Speed kills

[Deanh]

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.

and they CANNOT hold a straight line.....

[Deanh]

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

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

[grbeck]

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

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.

[NickF1011]

Meanwhile, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled keeps dropping to record low figures.

 

But not in instances where speed is determined to be a factor. Seems to be the only area that isn't seeing a decrease.

[akirby]

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!

 

Exactly!!!

 

My point was that most accidents are caused by driver error (failing to maintain lane, following too closely, failure to yield, etc) or mechanical failure. Not because somebody was driving 60 in a 45. And a lot of fatal accidents would not be fatal if folks wore their seatbelts.

 

If you go around a normal 40 mph corner at 55 mph and you run off the road and crash it's not because you were doing 55. It's because you lost control of the vehicle. If you were doing 100 on a 40 mph corner then yes - speeding would be the cause.

[akirby]

 

But not in instances where speed is determined to be a factor. Seems to be the only area that isn't seeing a decrease.

 

Show me the rules or guidelines as to when speed should be listed as a contributing factor in an accident report.

[NickF1011]

 

Says the man who's Mustang has 500!

 

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

 

I wouldn't suggest everyone should drive 500 horsepower Mustangs either. Heck, I'll be the first to admit I probably shouldn't even have been behind the wheel of my Cobra at age 19 even when it was stock with its 305 measly horsepower.

 

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.

 

Guess you and I see different things. I remember the rare econobox flying by at breakneck speed most often because it's just that: rare. Much more often it's cars of a "sporty" nature. There's a reason they cost more to insure.

[NickF1011]

 

Show me the rules or guidelines as to when speed should be listed as a contributing factor in an accident report.

 

You had to ask right after I closed the very page that described that, didn't you?

 

EDIT: They define it as exceeding the posted limit, driving too fast for conditions, or racing.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[92merc]

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.

I made the incorrect assumption that traffic was moving at the speed limit. Which is usually the case where I'm from. But I know that isn't the case when I travel to MN...

[NickF1011]

To look at this from another perspective overall, since rates have only spiked recently back to where they previously were, what can be done to reduce speed-related fatal accidents where rates for other causes of accidents are already in decline?

[fordmantpw]

To look at this from another perspective overall, since rates have only spiked recently back to where they previously were, what can be done to reduce speed-related fatal accidents where rates for other causes of accidents are already in decline?

 

GPS speed limiters. Don't let cars go above the posted speed limit where the car is traveling. Pretty simple, eh?

[NickF1011]

 

GPS speed limiters. Don't let cars go above the posted speed limit where the car is traveling. Pretty simple, eh?

 

Pretty expensive too. Hopefully there would be some leeway there too. I've seen the posted limits on my GPS incorrect several times.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[Lucifer]

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

 

 

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.

 

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?

 

How are you guys defining "necessary," "lethal speed," and "unsafe speed"?

[NickF1011]

 

 

 

 

How are you guys defining "necessary," "lethal speed," and "unsafe speed"?

 

Certainly up to interpretation, but I would say it often depends on conditions (of both the road and the driver).

 

I really think the only solution is better driver education. In America, we do it wrong.

[grbeck]

 

You had to ask right after I closed the very page that described that, didn't you?

 

EDIT: They define it as exceeding the posted limit, driving too fast for conditions, or racing.

Which further proves that this report is basically meaningless. Driving 70 mph on a road marked 65 mph does not automatically make one death on wheels, nor does it mean that any accident that happens is the result of traveling at 70 mph instead of 65 mph.

 

Any accident is automatically classified as a "speed related" accident under these guidelines.

 

And, as noted, there are times when driving at 50 mph is "too fast for conditions."

 

Of course, given how dependent many state and local governments are on revenue from traffic tickets, it's in the interests of governors to keep squawking that the sky is falling...that way the police can continue to pull people over for the heinous crime of driving, say, 75 mph on an interstate marked with a 65 mph speed limit.

 

 

[NickF1011]

Which further proves that this report is basically meaningless. Driving 70 mph on a road marked 65 mph does not automatically make one death on wheels, nor does it mean that any accident that happens is the result of traveling at 70 mph instead of 65 mph.

 

Any accident is automatically classified as a "speed related" accident under these guidelines.

 

And, as noted, there are times when driving at 50 mph is "too fast for conditions."

 

Of course, given how dependent many state and local governments are on revenue from traffic tickets, it's in the interests of governors to keep squawking that the sky is falling...that way the police can continue to pull people over for the heinous crime of driving, say, 75 mph on an interstate marked with a 65 mph speed limit.

 

 

 

I think they have some discretion there. I don't think any accident report for a car estimated to be traveling 70 in a 65 would list speed as a factor (unless conditions would warrant it.)

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[akirby]

 

You had to ask right after I closed the very page that described that, didn't you?

 

EDIT: They define it as exceeding the posted limit, driving too fast for conditions, or racing.

 

Who is "they" and how do we know that the reporting agencies are all following the same rules in reporting the accidents?

 

My issue is that just because someone was exceeding the speed limit when the accident occurred that does not mean that speeding was a contributing factor to the accident. e.g.

 

I can do 60 in a 45 but maintain a safe distance from the car in front of me and have plenty of room to stop. Someone else can do 46 in a 45 but not pay attention and run into someone from behind. In those cases speed was not a cause of the accident or in any way to blame for the accident. Likewise driving too fast for conditions has nothing to do with absolute speed or the speed limit.

 

If you can clearly demonstrate that the accident would not have happened if the driver had been driving at or below the speed limit then that's fine. Otherwise don't say speed was a contributing factor.

[NickF1011]

Can of worms successfully opened.

[akirby]

 

I think they have some discretion there. I don't think any accident report for a car estimated to be traveling 70 in a 65 would list speed as a factor (unless conditions would warrant it.)

 

Then they're not following the guidelines and the data is worthless.

 

 

The real answer is better drivers and that only happens with better training (not "education"). We don't train drivers how to handle emergency situations or how to adjust their driving for road conditions or impress upon them the importance of not being distracted. It's too easy to get a license and almost impossible to take it away and even if you take it away it's impossible to prevent them from driving anyway.

[NickF1011]

If you can clearly demonstrate that the accident would not have happened if the driver had been driving at or below the speed limit then that's fine. Otherwise don't say speed was a contributing factor.

 

Clearly demonstrate how? A time machine? All accident reconstructions are, to some extent, guess work. Can you definitively prove that the guy with a 0.24 BAC wasn't in control of his vehicle when it plowed into the school bus in the middle of an intersection? Maybe the drunk guy had the legal right-of-way. They're still going to list alcohol as a contributing factor. :shrug:

[Deanh]

To look at this from another perspective overall, since rates have only spiked recently back to where they previously were, what can be done to reduce speed-related fatal accidents where rates for other causes of accidents are already in decline?

easy...go back to no ABS, cross traffic, seatbelts, Traction Control, accident avoidence, Adaptive Cruise.etc and teach people to become DEFENSIVE drivers.....lol

[NickF1011]

easy...go back to no ABS, cross traffic, seatbelts, Traction Control, accident avoidence, Adaptive Cruise.etc and teach people to become DEFENSIVE drivers.....lol

 

I think that would just result in a lot more dead people across the board from all causes.

[shaggy314]

My most favorite of physics:

 

F = m * a... no secret at all.

 

And from the game Autoduel's take on AAA: AADA's tag line (American Auto Duel Association) "Drive Offensively, the life you save IS your own"

[Deanh]

 

I think that would just result in a lot more dead people across the board from all causes.

oh, I couldnt agree more, but I would also guarantee it would FORCE better driving habits....turn signals would actually be utilized as would neck muscles to turn and look.......I beleive all the vehicular nannification has actually made driving habits WORSE...is it a false sense of security?...I dont know, but its definitely getting worse...and along with increased traffic volumes, that spells potential disaster.....

[Deanh]

Can of worms successfully opened.

worms no...Nightcrawlers yes.....