Speed kills

[Deanh]

 

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

wouldnt work for me, nice thing about the bike, i USE the power to actually GET myself into a safer situation.....

[NickF1011]

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.....

 

I think you're only kidding yourself. Nobody is going to learn how to drive better until somebody prevents them from driving until they do. I don't think the nanny controls in cars have anything to do with it. Americans have always felt "entitled" to drive no matter how bad they are at it.

 

The major issues on the roads today are this (completely my opinion, of course):

 

Drivers are not learning to drive well enough before being thrown onto roads that are more crowded than ever with other equally bad drivers. Add bad and distracted drivers together en masse in vehicles that are more powerful than ever and you're going to have problems.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[RichardJensen]

is it a false sense of security?.

 

Nope. Fatality rates are going down. If there was only a 'false' sense of security, the rates would have continued to escalate.

[Deanh]

 

Nope. Fatality rates are going down. If there was only a 'false' sense of security, the rates would have continued to escalate.

I would be curious to know if fatalities going down is merely a reflection of "safer" cars, are accidents themselves going down?....based on what I see daily, I would say theres actually MORE accidents....

[Deanh]

 

I think you're only kidding yourself. Nobody is going to learn how to drive better until somebody prevents them from driving until they do. I don't think the nanny controls in cars have anything to do with it. Americans have always felt "entitled" to drive no matter how bad they are at it.

 

The major issues on the roads today are this (completely my opinion, of course):

 

Drivers are not learning to drive well enough before being thrown onto roads that are more crowded than ever with other equally bad drivers. Add bad and distracted drivers together en masse in vehicles that are more powerful than ever and you're going to have problems.

heres my answer...everyone HAS to drive a Ford Pinto for two years.....LMAO....if someone KNOWS they are driving a car that is known to be questionable safety wise, watch the driving habits change.....

[NickF1011]

I would be curious to know if fatalities going down is merely a reflection of "safer" cars, are accidents themselves going down?....based on what I see daily, I would say theres actually MORE accidents....

 

There are more accidents because they are more cars. The rate of fatal accidents per vehicle is down significantly though.

[Deanh]

Im reminded of my step daughter when she first got her licence.....careful beyond compare....now shes comfortable the drivng habits have changed somewhat....

[Deanh]

 

There are more accidents because they are more cars. The rate of fatal accidents per vehicle is down significantly though.

youre tellin me theres more cars....Orange Crush EVERYDAY....as crazy as it may seem to some, theres a reason I ride the bike....and #1 type of accident I see....rear ending due to tailgating..........

Edited December 4, 2013 by Deanh

[grbeck]

heres my answer...everyone HAS to drive a Ford Pinto for two years.....LMAO....if someone KNOWS they are driving a car that is known to be questionable safety wise, watch the driving habits change.....

The problem with that scenario is that the alleged danger with the Pinto came from OTHER drivers rear-ending it. That was ultimately beyond the control of Pinto drivers.

 

(Also note that the overall safety record of the Pinto was actually average compared to other small cars of that era. Based on the number of vehicles sold, a disproportionate number of people were not killed in Pintos compared to other contemporary small cars. The Mother Jones article that started the entire fracas exaggerated the number of people killed in Pinto fire-related collisions. I would argue that the original VW Beetle was a bigger threat to its driver and any hapless passengers.)

Edited December 4, 2013 by grbeck

[NickF1011]

.and #1 type of accident I see....rear ending due to tailgating..........

 

Well, that makes sense. Most cars are traveling in the same direction on any particular section of road at any given time. The opportunity for most other types of collisions is limited. When they do occur though, they are usually far more serious.

 

As a driver I've been in 2 significant collisions. They were both being rear-ended.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NickF1011

[SoonerLS]

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

Case in point: I have a friend who is now a retired Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper. Back in the mid-'90s, we got hit be a sudden ice storm, and he happened to be working that day. With one exception, he said every driver he found off in the ditch or on the median got a ticket for driving too fast for conditions. (The one exception was for a guy who slid over 100 yards on a downhill grade into the back end of a car in a pile-up.)

[silvrsvt]

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"

 

 

Oooh I remember the computer game version of this boardgame on my Commodore 64 Hmm you'd think it would make a great remake on todays consoles...

[Deanh]

The problem with that scenario is that the alleged danger with the Pinto came from OTHER drivers rear-ending it. That was ultimately beyond the control of Pinto drivers.

 

(Also note that the overall safety record of the Pinto was actually average compared to other small cars of that era. Based on the number of vehicles sold, a disproportionate number of people were not killed in Pintos compared to other contemporary small cars. The Mother Jones article that started the entire fracas exaggerated the number of people killed in Pinto fire-related collisions. I would argue that the original VW Beetle was a bigger threat to its driver and any hapless passengers.)

substitute Suzuki Samarai....lol, you get my drift though, if theres less room for error, my bet is drivers would pay more attention.....

Edited December 4, 2013 by Deanh

[NickF1011]

substitute Suzuki Samarai....lol, you get my drift though, if theres less room for error, my bet is drivers would pay more attention.....

 

Mount the driver's seat on the front bumper.

[Deanh]

 

Mount the driver's seat on the front bumper.

LMAO...make sure you wear a Helmet....and be SURE its heated, Airconditioned, 10 way power, memory AND has the massaging feature........

Edited December 4, 2013 by Deanh

[BrewfanGRB]

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?

No. You could be going 5 over the limit, but driving like an asshole and speeding will be listed as a "contributing factor". It's nonsensical demonizing of "hey, you violated this arbitrarily chosen number on a sign...that's why you crashed". When it should be "You don't possess the requisite physical skill or intelligence to safely operate a motor vehicle."

[BrewfanGRB]

 

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?

As you briefly allude to, it's a contributing factor, not THE cause. A crash could have a dozen "contributing factors". It's meaningless.

[BrewfanGRB]

 

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 is exactly what makes this "contributing factor" meaningless.

[BrewfanGRB]

 

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.)

You have no way to know this. Cops aren't out there complex reconstructions on every fatal crash. Tick the "speeding" box and move along.

[akirby]

 

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:

 

Ok - clearly demonstrate was too specific. But let's say a vehicle crossed the center line and hit another car head on or went off the side of the road on a straight section or crossed lanes and hit another car - it doesn't matter how fast they were going, speed wasn't a factor in causing the crash. If you hit somebody from behind, you're either following too closely or not paying attention. Speed was not a factor regardless of whether you were going 10 mph under the limit or 20 over. If you can't make a 30 mph turn because you're going 100 mph then that will be evident and THAT is a case where speed is a factor.

[NickF1011]

 

Ok - clearly demonstrate was too specific. But let's say a vehicle crossed the center line and hit another car head on or went off the side of the road on a straight section or crossed lanes and hit another car - it doesn't matter how fast they were going, speed wasn't a factor in causing the crash. If you hit somebody from behind, you're either following too closely or not paying attention. Speed was not a factor regardless of whether you were going 10 mph under the limit or 20 over. If you can't make a 30 mph turn because you're going 100 mph then that will be evident and THAT is a case where speed is a factor.

 

If going too fast caused you to lose control and cross the center line, it contributed.

 

If you are going too fast to stop before striking the car in front of you, even if you're tailgating, speed could be considered a contributor.

 

 

 

Yeesh, forget I even started this thread. Every car should have 800 horsepower and speed limits shouldn't exist.

[akirby]

 

If going too fast caused you to lose control and cross the center line, it contributed.

 

If you are going too fast to stop before striking the car in front of you, even if you're tailgating, speed could be considered a contributor.

 

Going too fast doesn't cause you to cross the center line unless it's on a really really sharp curve. Going too fast to stop is following too closely, even if you're doing 100 mph. I can follow too closely at 20 mph.

[NickF1011]

 

Going too fast doesn't cause you to cross the center line unless it's on a really really sharp curve. Going too fast to stop is following too closely, even if you're doing 100 mph. I can follow too closely at 20 mph.

 

Going too fast for conditions or your own ability can certainly cause you to cross the center line. And "following too closely" is entirely dependent upon speed, so how can you say speed couldn't be a factor? Even if you're going 20 MPH, speed could be a factor if 20 MPH was too fast for the situation.

[akirby]

 

And "following too closely" is entirely dependent upon speed, so how can you say speed couldn't be a factor? Even if you're going 20 MPH, speed could be a factor if 20 MPH was too fast for the situation.

 

No, no, no. It is not entirely dependent on speed. If I'm going 100 mph I can adjust my following distance so that I have room to stop. Following too closely means you didn't allow enough room to stop regardless of your speed. It's a function of distance and speed and the root cause of the accident is that the driver failed to maintain a safe distance. If I maintain a safe distance then my speed is irrelevant.

[BrewfanGRB]

 

Going too fast for conditions or your own ability can certainly cause you to cross the center line. And "following too closely" is entirely dependent upon speed, so how can you say speed couldn't be a factor? Even if you're going 20 MPH, speed could be a factor if 20 MPH was too fast for the situation.

 

Good God, man. Read that last sentence again. You don't see how that makes "speed was a contributing factor" meaningless? Honestly...it means speed is a contributing factor IN EVERY CRASH!