Speed kills

[BrewfanGRB]

 

And if you're going 85, I'm sorry, but speed is potentially a factor in your crash.

 

 

Sorry, but I don't care if I'm going 103 mph. There's not a hell of a lot I can do against a drunk driver going the WRONG WAY on a divided highway. In my mind, he's fully and absolutely liable. It's like failing to yield. If you're at a stop sign, it's YOUR JOB to see me, determine how fast I'm going and whether it's safe to proceed from the stop. You yield to me, even if I am going 103 mph. If you pull out and we collide, would we have if I had been going 30? Clearly not. But all you had to do was stay stopped until traffic was clear to allow you to proceed.

 

And for the record, yes, I understand every state has different laws governing liability. Many, including Wisconsin, are contributory negligence states, which means my argument holds no water. My speed will be used as a factor and determing the negligence each driver contributed to a collision. But I'm speaking purely from my opinion as to who's liable.

[BrewfanGRB]

 

Do you have any *evidence* that investigators are being pressured to override their judgment? Because if not, this goes onto a shelf right next to the Fake Moon Landing papers.

 

I'm not saying it's entirely a "conspiracy" nor that there's pressure, per se. But rather, DOTs and police agencies need to justify their actions and their existence. If they couldn't say some ridiculous percentage of crashes had speed as a contributing factor, they couldn't turn around and argue for speed limits and increased enforcement of speed limits, etc. They say "64% of fatalities had speed as a contributing factor" and non-thinkers' reaction is "stop the evil speeders!". So, law enforcement works harder to stop evil speeders. And DOTs do idiotic PSAs starring Donald Driver with messages like "Zero in Wisconsin...a goal we can all live with". Apparently, WisDOT never had a class on goal setting...where the #1 rule is make your goal realistic and attainable.

[RichardJensen]

 

In my mind, he's fully and absolutely liable

 

Well, you'd be dead, so, you know, you're not going to get a lot of satisfaction from that.

 

And that's basically the point. You can't do much to improve people's reaction times and you can only do so much to mitigate crash impact forces, so yeah. Speed kills, and will always kill. Best bet is to drive like everyone else is an idiot----because if what you've seen on the road so far hasn't convinced you of that, either you haven't been paying attention, or you're one of the idiots.

Edited December 14, 2013 by RichardJensen

[BrewfanGRB]

Heh, fair enough. I do lots of driving and do drive under the assumption everyone else is an idiot. But my problem is if I'm doing 65, it's still a very tough job to avoid the wrong way driver. If I don't, I'm still dead, so doing the speed limit did me no good. Except, I guess, it'll be harder for the police or DOT to find a way I contributed to the crash. My family can take solace from that.

[NickF1011]

 

Power != Speed

 

You don't need that much power to drive 90 MPH. A car with 400 HP will drive under the speed limit.

 

Depends how much road you have. I could probably hit 90 going through my neighborhood in my Cobra if I really wanted to. I doubt my Edge could get up that fast in the space provided.

[akirby]

 

Depends how much road you have. I could probably hit 90 going through my neighborhood in my Cobra if I really wanted to. I doubt my Edge could get up that fast in the space provided.

 

Which is more dangerous? Going around a 35 mph curve at 45 in the Edge or 65 in the Cobra?

[fordmantpw]

 

Depends how much road you have. I could probably hit 90 going through my neighborhood in my Cobra if I really wanted to. I doubt my Edge could get up that fast in the space provided.

 

Acceleration != Speed

[NickF1011]

 

Which is more dangerous? Going around a 35 mph curve at 45 in the Edge or 65 in the Cobra?

 

Depends. If there's nothing hidden around the curve and the road is dry...

 

 

Acceleration != Speed

 

Acceleration allows you to reach higher speed in a shorter amount of time.

[akirby]

Why is the Autobahn safer than U.S. freeways? Shouldn't it be a death trap?

[fordmantpw]

Acceleration allows you to reach higher speed in a shorter amount of time.

 

True. But your original premise was that more HP = more speed = more deaths.

 

I give up!

[grbeck]

 

Think about this:

 

How can one 'prove' the validity of something unless it is being questioned? Therefore one cannot 'prove' something until it is being tested.

 

Several posters are questioning the data, and so far, I haven't seen any independent tests validating these findings.

 

 

 

And when did we assume that the burden of proof falls not on the one calling the statement into question, but the one being questioned?

 

Anyone offering these statistics as proving something first bears the burden of proving that the data is valid. That will immediately involve an examination of the methods used to collect the data to ensure that they are consistently applied over time and across police departments in the country.

Edited December 16, 2013 by grbeck

[NickF1011]

Why is the Autobahn safer than U.S. freeways? Shouldn't it be a death trap?

 

 

A couple of reasons:

 

1. The roads themselves are designed to accommodate higher speed traffic - wider, smoother lanes; longer exit/entrance ramps, etc.

 

2. Drivers are trained much better.

 

3. I'm also pretty sure much of the EU has stricter required maintenance standards, making the vehicles themselves safer to operate at speed. Heck most states in the US don't have any safety inspections after the date of purchase.

 

I've never stated here that speed alone is dangerous. Get past that part already. Combine it with many other things that may or may not result in catastrophe and the chances of something bad happening increase dramatically.

 

 

True. But your original premise was that more HP = more speed = more deaths.

 

I give up!

 

If you can reach speed faster, I'm thinking there are more people at speed.

Edited December 16, 2013 by NickF1011

[fordmantpw]

If you can reach speed faster, I'm thinking there are more people at speed.

 

I don't think I've ever been on a road where I couldn't reach the speed limit, even with my anemic Bronco II.

[NickF1011]

 

I don't think I've ever been on a road where I couldn't reach the speed limit, even with my anemic Bronco II.

 

But a more powerful vehicle could reach and exceed that speed limit a lot sooner than your Bronco II could.

 

We could also throw in that many of these more powerful vehicles are unnecessarily wasting more gasoline than their less powerful counterparts. And before I hear all the "Well the new so-and-so with 100 more horsepower gets better fuel economy than the old so-and-so with less power" just look at it this way instead: Which is more fuel efficient: a 2014 4-cylinder Camry or a 2014 V6 Camry?

Edited December 16, 2013 by NickF1011

[akirby]

 

But a more powerful vehicle could reach and exceed that speed limit a lot sooner than your Bronco II could.

 

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of reckless driving or accidents. It's the driver, not the vehicle.

[fordmantpw]

 

But a more powerful vehicle could reach and exceed that speed limit a lot sooner than your Bronco II could.

 

OK, you got me. For those extra 5 seconds while getting up to speed, the more powerful vehicle is traveling at a higher rate of speed, and could, potentially, put the driver at greater risk. That is assuming that the driver is, actually, USING all of that extra power. I would also say that I could accelerate up to speed as quickly in my old Bronco II as most people do in their more powerful sleds since they are only using a small portion of the available power.

 

Power != more deaths.

[NickF1011]

 

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of reckless driving or accidents. It's the driver, not the vehicle.

 

I dunno. I'd say a bad driver could probably get into a lot more trouble in a Dodge Viper than in a Dodge Dart. Does that mean a Dart couldn't cause an accident? Of course not.

Edited December 16, 2013 by NickF1011

[akirby]

 

I dunno. I'd say a bad driver could probably get into a lot more trouble in a Dodge Viper than in a Dodge Dart. Does that mean a Dart couldn't cause an accident? Of course not.

 

A safe driver is a safe driver regardless of the vehicle they're driving. A bad driver is an unsafe driver no matter what they're driving. Agreed?

[NickF1011]

 

A safe driver is a safe driver regardless of the vehicle they're driving. A bad driver is an unsafe driver no matter what they're driving. Agreed?

 

Agreed, but I'd say a similar analogy could be firearms. A responsible gun owner won't accidentally kill anyone, regardless of what weapons he owns, but an irresponsible one with a machine gun could kill a lot more than he could with a revolver.

 

Like guns though, I don't think any vehicles should be outright banned because they have potential to be dangerous, but I also wouldn't advocate gun manufacturers giving them away willy nilly either. Automakers should just keep in mind what they are putting into the hands of every day (and often really bad) drivers.

Edited December 16, 2013 by NickF1011

[RichardJensen]

 

Several posters are questioning the data, and so far, I haven't seen any independent tests validating these findings.

 

 

 

 

Anyone offering these statistics as proving something first bears the burden of proving that the data is valid. That will immediately involve an examination of the methods used to collect the data to ensure that they are consistently applied over time and across police departments in the country.

 

This is garbage, grbeck.

 

PROVE that you are a US citizen.

[shaggy314]

point is..."speed" has nothing to do with power....I dont think theres a lot of 0-60 fatalities......

 

Yeah... pretty much they are all 60-0... you know the sudden stop part. ;-)

[silvrsvt]

 

A couple of reasons:

 

1. The roads themselves are designed to accommodate higher speed traffic - wider, smoother lanes; longer exit/entrance ramps, etc.

 

2. Drivers are trained much better.

 

 

 

 

Actually I find that the US highways I've traveled to be much better then the Autobahn...for christs sake they don't even crown the Autobahn! I had an accident (was a passenger) when a friend of mine hydroplanned his Civic across the highway at high rate of speed due to the water in the middle of the highway! Not to mention the traffic is awful on them nearly all the time, without an useful alternatives to get where you're going roadwise.

 

Yes drivers might be better trained, but they are also spending big money on getting that licence, where as in the US, a license is fairly inexpensive to get, which helps weed out people too.

[fordmantpw]

I recall reading that the most dangerous roads are two-lane, rural roads. Speed is often a factor in accidents that happen on these roads. But, on these roads, 60 mph can be fast, particularly in places like Pennsylvania, where many rural roads feature hills, poorly marked intersections and sharp corners.

 

As someone who lives on and travels a lot of these rural two lane roads (the nearest 4-lane road is 10+ miles away), there are a lot of factors that go into that. First off, there aren't any shoulders. Off to the side a bit and you're in the ditch. This isn't speed, this is attentiveness. Second, there's nowhere to go if a driver coming at you crosses the center line. Again, not necessarily speed. Not to mention, lots of drunkards coming home from the bars. Lot's of inexperienced teenagers. Not necessarily speed, nor power.

[Schpark]

I argue that more acceleration is a good thing, especially with my motorcycles. I have had numerous occasions where I got away from trouble caused by idiot drivers due to having high acceleration capability.

[silvrsvt]

 

As someone who lives on and travels a lot of these rural two lane roads (the nearest 4-lane road is 10+ miles away), there are a lot of factors that go into that. First off, there aren't any shoulders. Off to the side a bit and you're in the ditch. This isn't speed, this is attentiveness. Second, there's nowhere to go if a driver coming at you crosses the center line. Again, not necessarily speed. Not to mention, lots of drunkards coming home from the bars. Lot's of inexperienced teenagers. Not necessarily speed, nor power.

 

 

Thats another good point...I live in a "rural" county and the back 2 lane roads have no shoulders what to speak of and we have plenty of accidents in the area because of this.