OT: What Has The World Come To

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
I like to see the proof of that. however even if true is the difference significant enough that a guy doing 130km/h when the moose is spoted crossing the road will be able to stop as quick as the guy doing 100km/h?

Of course, a moose standing on a highway is one of the most common incidents that can happen while driving... Near-sleep and slow reactions cause a lot of dangerous situations that just wouldn't arise if the driver had better attention. THAT is the difference.
Some figures, rounded for ease of reading:
Traffic deaths USA 2002: > 40k, pop 290M
Germany, no speed limit, 130km/h ~ 80mph recommended but not really normal, traffic deaths 2002: < 7k, pop 80M.
Same percentages given, USA should have about 15k less deaths. Explain that with your simplistic "speed kills" theory.

[ April 05, 2004, 22:45: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
...
Would you guys who seem to feel speed limits should be removed really feel safer out on the roads if there was no speed limit??

Well I have driven on for example the Autobahn with no speed limit and apparently good drivers, and I felt no danger. Bad driving is the main cause of danger, in my experience, and rarely is the bad driving I see simply a case of someone exceeding a certain speed.

Moreover, I see technical speeding violations all the time, which are not at all dangerous. Often times the general traffic, even cement mixers and city busses, exceeds the speed limit by a fair degree, without causing any actual hazard. If they were all rigidly adhering to the inappropriately low speed limit, I tend to agree it would be more dangerous. Many of the speed limits were set back in the 50's-60's. Have you guys driven the cars from back then? More often than not they were huge lumbering beasts with attrociously blocked vision and awful handling, that feel like piloting a coal barge or something. If the limits were considered safe for those things, or for busses, 18-wheelers and winnebagos, then how can it be right to have cops hiding behind corners with laser speed traps to catch modern performance cars going 10-15 mph over those limits on open roads with no hazardous conditions at all? It's just a way to get money for the local coffers, and for rule-oriented bozos to chide and abuse reasonable citizens.

I don't think that speed limits shouldn't exist where they make sense and are enforced intelligently. People probably shouldn't drive 140 where there is a chance of anyone trying to cross the road. Good drivers though know their limits and don't let their control limits exceed their vision, etc.

There should be laws and police should bust people who are causing a hazard, but the standard is often applied rigidly to limits in cases where they don't have much if anything to do with safety.

PvK

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
I like to see the proof of that. however even if true is the difference significant enough that a guy doing 130km/h when the moose is spoted crossing the road will be able to stop as quick as the guy doing 100km/h?

Of course, a moose standing on a highway is one of the most common incidents that can happen while driving... [/QB]

---

Ah the old "make fun of the other guy to proove your point" rebutal. The moose was just an example.

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:
... How can you even argue this? ALL other factors being equal the guy drving faster is more likely to be unable to avoid an accident when some incedent occurs and if an accident is unavoidable is likely to have a much more serious accident. Please prove this wrong.

In your scenario, I don't think either skilled driver would be driving so fast in a situation where they couldn't see what was ahead of them and give themselves ample room to avoid an accident. In driving school it's called "leave yourself an out". As professional race drivers, if they didn't do this, probably neither one of them would have had any success in the sport.

So I agree only that if you assume a driver is driving wrecklessly, that going faster would be more dangerous. Except that if one of those skilled drivers were going 140 rather than 100, then given their skill, they would be doing so in a situation where they could see the full field ahead of their stopping/dodging distance.

PvK

[DavidG]

Originally posted by PvK:
People probably shouldn't drive 140 where there is a chance of anyone trying to cross the road. Good drivers though know their limits and don't let their control limits exceed their vision, etc.

How fast should they drive in this case and how do you stop them? Of course it's not the good drivers i'm worried about. Around here I think the bad drivers far outnumber the good ones.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Ah the old "make fun of the other guy to proove your point" rebutal. The moose was just an example.

I was just pointing out that it was a very, very bad example. There are situations when the danger of something - or someone - unexpected appearing on the road, and I agree to the fact that speed saves lives then. But there are other situations where the dangers just lie elsewhere. Speed limits do not only don't make sense there, but are also nearly exclusively controlled there where they don't make sense, and you justify it with a situation that is totally rare and unlikely.
And besides, how about the figures I presented? Ah, the old "ignore the facts if they contradict your opinion" rebutal .

[ April 05, 2004, 23:03: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by PvK:
their skill, they would be doing so in a situation where they could see the full field ahead of their stopping/dodging distance.

PvK

My God do people really drive like this were you live??? If so they are a heck of a lot better than the drivers around here. (PS the point of the driver names in my example was only to remove differences in driver skill from the example)

Personally I think the speed limits around here are a nice approximation of the safe driving speed. I would say anyone going more than about 20km faster than that IS driving recklessly. ie people more often than not zip down the road near were I live at 100-120km/h. This is a non-divided highway with lots of driveways and side street that front on to it. Personaly I think anything that would slow these guys down and make them pay is a good idea.

[Atrocities]

booom

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
Ah the old "make fun of the other guy to proove your point" rebutal. The moose was just an example.

I was just pointing out that it was a very, very bad example. There are situations when the danger of something - or someone - unexpected appearing on the road, and I agree to the fact that speed saves lives then. But there are other situations where the dangers just lie elsewhere. Speed limits do not only don't make sense there, but are also nearly exclusively controlled there where they don't make sense, and you justify it with a situation that is totally rare and unlikely.
And besides, how about the figures I presented? Ah, the old "ignore the facts if they contradict your opinion" rebutal .

---

Accidents are pretty much always caused because something unexpectantly appears in front of you. Oh sure the reason something unexpectantly appears in front of you could be cause the guy in front of you dozed off. but when you find yourself in this situation would you rather your car was going fast or slow?

Statistics can be used to prove anything. There could be numerous reason for the numbers you quote. It could be as simple as Germans are better drivers, have better designed roads, safer cars, better traffic laws etc etc etc. give me a budget and a year to study the issue and I'll get back to you.

[ April 05, 2004, 23:15: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
People probably shouldn't drive 140 where there is a chance of anyone trying to cross the road. Good drivers though know their limits and don't let their control limits exceed their vision, etc.

How fast should they drive in this case and how do you stop them? Of course it's not the good drivers i'm worried about. Around here I think the bad drivers far outnumber the good ones.

---

In the case where there is a road crossing or limited sight distance, you should drive at a speed that allows you to stop before you reach the hazard or unseen area - don't get ahead of your stopping distance.

The bad drivers are definitely the problem, and ya, frequently US drivers aren't so hot, and there are a lot of bozos. I guess if you are failing to teach them to drive well, then rules are something of a substitute, but I still think the good drivers should not be punished for technical violations of outdated speed limits.

In PvK's utopia, while the existing 1950-70 defined speed limits could apply as a baseline, I would allow drivers to take optional qualification tests (without high fees) and related courses which would train them in safe driving above typical limits, and give them clearances to drive in the tested vehicle in good conditions at a certain degree over the speed limit. Drivers who noticed that certain posted limits seemed ludicrous could also point out any such locations for suggested re-review using a nice DOT web site.

Actual definitely hazardous driving would still be cause for arrest with fairly serious consequences and/or mandatory safe driving courses.

PvK