on the forums to stick this, so I'll throw something I stumbled across here:

 

 

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, speeding as a contributing factor in fatal auto wrecks has increased by a whopping 30 percent between 2000 and 2011.

 

I've railed a few times on the forums about many cars simply having way more power than is necessary anymore. Could this be evidence of it?

[RangerM]

Can't really think of a good place on the forums to stick this, so I'll throw something I stumbled across here:

 

 

 

I've railed a few times on the forums about many cars simply having way more power than is necessary anymore. Could this be evidence of it?

Possibly, but if you take away low-speed crashes (that would formerly have been fatal in older cars), then what you have left has a greater percentage that are high speed.

 

It would depend on the raw numbers of wrecks.

[NickF1011]

Possibly, but if you take away low-speed crashes (that would formerly have been fatal in older cars), then what you have left has a greater percentage that are high speed.

 

It would depend on the raw numbers of wrecks.

 

I think they are meaning fatal accidents where speeding is a contributing factor have increased 30% in the past 11 years, so low-speed crashes don't factor into it at all.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[92merc]

Personally, I would say it's a more a matter of "the higher the speed, the more likely a crash has the possibility of being fatal". Depending on the cars safety factors, it's going to depend on what speed will result in death on a particular car.

 

But as a whole, I would also add that the higher you are traveling over the posted speed limit, the chances of you being in a crash probably increase greatly.

[fordmantpw]

Can't really think of a good place on the forums to stick this, so I'll throw something I stumbled across here:

 

 

 

I've railed a few times on the forums about many cars simply having way more power than is necessary anymore. Could this be evidence of it?

 

Well, it's not like you need 400HP to reach speeds that most drivers can't handle. An I4 Focus has enough power to reach lethal speeds for inattentive drivers. I don't think it is the power as much as it is the fact that folks are too distracted, don't pay as much attention, and don't realize how fast they are going. I would say quietness in the cabin and smooth riding is more of a factor that HP. It's easy to cruise along at 80+ and not realize how fast you're going since cars have gotten so smooth and quiet.

[RichardJensen]

I'd have to see what they're talking about.

 

Are they talking about a 30% increase in speed related fatalities, or are they talking about a 30% increase in the percentage of fatalities attributable to speed?

 

Because overall highway fatalities are on a downward trend, and have been for the last 40 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

 

Overall fatalities fell 23% between 2000 and 2011, so I'd find it a bit hard to believe that raw numbers are up 30%. Primarily because, with all fatalities declining, a 30% increase in one class would result in a much larger increase as a percentage of all fatalities, and that number would probably end up getting the press.

[NickF1011]

 

Well, it's not like you need 400HP to reach speeds that most drivers can't handle. An I4 Focus has enough power to reach lethal speeds for inattentive drivers. I don't think it is the power as much as it is the fact that folks are too distracted, don't pay as much attention, and don't realize how fast they are going. I would say quietness in the cabin and smooth riding is more of a factor that HP. It's easy to cruise along at 80+ and not realize how fast you're going since cars have gotten so smooth and quiet.

 

But these are accidents where speed was determined as a factor, not distracted driving (although it might include that as well). And yes, cars have gotten smooth and quiet, because (with the power they have) they don't need to rev until your fillings rattle to hit higher speeds. And don't people speed more when they are in a car that can get there more easily?

[silvrsvt]

 

Well, it's not like you need 400HP to reach speeds that most drivers can't handle. An I4 Focus has enough power to reach lethal speeds for inattentive drivers. I don't think it is the power as much as it is the fact that folks are too distracted, don't pay as much attention, and don't realize how fast they are going. I would say quietness in the cabin and smooth riding is more of a factor that HP. It's easy to cruise along at 80+ and not realize how fast you're going since cars have gotten so smooth and quiet.

 

True, not matter how "fast" a car is, you can always get it up to an unsafe speed.

[NickF1011]

Primarily because, with all fatalities declining, a 30% increase in one class would result in a much larger increase as a percentage of all fatalities, and that number would probably end up getting the press.

 

Unless speeding as a factor was a relatively low contributor to begin with (apparently it's not).

 

EDIT: Hmmm...trying to reconcile that with this chart from NHTSA. http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-crash-fatality-statistics-2/

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[SoonerLS]

But as a whole, I would also add that the higher you are traveling over the posted speed limit, the chances of you being in a crash probably increase greatly.

As I recall the statistics, the speed limit was actually irrelevant; it's the speed differential relative to the rest of the traffic that matters. That's why we have minimum speeds on highways and interstates--people driving slower than the surrounding traffic are just as much a hazard as those who go flying by it.

[NickF1011]

Okay: Found the actual statistic. It was really buried:

 

The percentage of overall traffic fatalities with speed as a contributing factor are up 7% since 2000, which is a 29% increase in that time (from 24% of all fatalities to 31%).

 

By comparison, over the same period, the percentage of deaths from the other largest contributor, drunk driving, dropped by 3%.

 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/survey/2012_speed.pdf

 

 

 

 

I still don't think a Camry needs 300 horsepower.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[RichardJensen]

Ah, see, there you go. The bigger number leads, even if it's more confusing.

 

Also, the glitch with the stats you linked to is this:

 

"Date Verified: 11.27.2012"

 

The 2012 numbers were incomplete.

[NickF1011]

Ah, see, there you go. The bigger number leads, even if it's more confusing.

 

Also, the glitch with the stats you linked to is this:

 

"Date Verified: 11.27.2012"

 

The 2012 numbers were incomplete.

 

Eh...doubt you'd have much of an anomaly in a month's time that couldn't be extrapolated using data from previous years, but suppose if you want to be technical...

[RichardJensen]

 

Eh...doubt you'd have much of an anomaly in a month's time that couldn't be extrapolated using data from previous years, but suppose if you want to be technical...

 

But it's not clear what months that data covers. That may not have been the Jan-Oct. numbers for all 50 states....

[fordmantpw]

 

But these are accidents where speed was determined as a factor, not distracted driving (although it might include that as well). And yes, cars have gotten smooth and quiet, because (with the power they have) they don't need to rev until your fillings rattle to hit higher speeds. And don't people speed more when they are in a car that can get there more easily?

 

Can distracted driving lead to higher speeds? I say yes, but it may show up as a high-speed accident, and not necessarily one caused by inattentiveness.

 

And my old '86 Bronco II (which was a dog) could reach higher speeds easy enough, I just chose not too since I could feel the front end start to shake at about 70.

[grbeck]

Can't really think of a good place on the forums to stick this, so I'll throw something I stumbled across here:

 

 

 

I've railed a few times on the forums about many cars simply having way more power than is necessary anymore. Could this be evidence of it?

If you are driving 60 mph on a road with a 35 mph speed limit and have a fatal accident, then speed was a contributing factor to the accident. If the roads were icy, and you have a fatal accident while traveling at 60 mph, then speed was a contributing factor the accident. Speed isn't only factor in those accidents where the car was traveling at triple-digit speeds, or even 90 mph.

 

My dad's 1973 AMC Gremlin and 1986 Escort Pony could easily hit 60 mph, so I wouldn't be so quick to blame cars with high horsepower.

 

I'd take this report with a rock-sized grain of salt. This group has been squawking about the sky falling since the repeal of the national 65 mph speed limit. Meanwhile, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled keeps dropping to record low figures.

 

Most fatal accidents happen at surprisingly low speeds. When news of the fatal Paul Walker accident first hit the news, most people were breathlessly assuming that the car was traveling at triple-digit speeds when it hit the light pole and then the tree. Now investigators believe that the Porsche was traveling at...45 mph at the time of the accident.

[fordmantpw]

I still don't think a Camry needs 300 horsepower.

 

Says the man who's Mustang has 500!

 

But I agree that Camries don't need that kind of power.

[akirby]

As I recall the statistics, the speed limit was actually irrelevant; it's the speed differential relative to the rest of the traffic that matters. That's why we have minimum speeds on highways and interstates--people driving slower than the surrounding traffic are just as much a hazard as those who go flying by it.

 

True that. Atlanta is actually raising speed limits on portions of I-285 from 55 to 65 or 70 for that very reason - to reduce the speed differential from the slowpokes who actually do the speed limit versus everyone else who drives 75-85.

 

 

That said - this whole "speed as a contributing factor" thing is bogus. It's a subjective attribute that gets applied haphazardly and AFAIK with no clear rules or guidelines. Speed in and of itself is hardly ever the cause of an accident or even a contributing factor to the cause of an accident. Unless you take a corner too fast then it usually comes down to simply losing control of the vehicle due to inattention or equipment failure or reckless driving. And a lot of the fatalities are fatalities because stupid people don't wear seat belts and they get ejected.

 

Speed is always a "contributing factor" - if you nothing is moving then there wouldn't be an accident.

 

Higher speed can make the accident worse and it reduces your reaction time to something happening in front of you but I don't consider that a root cause or contributing factor in most cases. Going 60 in a 45 around a gentle curve on dry roads is not going to cause an accident. Losing control of the vehicle or driving too fast for conditions (wet or icy roads e.g.) or a mechanical failure can but that's not because you're doing 60.

[RichardJensen]

Well, akirby, by that logic, 'stupidity' is the leading cause of highway fatalities.

 

You're over driving road conditions, driving faster than you can stop, driving faster than you can react, you're driving while drunk, driving while eating a Big Mac that is dropping lettuce and 'secret sauce' into your lap, driving while high because---hey, if marijuana is legal, then it's legal to drive after toking up, driving while texting, driving while whatever... bottom line, you're doing something stupid!

Edited December 4, 2013 by RichardJensen

[SoonerLS]

And don't people speed more when they are in a car that can get there more easily?

I've seen no evidence to support that hypothesis--the cars I see go blowing past me on the interstate tend to be what most people would consider to be underpowered poopboxes. It is, IMHO, more a condemnation of the woeful state of driver's education in our country than it is of the horsepower wars.

[grbeck]

My only objection to 300 horsepower in Camrys is that most drivers seem to be too timid or distracted to use most of it. The Camry is rapidly becoming the Buick LeSabre of the 21st century, just as the Corolla has become the Plymouth Valiant of the 21st century.

 

Toyota could stuff 500 horsepower under the hood of the 2014 Corolla and most of them would still be trundling along at 60 mph, even if the speed limit is 75 mph.

Edited December 4, 2013 by grbeck

[Deanh]

Can't really think of a good place on the forums to stick this, so I'll throw something I stumbled across here:

 

 

 

I've railed a few times on the forums about many cars simply having way more power than is necessary anymore. Could this be evidence of it?

lest we forget one can speed in a Prius.......

[SoonerLS]

lest we forget one can speed in a Prius.......

I would call BS on that, but I've had Prii blow past me on the interstate--and I'm not a slowpoke.

[grbeck]

lest we forget one can speed in a Prius.......

I swear that 90 percent of them I see on highways are moving along at 80 mph. And Pennsylvania's speed limit is 65 mph.

[Deanh]

 

But these are accidents where speed was determined as a factor, not distracted driving (although it might include that as well). And yes, cars have gotten smooth and quiet, because (with the power they have) they don't need to rev until your fillings rattle to hit higher speeds. And don't people speed more when they are in a car that can get there more easily?

being on a bike makes me a lot more aware of consistant offenders....and no, its not based on horsepower, the worst are Prius, Minivans, Civics, bleach blondes on cell phones in BMWs, Suburbans/ Tahoes and last but not least Range Rovers......and before we touch on Steretypes, please realize this is based on 70000 miles on the Motorbike......