It's impossible to enjoy driving these days.

Status
Not open for further replies.
When one can show me a study showing hitting a brick wall or a tree at 80 mph is safe I just MIGHT believe it then.

BTW, show us the studies, the statement of such means nothing.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
That's true, but it also reflects turning a blind eye to the other critical variables that are virtually always in play when considering "total net safety" out on the road. As I stated above, relative speed is a critical consideration. Sure, drivers should account for the speed limit (and actually obey it in many situations), but if you are stubbornly insisting on "doing the limit" when the major flow of traffic is doing 15 over the limit, then YOU are indeed a great danger to yourself and everyone else out there.



As a lawyer, are there any other traffic laws out there that you suggest we can freely ignore for our own safety? This is the core of the whole debate here. If everyone followed the rules, which are perfectly reasonable IMO, then we wouldn't have these problems. Some people seem to think that the rules don't apply to them and then we have a dysfunctional society.
 
I'm not advocating that people violate traffic laws (or any others, for that matter). I am suggesting a means of maximizing safety given what almost all the others around you are doing, and are going to continue doing, whether you or I like it or not. We can debate all day and longer what it implies when a given law is so disrespected that the vast majority of citizens simply refuse to follow it, but no, that really isn't what's at play here. Would it be nice if everyone followed all the rules all the time? Of course it would (except I'd probably have to get a real job...). But we KNOW that's not going to happen. All I'm saying is that it's safer for everyone if you don't make yourself an obstruction that forces unnecessary maneuvering by other vehicles. ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jcwit
When one can show me a study showing hitting a brick wall or a tree at 80 mph is safe I just MIGHT believe it then.

BTW, show us the studies, the statement of such means nothing.

A couple thoughts. First, while obviously physics is physics, and those laws aren't changing no matter who goes to Congress, physics is not the only issue bearing on "total safety." Now that said, I don't want to hit a brick wall at any speed above 1-2 mph. A 70 mph brick wall hit will certainly ruin your day too. Of course, all things being equal, you ARE carring a lot more energy into the wall at 80 than you are at 70. So, if physics/speed were the ONLY important consideration in safety, you would be unimpeachably, undeniably correct.

On the other hand, I remain firm in my belief that THE MOST CRITICAL factor in road safety, bar none, is the quality of the gray material between a driver's ears.

I'd much rather share the road with a smart, considerate attitude-free driver cruising at 80 mph, than a judgment-free angry guy doing 70. But that's just me.
cheers3.gif
 
It'd be nice if people were more considerate. They won't be any time soon.

Oh well. I'll just keep driving around the speed limit, and leave the torquing to others.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
but if you are stubbornly insisting on "doing the limit" when the major flow of traffic is doing 15 over the limit, then YOU are indeed a great danger to yourself and everyone else out there.


Not to be pedantic, but THEY are the ones causing the problem. Not the driver who is doing the limit. If I am doing the limit and I become an obstacle, that is their fault.

A driver who isn't able to react to someone driving the speed limit is just as dangerous to me no matter what speed I'm going. That driver can't react quickly enough for his speed, and anything could cause him to lose control.

Not for nothing either, a vehicle's dynamics change a lot at that speed. If that driver clips my bumper and I'm going 55, my car is going to react a lot more predictably than if I am going 80. There is something like double the kinetic energy in a car going 80 versus 55.

Yes, the difference kills, but the idea that increasing speed reduces exposure to risk is just not correct.
 
Regarding people being considerate, yesterday I was the 4th car in a funeral procession. Trip to the cemetary was short, about 4 miles. Almost every car truck encluding semi's pulled off to the side of the road to show respect, every one except 1 that did not pull over was a driver in their early 20's or younger except one middle aged woman on her cell phone who more than likely had no idea where she was or what was happening around her.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Not getting personal, but I'm sure the stats show that you have a higher risk of serious injury or death the faster you go. The laws of physics always apply to everyone in your car.
Would you rather have a tire blow out at 80 mph or 65? Hit a tire off a truck? Have deer run out infront of you?
The increase in risk is not that big but its always there if you think about it.
65mph is always safer unless someone else on the road makes it unsafe for you, but IME doing the speed limit in the far right lane annoys no one...


That's as relative and as arbitrary as the definition of wealth. If the road surface and traffic density are comparable, but the posted limit is legislated 50 where every other state posts it at 70, just who is being reckless? Unlawful? Yes. Depraved indifference? Not necessarily.

People tend to enjoy applying their standards upon others. "everything would be just fine if everyone did it my way".

I still assert that there are sensible behaviors that all should demonstrate while behind the wheel. Being polite and having manners are most of them. First and foremost is not inconveniencing anyone else because of your behavior, regardless of how you perceive it to be proper.

Doing it my way is to simply lead, follow, or get out of the way. It's polite ..I think. Not much for anyone to take exception to.

Given my 4 banger jeep's high speed capability, I tend to fall into the follow and/or get out of the way category. I don't mind these being my default options.
 
Originally Posted By: swalve
...
Not to be pedantic, but THEY are the ones causing the problem. Not the driver who is doing the limit. If I am doing the limit and I become an obstacle, that is their fault.

But you've missed a major part of the point I was making. "Fault" doesn't matter here, and that's not what I was saying. After the collision, fire, and removal of the remains, does "fault" really matter (except for deciding where the money shall flow...)? I'd rather see no collision in the first place.

...

Originally Posted By: swalve
Yes, the difference kills, but the idea that increasing speed reduces exposure to risk is just not correct.
Increasing or decreasing speed so as to match the flow of traffic WILL decrease the component of risk attributable to relative speed/difference in speed. Increasing speed will often increase the portion of risk attributable to increased energy, reaction time/distance and so forth.

But notice the assumption you built into your statement -- that I'm only talking "increasing" speed. It is even more important that some guy who is doing 90+ (and we know they're out there) should SLOW down so that he's not creating a relative speed higher than the flow.
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
When one can show me a study showing hitting a brick wall or a tree at 80 mph is safe I just MIGHT believe it then.

BTW, show us the studies, the statement of such means nothing.


You have google. Google it. Again, another subjective topic. Some have their own conclusions and no amount of data or facts will change them. It is just common sense. If I am doing 80mph and actually doing the act of driving, I am less of a hinder then someone doing the speed limit weaving in and out of traffic and texting and talking on their phone. The optimuim limit is 70mph. Modern cars are capable of these speeds and still be safe.
 
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Originally Posted By: jcwit
When one can show me a study showing hitting a brick wall or a tree at 80 mph is safe I just MIGHT believe it then.

BTW, show us the studies, the statement of such means nothing.


You have google. Google it. Again, another subjective topic. Some have their own conclusions and no amount of data or facts will change them. It is just common sense. If I am doing 80mph and actually doing the act of driving, I am less of a hinder then someone doing the speed limit weaving in and out of traffic and texting and talking on their phone. The optimuim limit is 70mph. Modern cars are capable of these speeds and still be safe.


You're the one that made the statement, you provide the stats. Its up to you to prove you're statement, not up to me to disprove it.
 
The optimuim limit is 70mph. Modern cars are capable of these speeds and still be safe.
OK, just read in the local news speeding driver hits another driver. Another driver killed by someone disobeying the law. Don't tell me speed doesn't kill. Maybe you'd like to inform the deceased family that speed doesn't kill. I do not have the stats, only need to read the news on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
The optimuim limit is 70mph. Modern cars are capable of these speeds and still be safe.
OK, just read in the local news speeding driver hits another driver. Another driver killed by someone disobeying the law. Don't tell me speed doesn't kill. Maybe you'd like to inform the deceased family that speed doesn't kill. I do not have the stats, only need to read the news on a daily basis.


OK, I will say it openly and directly -- speed does NOT kill. Human misjudgments are what kills people, not "speed". The sad truth is that you've bought into a catchy slogan, which is little more than that. It's true enough that when some idiot is running down a wet interstate at 90 on bald tires, and he kills someone, it's easy to say "speed kills". But speed didn't kill, the driver's horrible, criminal decision to select a speed that was unsafe is what actually killed.

And consider the flip side -- every year, a sad multitude of people are killed in very low speed accidents. A child gets backed over in a driveway. A mid-speed crash starts a fire that burns up a car's occupant. And so on. Shall we start a "slow kills" campaign too?

So no sir, speed does not kill. Bad judgment by humans does. Sloganism is a nice way of propagandizing the public to do one thing or another, but at the end of the day, it obscures the truth. Maybe the closest thing to the "speed kills" slogan that matches the truth would be, "driving at any speed, fast or slow, that doesn't match the conditions, kills". Sure, from an ad man's perspective, it's a poor "slogan," but it's much closer to the truth than "speed kills".
Click to expand...
 
And consider this too. If you're going to take the slogan "speed kills", and apply it with no conditions whatsoever, then commercial airline travel should be at least 10x more dangerous than driving down an interstate, since, airliners travel almost 10x faster than we drive. But we all know that commercial airliners are statistically, provably, hundreds of times safer than our cars. Why? Because they operate at very, very high speeds that are fully appropriate to the conditions at hand. Again, no, by itself, speed does not kill.
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
...Maybe you'd like to inform the deceased family that speed doesn't kill. I do not have the stats, only need to read the news on a daily basis.


1) No, I'd prefer to tell the family of the deceased the truth. They'll feel better knowing what really happened than being manipulated as pawns in a government propaganda campaign.

2) I read the news too. And I'm fully cognizant of who's feeding it to me, and why. Most importantly, though, I always take personal responsibility for ANALYZING what I hear in the news myself, and applying good judgment and common sense to that information. I know darned good and well (and I think you do too) that when I can look down 3-4 miles of empty interstate on a pretty, dry road day, that from a safety perspective, 80 mph is just as safe 70 would be. And maybe safer as my chances of going to sleep from sheer boredom are lower at 80 than they are at 70...
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
It is even more important that some guy who is doing 90+ (and we know they're out there) should SLOW down so that he's not creating a relative speed higher than the flow.

You're talking about ME ?
grin2.gif


I do 90+ on I15 to/from Vegas, but only when traffic is light and the flow is at 80+.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
And consider this too. If you're going to take the slogan "speed kills", and apply it with no conditions whatsoever, then commercial airline travel should be at least 10x more dangerous than driving down an interstate, since, airliners travel almost 10x faster than we drive. But we all know that commercial airliners are statistically, provably, hundreds of times safer than our cars. Why? Because they operate at very, very high speeds that are fully appropriate to the conditions at hand. Again, no, by itself, speed does not kill.



excuse me? yes, speed does kill. You might be able to survive a car crash at reasonable speeds but not too many people are going to make it out of an airplane crash.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
And consider this too. If you're going to take the slogan "speed kills", and apply it with no conditions whatsoever, then commercial airline travel should be at least 10x more dangerous than driving down an interstate, since, airliners travel almost 10x faster than we drive. But we all know that commercial airliners are statistically, provably, hundreds of times safer than our cars. Why? Because they operate at very, very high speeds that are fully appropriate to the conditions at hand. Again, no, by itself, speed does not kill.


Not directed at anyone in particular, here or anywhere else. But if the shoe fits, well!!!!!!!!!!!

Then maybe the idiot speeding is the one making bad judgement by speeding. In the end the results are the same, body bag. Whether you wish to admit it or not.

If you wish to make the argument that judgement is the cause for death, then that would be the cause for almost all deaths in the world. Smoking doesn't kill, for that matter neither does cancer, usually the death is from another aliment caused by the lowering of the immune system. Being overweight does not kill, one dies from a stroke or heart attack. Alcohol doesn't kill, ones senses are impared to the point they do not respond correctly to whatever comes up. Drownding doesn't kill, its the lack of oxygen to the lungs that kills, aka, suffacation. I can go on and on, end result is the same, death. Hitting a tree or brick wall at 10 mph more than likey not kill you, hitting the same tree or brick wall at 80 and your chances have gotten a whole lot slimmer.

If anyone can't grasp this, well I can't put it into words and still be a member here.

One last thought, if speed doesn't kill, why do folks skydive with parachutes?

Oh Ya, I remember its not the fall that kills its the sudden stop at the bottom. Caused by what? SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wwillson
GM Super Cruise - 15,000 mile review
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
11K
MCompact
R
Driver Education and Lane Discipline Rant
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
SeaJay
Capt W
Nitwits and their backup cameras
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
earlyre
dishdude
Rental review - 2024 RAV4 "Adventure"
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
ryster
F
'23 Camry rental car review
Replies
7
Views
853
oilboy123
Back
Top Bottom