I want to save the planet/fight oil dependence, but I want a safe car too...

Actually, any intelligent individual would advocate driver training.

But since you're far from being an intelligent inividual, you prefer
reactive measures as opposed to proactive. You're such a dim-lib.

On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Did you know that you're least likely to be involved in a collision if
>>you're traveling roughly 10 MPH faster than the average speed of traffic?
>>
>
>
> Really, please cite a reference- I'd be curious to know why this is true?

Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the
NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance
Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know
if I've got a link.

Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower
traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options
open to them.

There is a list of links (which I've got at home) that explains all this
stuff, but maybe Brent P will be good enough to post it for me before then.




> Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will
> involve twice as much energy.

Now you're really sounding like Carl...

Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first
place, by driving as safely as I know how.

If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your
thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential
energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang
through speed alone.


> It's no surprise whenever I read about a multi-vehicle traffic crash in
> the paper, and somebody is hurt or dead, either alcohol or speeding were a
> factor on the part of one of the vehicles.

Keywords: A factor.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to
exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at
the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that
is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed
limit.

No doubt speed (not speeding) is a factor; Speed is a factor in *all*
collisions. If nothing were moving, there would be no collisions.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Did you know that you're least likely to be involved in a collision if
>>you're traveling roughly 10 MPH faster than the average speed of traffic?
>>
>
>
> Really, please cite a reference- I'd be curious to know why this is true?

Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the
NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance
Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know
if I've got a link.

Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower
traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options
open to them.

There is a list of links (which I've got at home) that explains all this
stuff, but maybe Brent P will be good enough to post it for me before then.




> Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will
> involve twice as much energy.

Now you're really sounding like Carl...

Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first
place, by driving as safely as I know how.

If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your
thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential
energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang
through speed alone.


> It's no surprise whenever I read about a multi-vehicle traffic crash in
> the paper, and somebody is hurt or dead, either alcohol or speeding were a
> factor on the part of one of the vehicles.

Keywords: A factor.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to
exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at
the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that
is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed
limit.

No doubt speed (not speeding) is a factor; Speed is a factor in *all*
collisions. If nothing were moving, there would be no collisions.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

You're right; people *don't* often use their best judgement. Stupid
stuff, like "speeding at night" (more appropriate would be "overdriving
their headlights") or driving too fast in the fog would be best
qualified as "reckless driving" or "driving too fast for conditions."
Usually Darwin catches up with these people sooner or later.

As for increasing the damage that will be sustained with increasing
speed, best thing to do is to avoid getting in an accident. This will
only occur of the driver is properly focused on the task at hand; that
being driving. Most are not, unfortunately.

As for people knowing better, it must not be forgotten that there are
places in the world which the normal rate of traffic flow is faster
than the speed limits set in the US. Just because the average US driver
is improperly trained, or too busy eating/yakking/rocking to pay
attention to the road doesn't mean *all* drivers (domestic or
otherwise) suffer from the same inadequacies.

You're right; people *don't* often use their best judgement. Stupid
stuff, like "speeding at night" (more appropriate would be "overdriving
their headlights") or driving too fast in the fog would be best
qualified as "reckless driving" or "driving too fast for conditions."
Usually Darwin catches up with these people sooner or later.

As for increasing the damage that will be sustained with increasing
speed, best thing to do is to avoid getting in an accident. This will
only occur of the driver is properly focused on the task at hand; that
being driving. Most are not, unfortunately.

As for people knowing better, it must not be forgotten that there are
places in the world which the normal rate of traffic flow is faster
than the speed limits set in the US. Just because the average US driver
is improperly trained, or too busy eating/yakking/rocking to pay
attention to the road doesn't mean *all* drivers (domestic or
otherwise) suffer from the same inadequacies.

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote:
> Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the
> NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance
> Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know
> if I've got a link.

I don't believe this is the position of the NHTSA:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...gredriver.html

The position of the NHTSA is the speed limits should be set as high as is
"safe".

>
> Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower
> traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options
> open to them.

But if you are speeding you will also have less time to react, and when
you crash, you will have more energy going into your car/vehicle, or
somebody else's car/vehicle. Some vehicles, like trucks or SUV's, will lose
grip at higher speeds and manouvering.

> > Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will
> > involve twice as much energy.
>
> Now you're really sounding like Carl...

So what, maybe Carl is right? Who is this Carl?

>
> Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first
> place, by driving as safely as I know how.

Ah, wishful thinking. Overconfidence tends to go hand-in-hand with
aggressive driving and not a defensive attitude. They used to show those
kids in Driver's Ed those gruesome movies for a reason.

You might have mad skillz behind the wheel of a car... but show them off
in the appropriate venue- a racetrack or rally . Not on an open public
road. Rally drivers survive some frightening collisions. But not everybody
on the road has 5 point restraints and thick helmets. You might get unlucky
one of these days and plow into something.

> If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your
> thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential
> energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang
> through speed alone.

Semi-trucks are of course (potentially) dangerous. That's why you have to
watch out around them and give them some space.

>
> You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to
> exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at
> the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that
> is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed
> limit.

How is going 45 mph is a 35mph zone NOT "too fast for conditions"? Or 55
in a 45mph zone? I just don't get it... how are you saving that much time?

What is worse are people who SPEED THROUGH RED LIGHTS. When you are
speeding, of course you have less time to react, so you are more likely to
zip through a red light. It's no wonder intersections are one of the most
dangerous places on the road in the US. Too many people think driving fast
is their birthright. They don't like hour long commutes to work, maybe they
should stop living in the farthest suburbs and exurbia?

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/10/2005 9:25 AM, Magnulus wrote:
> Some of the main references are studies conducted by the FHWA and/or the
> NHTSA. I think I remember reading that even the IIHS (Insurance
> Institute for Higher Surcharges) has admitted as much, but I don't know
> if I've got a link.

I don't believe this is the position of the NHTSA:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...gredriver.html

The position of the NHTSA is the speed limits should be set as high as is
"safe".

>
> Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower
> traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options
> open to them.

But if you are speeding you will also have less time to react, and when
you crash, you will have more energy going into your car/vehicle, or
somebody else's car/vehicle. Some vehicles, like trucks or SUV's, will lose
grip at higher speeds and manouvering.

> > Also, if you have an accident at 60mph vs. 40mph, the accident will
> > involve twice as much energy.
>
> Now you're really sounding like Carl...

So what, maybe Carl is right? Who is this Carl?

>
> Keyword: IF. I think I'll just try and avoid a collision in the first
> place, by driving as safely as I know how.

Ah, wishful thinking. Overconfidence tends to go hand-in-hand with
aggressive driving and not a defensive attitude. They used to show those
kids in Driver's Ed those gruesome movies for a reason.

You might have mad skillz behind the wheel of a car... but show them off
in the appropriate venue- a racetrack or rally . Not on an open public
road. Rally drivers survive some frightening collisions. But not everybody
on the road has 5 point restraints and thick helmets. You might get unlucky
one of these days and plow into something.

> If you really are that frightened of potential energy, what are your
> thoughts on semi trucks? Those things at 55-70 MPH have more potential
> energy than I could ever dream of attaining in my slow little Mustang
> through speed alone.

Semi-trucks are of course (potentially) dangerous. That's why you have to
watch out around them and give them some space.

>
> You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has ever crashed _only_ due to
> exceeding a speed limit. Chances are they were doing something else at
> the same time (like driving recklessly or too fast for conditions) that
> is a great deal more at fault than simply exceeding an arbitrary speed
> limit.

How is going 45 mph is a 35mph zone NOT "too fast for conditions"? Or 55
in a 45mph zone? I just don't get it... how are you saving that much time?

What is worse are people who SPEED THROUGH RED LIGHTS. When you are
speeding, of course you have less time to react, so you are more likely to
zip through a red light. It's no wonder intersections are one of the most
dangerous places on the road in the US. Too many people think driving fast
is their birthright. They don't like hour long commutes to work, maybe they
should stop living in the farthest suburbs and exurbia?

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> >True, most busses are poorly funded, but there IS a solution to that.
>
> Like taking money from drivers to pay for them? How about just raising
the
> fare.

No mass transit system is unsubsidized. Even the roads cars drive on
survive by some government subsidy.
Having said that, alot of bus systems do pay most of their own costs. But
those kinds of systems, IMO, are usually the worst. That's the kind of bus
service we have here in Orlando, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

> 4 miles an hour is a pretty brisk walk, most people walk slower.
> Personally, I don't like to walk 15 minutes in rain, sleet, snow, ice,
> or 90+ degree heat.

Heat in the summer is pretty bad, but I bring a canteen and a pith helmet
(you can soak them in water, being cork, and it evaporates on your head).
Personally, I would rather drive a car in that kind of heat. They need more
"park and rides".

> Unfortunately, waiting for the bus will bring that blood pressure right
> back up.

Have a meditative mind, learn to take things in stride. Zen Buddhists
called a mind that constantly craves stimulation, that is unsettled, a
"monkey mind". In this pushbuton society of instant gratification, people
need to step away from the gadgetry and constant soundbites on TV and work
and phonecalls and just spend a few minutes not doing much of anything.

Oh, and you can also listen to music while you wait ,that's why they have
tape and MP3 players.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> >True, most busses are poorly funded, but there IS a solution to that.
>
> Like taking money from drivers to pay for them? How about just raising
the
> fare.

No mass transit system is unsubsidized. Even the roads cars drive on
survive by some government subsidy.
Having said that, alot of bus systems do pay most of their own costs. But
those kinds of systems, IMO, are usually the worst. That's the kind of bus
service we have here in Orlando, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

> 4 miles an hour is a pretty brisk walk, most people walk slower.
> Personally, I don't like to walk 15 minutes in rain, sleet, snow, ice,
> or 90+ degree heat.

Heat in the summer is pretty bad, but I bring a canteen and a pith helmet
(you can soak them in water, being cork, and it evaporates on your head).
Personally, I would rather drive a car in that kind of heat. They need more
"park and rides".

> Unfortunately, waiting for the bus will bring that blood pressure right
> back up.

Have a meditative mind, learn to take things in stride. Zen Buddhists
called a mind that constantly craves stimulation, that is unsettled, a
"monkey mind". In this pushbuton society of instant gratification, people
need to step away from the gadgetry and constant soundbites on TV and work
and phonecalls and just spend a few minutes not doing much of anything.

Oh, and you can also listen to music while you wait ,that's why they have
tape and MP3 players.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps the locals are smart enough to know that trying to enforce the
> limit on the throroughfare would result in more traffic diverted to
> the neighborhoods.

But the neighborhood is a dead end. You can't drive through it.

>
> >Automatic speed traps with cameras, like they have in Europe, would be
far
> >more effective, IMO.
>
> Only if the object is collecting revenue and not changing behavior.

Threat of punishment always changes behavior to some extent. Cameras are
good because they are automatic and less visible. Big Brother kind of
stuff, put to some good.

> 20/40 is no problem at all, except for reading local street signs;
> cars and other road objects are big. Nystagmus, though, means any cop
will
> consider you to be a drunk driver based on the "look at the pen"
> test.

It's not as simple as 20/40 vision. My optometrist explained it best- I
can legally drive, but wheather I should drive is more an
ethical/philosophical question he can't answer (he also recommended I see a
vision training specialist for evaluation):

I also have strabismus (I can see out of one eye alternatively, the other
eye kind of partially "shuts off" by the brain and looks sideways... in fact
it takes a little effort to see with both eyes, but I am working on that).
I have a v-syndrome which means the muscles that cause the eyes to converge
is weak/atrophied and the eyes want to drift apart, especially when looking
upward or level moreso than downward. I also have manifest latent
nystagmus, which means the nystagmus gets worse when seeing with one eye.
The eye doc gave me some new glasses that help somewhat (base-in prisms), to
help see with both eyes together, and he recommended I see a vision trainer
or try using 3D glasses with computer/videogames, gradually increasing the
height of the monitor. When I drive I tilt the seat back a little and hold
my head up some.

The nystagmus causes things to the side (about 30 degrees or so) to lack
definition- I can see them and know they are there, but I really cannot
focus my eye on them for more than a brief second before they move away. I
might see a word and know it is a word, but I couldn't actually read it. So
my head and neck do alot more work to follow things. My brain has adapted
to this over about 28 years or so, and the brain has ways of compensating
for movement, so I don't see things as moving, even though my eyes will
start moving back and forth quickly if I had the "pen test". I might get a
fish eye rearview mirror, because when I turn my head around when backing up
or changing lanes, I really don't see all that great (I have my mirrors set
to try and minimize blind spots).

The drunk driving thing does bug me, though. I hope I never get in a
situation where I have to get pulled over. I actually don't drink, so I'm
not too worried about failing a breathalyzer, but just the general idea of
being harassed puts me a bit off ease. If an optician can give me crap
about it (congenital nystagmus is very rare), of all people, what would a
cop do?

> You've been driving for years yet your mom is giving you driving
> lessons? If you're going to use personal testimonial to back up your
> argument, try and keep it consistent. Or, if this IS actually the
> case, keep it less pathetic.

No, I have had a learner's permit for years- I got it in a state with
fairly lax requirements (Oklahoma). I've lacked the confidence to drive.
My vision used to be about 20/70, too, and my strabismus was much worse. I
went to alot of optometrists, many self-described "low vision specialists"
who basicly said I had the "best vision I could get", despite the fact I was
slowly becomming legally blind, and finally I found one about two years ago
that was actually willing to do something to help. And he works in a
Pearlvision, of all places.