Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Speed Doesn't Kill, Bad Drivers Do

Jul 30, 2009#1

Eriol

Found this editorial in my local paper, and I thought it really hit the nail on the head:

Speed doesn't kill, bad drivers do

By KERRY DIOTTE

Last Updated: 30th July 2009, 1:39am

We need a whole new approach in the fight to make roads safer in Alberta.

That's glaringly obvious in the wake of just-released Alberta motor vehicle crash statistics.

You know how we're constantly lectured that \"speed kills?\"

Well, the latest stats show speed is not the demon it's cracked up to be when it comes to crashes.

The provincial stats revealed the true villain casing the majority of crashes is none other than driver error. That was listed as a \"contributing factor\" in 90% of all of the 158,055 Alberta crashes in 2008.

And what about that demon, speed? According to the new annual study of traffic stats, it was only a \"contributing factor\" in 26% of the accidents.

There's an obvious question that should be raised in light of that.

Why then do we as a society see so much of our traffic safety enforcement resources put toward catching speeders?

Given driver error was a contributing factor in 90% of the collisions, wouldn't it be better to toughen up driver testing or see more cops patrolling streets looking for driving infractions than manning speed traps?

The head of the U.S.-based National Motorist Association (NMA) -- that has 6,000 members including some in every Canadian province -- figures police should put the bulk of their traffic cops into patrolling streets watching for bad drivers and officials should quit trying to brainwash the public that drunk driving and speeding are the two biggest enemies of traffic safety. (Not that we should ever stop the war against drunk drivers or those seriously exceeding speed limits.)

\"If they were honest they would point out that neither speeding nor driving under the influence have a whole lot to do with the majority of traffic accidents that occur,\" NMA president Jim Baxter told me.

\"It has much more to do with drivers who are distracted by cellphones or kids in their car and so on.

\"If people would pay more attention to what they're doing when they drive, it would result in a major decrease in accidents,\" said Baxter.

\"It's not a question of someone going 10 or 15 kmh over the speed limit. And if you could get (officials) in a private room they'd probably admit that.

\"Law enforcement in traffic control areas spends the bulk of its resources in speed enforcement.

And how can you justify that? By making speed the most evil thing that's out there.\"

His organization quotes U.S. studies showing speeding is the direct cause of only 4% of all accidents and, despite publicity over drunk driving, that unacceptable behaviour directly sparks only 7% of crashes.

The latest Alberta stats say drunk drivers were a contributing factor in less than 3% of all injury accidents and 13.7% of all fatal accidents in 2008.

\"If speed causes 3% to 4% of crashes, somebody might ask why there's all the emphasis on speed enforcement,\" he said.

\"Could it be because you want to generate revenue?\"

Baxter correctly points out statistics can often be misleading or taken out of context by some people when it comes to the issues of speeding and drunk driving.

That's not to say we shouldn't continue to make drunk driving socially unacceptable. If only one person is killed annually by a drunk, that's one person too many.

But if we truly want to make roads safer let's target the biggest problem -- distracted drivers and plain bad drivers.

After all, driver error is listed as a contributing factor in 90% of all crashes in Alberta -- and that's a stat we can't ignore.

KERRY.DIOTTE@SUNMEDIA.CA

I agree with this guy. The people who are all going 10kph over the limit are NOT a problem, it's the people going BELOW the limit, or blindly changing lanes, or going 50% more than the limit that are the problems, not the people obeying the maxim of "pass in the left lane, and if you're in the left lane and getting gained on, you change lanes to let them go by no matter WHAT speed you or they are going."

Other opinions?

Jul 30, 2009#2

Shegokigo

You think police are heavily into Speed Traps because it's for the safety of the citizens? :blue:

Jul 30, 2009#3

ElJuski

Popo gotta get funded yo :angry:

Jul 30, 2009#4

Shegokigo

ElJuski said:
Popo gotta get funded yo :angry:

Government sure as hell not gonna pay them what they deserve.

Jul 30, 2009#5

Lally

My dream world is where cops go after dickheads. (yes, I dream big) I don't care if someone is speeding (although I drive the speed limit or just above because I honestly believe going any faster than that would inhibit my ability to stop quickly if I needed to), but when people drive like sociopaths and cut people off, swerve across all lanes of traffic, don't bother using their turn signals and just bully their way in, speed their way up lanes that are ending/merging just to get ahead, and god knows what else, just to get a little bit farther ahead in traffic... let's just say I have a bit of road rage. In my experience, the people who speed more than 10 or 20 over ARE the people that do all these things.

So, I'm not okay with the way things are now, but that's not because cops pull over for speeding. It's because cops don't pull over ENOUGH for speeding. There have been way too many times I've seen cops going 20 over themselves, ignoring people that are going 20-30 over all around them. That brings out my road rage too. :devil:

Jul 30, 2009#6

Singularity.EXE

I completely agree with the article and bitch about it often. I have been driving for five years thus far, often exceeding the speed limit by 15-20 MPH and have never, ever come close to getting in a car accident. (And no, I don't believe in jynxes so shut up.)

I've thought about a tiered driver's license, where someone people would be liscensed to drive at higher speeds based off driving ability, but that would never, ever work.

Jul 30, 2009#7

Jay

The best way people can be caught doing illegal things is through the means of an undercover cop car. Most people can see a cop car from far away and "behave accordingly" or when they others slowing down, odds are, they gave you a head's up that there's a cop car. Many times, people heading in the opposite direction flash their beams to give the upcoming drive a head's up that a cop is around the corner with a speed gun.

As a normal citizen who drives, let me tell you the worst of drivers are :

1. Women : Despite lower insurance, most women are overly careful drivers and they cause other drivers to be agitated.
2. People talking on cells : People forget they are driving and drive with one hand and occasionally displaying hand gestures to themselves as the person who's talking to them can't see their retardation.
3. SUV drivers : I drive an SUV and I hate other SUV drivers, they are arrogant and bold on the road.

My worst nightmare when I drive?

They need more undercover cop cars and they will hand out more tickets that way and people will learn to drive properly, at all times because the car beside them might pull them over with a ticket. They should make it so that you have to retake your driving exam every 7 years.

Jul 30, 2009#8

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
You think police are heavily into Speed Traps because it's for the safety of the citizens? :blue:

Almost said the same thing. The whole idea behind a speed limit, isn't safety in the least bit. It's to fucking cash off people for the state.

Jul 30, 2009#9

Shegokigo

SeriousJay said:
1. Women : Despite lower insurance, most women are overly careful drivers and they cause other drivers to be agitated.

I half expected you to say "Asians" after that number.

Jul 30, 2009#10

ElJuski

Yeah, how about fuck undercover cop cars. I don't need Big Brother snoping around in hiding waiting to drop a fat bill on my ass because the state is perpetually in debt.

Shegokigo said:
SeriousJay said:

1. Women : Despite lower insurance, most women are overly careful drivers and they cause other drivers to be agitated.

Click to expand...

I half expected you to say "Asians" after that number.

Haha, THIS

Jul 30, 2009#11

Jay

I won't go into races, nothing productive will ever come out of that... unless you're Chris Rock.

Jul 30, 2009#12

The Lovely Boehner

As a normal citizen who drives, let me go ahead and make a lot of moronic generalizations......

Jul 30, 2009#13

Chazwozel

Women drivers; no survivors.

You know I drive the highway everyday for 40 minutes. I refuse to answer my phone and if I do it's only quick 'hi, bye' conversations. If I do I'll pull into the slow lane too and kick down to the speed limit. (I usually haul ass at 90 mph).

I've seen women of all ages hold full ass conversations for those 40 minutes of travel at full speed, not paying attention to the road what so ever. I have yet to see a guy doing that.

Jul 30, 2009#14

Piotyr

And here I was under the impression that cops pulled people over for speeding because that's the easiest thing to catch.

Of course driver error accounts for most, if not all, collisions. The only thing speed does is give less time to avoid or correct the errors.

Jul 30, 2009#15

Chazwozel

Piotyr said:
And here I was under the impression that cops pulled people over for speeding because that's the easiest thing to catch.

Of course driver error accounts for most, if not all, collisions. The only thing speed does is give less time to avoid or correct the errors.

Only if you don't know what the hell you're doing in a high speed crash. Granted, there's a chance you can die, but knowing how to handle a tire blow out at 85 mph does help. For starters, KEEP BOTH GODDAMN HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL AT HIGH SPEEDS! No professional driver EVER drives one handed. That's something to take to the bank.

I agree with this article 100%

At high speeds common sense needs to be at an all time high. Don't duck in and out of traffic. Watch the right lane cars and ahead of the road, so the slow right lane car doesn't jump out in front of you. Mind the asshole behind you who wants to go faster than 90 mph. Let his ass pass you and back off for a while. It's all about recognizing your surroundings and avoiding potential disasters. Always look ahead at the road instead of the bumper of the car ahead of you.

I don't speed aggressively, I speed passively. If someone from the right lane gets over to the left to pass, I don't get up on their ass, I let them pass and then speed back up.

Jul 30, 2009#16

Shegokigo

SeriousJay said:
I won't go into races, nothing productive will ever come out of that... unless you're Chris Rock.

Might as well have with your first comment. :eyeroll:

Juski: You wouldn't have to worry about big brother if you'd keep it under 100mph chief. :slywink:

Jul 30, 2009#17

Piotyr

Chazwozel said:
Piotyr said:

And here I was under the impression that cops pulled people over for speeding because that's the easiest thing to catch.

Of course driver error accounts for most, if not all, collisions. The only thing speed does is give less time to avoid or correct the errors.

Click to expand...

Only if you don't know what the * you're doing in a high speed crash. Granted, there's a chance you can die, but knowing how to handle a tire blow out at 85 mph does help. For starters, KEEP BOTH GODDAMN HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL AT HIGH SPEEDS! No professional driver EVER drives one handed. That's something to take to the bank.

Absolutely, but something like that is tough to enforce barring stricter driving tests. People are fucking idiots, and nobody can really be counted on to keep their shit together while driving, so the only alternative is to keep speed limits artificially low for the current quality of vehicle out there, and enforce something that's actually possible to enforce from the side of the road.

Jul 30, 2009#18

I think teenagers are the worst, but for various reasons. The Asians/Hispanics/African American bitch is always because they drive slowly. Not because they are doing anything wrong, just not getting the hell out of the way of your impatient ass.

Teenagers are the worst because the boys are trying to impress their friends and the girls are distracted by socialization. Maybe that's a generalization, but I've certainly seen it more often than not and it's a big factor in why I'm paying out the ass for insurance.

My kids both know that if they are ever in an accident it's fine. As long as everyone is okay I'm not going to be upset - with one caveat. If they were talkingon the cell phone or texting they will lose all driving privleges until they buy their own car & insurance. They will be dropped immediately from mine and not allowed to drive again. Same with drinking. If they have been drinking - which I have no issues with - and need a ride they can call at ANY HOUR and not get into trouble. But the minute they try and drive they lose the car. I am immovable on these.

But to say "women"? Jay, Jay, Jay.

Jul 30, 2009#19

Piotyr

The worst kind of drivers are:

1) People who are not of my gender
2) People who are not of my race
3) People younger than me
4) People older than me

Jul 30, 2009#20

Piotyr said:
The worst kind of drivers are:

1) People who are not of my gender
2) People who are not of my race
3) People younger than me
4) People older than me

FUCKIN' A!

Jul 30, 2009#21

Chazwozel

Edrondol said:
I think teenagers are the worst, but for various reasons. The Asians/Hispanics/African American * is always because they drive slowly. Not because they are doing anything wrong, just not getting the * out of the way of your impatient a**.

Teenagers are the worst because the boys are trying to impress their friends and the girls are distracted by socialization. Maybe that's a generalization, but I've certainly seen it more often than not and it's a big factor in why I'm paying out the a** for insurance.

My kids both know that if they are ever in an accident it's fine. As long as everyone is okay I'm not going to be upset - with one caveat. If they were talkingon the cell phone or texting they will lose all driving privleges until they buy their own car & insurance. They will be dropped immediately from mine and not allowed to drive again. Same with drinking. If they have been drinking - which I have no issues with - and need a ride they can call at ANY HOUR and not get into trouble. But the minute they try and drive they lose the car. I am immovable on these.

But to say "women"? Jay, Jay, Jay.

My sister-in-law has a Jeep Liberty, and only a few weeks ago figured out that she needs to pull the fly-lever to activate her 4 wheel drive. Women drivers suck! There are few and far between that can actually handle a car the way it's meant to be handled.

Jul 30, 2009#22

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
I've seen black men of all ages hold full ass watermelons in their hands and eat them for those 40 minutes of travel at full speed, not paying attention to the road what so ever. I have yet to see a white guy doing that.

Jul 30, 2009#23

Bullshit, Chaz.

You know why insurance is cheaper for women? Because they have fewer accidents/tickets per capita! If they didn't their insurance rates would be greater. I'll go and try to find stats to back that up but come on, man!

Jul 30, 2009#24

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
Chazwozel said:

I've seen black men of all ages hold full a** watermelons in their hands and eat them for those 40 minutes of travel at full speed, not paying attention to the road what so ever. I have yet to see a white guy doing that.

Click to expand...

I see where you're trying to take this, and I wish I was exaggerating...

Jul 30, 2009#25

strawman

Speeding Kills.

The following two items are fact (due to physics):

1. Higher speeds leave less room for driver error (ie, time to react to changing road conditions and other drivers)

2. Higher speeds result in greater injury and death when an accident does occur, regardless of driver error - further this is exponential, not linear.

The difference between hitting a solid wall at 30mph vs 40mph is nearly 2x the force applied to the human body in the deceleration. Hitting a pedestrian at 35 vs 25 in a neighborhood is, generally, the difference between life and death (yes, 25mph is somewhat a nice round number, but it's also very close to the speed at which you can accelerate a human head against a deformable car hood and still have a reasonable chance of living. Not against the bumper, though, which is quite unfortunately for toddlers.)

So while the article is correct in that speed is not the major CAUSE of accidents, it should be kept in mind that it is the major FACTOR in the severity of the crash - the other minor factors being axis of the force, frame and body crumple and deformation, safety and protective gear and equipment, etc.

Speed tops the list in determining just how bad an accident is, and does increase the likelihood of an accident.

-Adam

Jul 30, 2009#26

Chazwozel

Edrondol said:
Bullshit, Chaz.

You know why insurance is cheaper for women? Because they have fewer accidents/tickets per capita! If they didn't their insurance rates would be greater. I'll go and try to find stats to back that up but come on, man!

Don't get me wrong

It's cheaper for women up to a certain age, then shit levels out.

Teenage boys >>>>>>>>> Middle age women

But 40 year old soccer mom is fucked in a 70 mph tire blow out.

Jul 30, 2009#27

Interesting. From a John Hopkins report:

Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on average they drove 74 percent more miles per year than did women.

The investigators determined that about half of the 3.1-fold difference between the sexes’ fatal crash involvement rates was due to the fact that males’ crashes were more severe. Another 40 percent was due to the fact that men, who on average drove many more miles than women, thus had a greater opportunity of being in a crash; and 8 percent because of gender differences in “crash incidence density,” the number of crashes per million person-miles.

Looking for more to back up my assertion of bullshit...but not finding any.

Jul 30, 2009#28

Jay

Sorry man, but it's true and I'm sticking to my guns.

I've been in 3 accidents in my life. Two times I was completely stopped for well over 10 seconds at a red light and rear-ended from women SUV drivers who failed to slow down. The other time my fiancee and I slowly started to stop at a railroad track with the train already passing and when we completely stopped we got rear-ended from a non-SUV woman driver. She was still talking on her cellphone when she came out of her car and was "bothered" by the situation but didn't want to finish her call. I called the police and informed them on the situation, another car behind her stayed behind to confirm she was on the phone and she was.... "more bothered" by the huge ticket she got and probabaly dealing with insurance.

Jul 30, 2009#29

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
Shegokigo said:

Chazwozel said:

I've seen black men of all ages hold full a** watermelons in their hands and eat them for those 40 minutes of travel at full speed, not paying attention to the road what so ever. I have yet to see a white guy doing that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I see where you're trying to take this, and I wish I was exaggerating...

This is the WoW argument all over again Chaz. Just because you've personally witnessed it more often than others, does not make your opinion fact. :eek:

rly:

Jul 30, 2009#30

Even further, women have more accidents than men but men die more often because they tend to drive faster and more aggresively.

Looking at these statistics is very interesting.

Jul 30, 2009#31

Jay

My sister-in-law has a Jeep Liberty, and only a few weeks ago figured out that she needs to pull the fly-lever to activate her 4 wheel drive

I wish this was a joke but it's...so sad.

Jul 30, 2009#32

Chazwozel

stienman said:
Speeding Kills.

The following two items are fact (due to physics):

1. Higher speeds leave less room for driver error (ie, time to react to changing road conditions and other drivers)

2. Higher speeds result in greater injury and death when an accident does occur, regardless of driver error - further this is exponential, not linear.

The difference between hitting a solid wall at 30mph vs 40mph is nearly 2x the force applied to the human body in the deceleration. Hitting a pedestrian at 35 vs 25 in a neighborhood is, generally, the difference between life and death (yes, 25mph is somewhat a nice round number, but it's also very close to the speed at which you can accelerate a human head against a deformable car hood and still have a reasonable chance of living. Not against the bumper, though, which is quite unfortunately for toddlers.)

So while the article is correct in that speed is not the major CAUSE of accidents, it should be kept in mind that it is the major FACTOR in the severity of the crash - the other minor factors being axis of the force, frame and body crumple and deformation, safety and protective gear and equipment, etc.

Speed tops the list in determining just how bad an accident is, and does increase the likelihood of an accident.

-Adam

1. Only if you don't know how to drive at high speed. If you can't, don't do it. Again not claiming 100% deathproof, but if you know how to handle a high speed situation, you're better off. Most people don't.

2. Only if your car isn't made for it. A corvette at 150mph handles far better than a Honda Civic at 90mph. I'm not saying you can't die, but the risk is significantly lower when you drive a car made for speeding over a Ford P.O.S.

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:44 am --

Edrondol said:
Interesting. From a John Hopkins report:

Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on average they drove 74 percent more miles per year than did women.

The investigators determined that about half of the 3.1-fold difference between the sexes’ fatal crash involvement rates was due to the fact that males’ crashes were more severe. Another 40 percent was due to the fact that men, who on average drove many more miles than women, thus had a greater opportunity of being in a crash; and 8 percent because of gender differences in “crash incidence density,” the number of crashes per million person-miles.

Click to expand...

Looking for more to back up my assertion of bullshit...but not finding any.

This is pretty much saying that men die more often due to driving under risky conditions. Which I agree. You're not going to survive many 100 mph crashes. And that women generally don't know what the fuck to do during an emergency.

Jul 30, 2009#33

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
Edrondol said:

Interesting. From a John Hopkins report:

Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on average they drove 74 percent more miles per year than did women.

The investigators determined that about half of the 3.1-fold difference between the sexes’ fatal crash involvement rates was due to the fact that males’ crashes were more severe. Another 40 percent was due to the fact that men, who on average drove many more miles than women, thus had a greater opportunity of being in a crash; and 8 percent because of gender differences in “crash incidence density,” the number of crashes per million person-miles.

Click to expand...

Looking for more to back up my assertion of bullshit...but not finding any.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much saying that men die more often due to driving under risky conditions. Which I agree. You're not going to survive many 100 mph crashes. And that women generally don't know what the fuck to do during an emergency.

Hit the Chaz man with facts and he still goes: :Leyla:

Jul 30, 2009#34

No, what it's saying is that men drive faster and more aggresively and women tend to drive more slowly and less aggresively. While women are in more accidents per million miles driven, men's accidents are more dangerous and are far more often fatal.

Here's another great site:

http://reportingstatistics.blogspot.com ... s-and.html

I know it's a blog, but their links are wonderful.

Jul 30, 2009#35

Gurpel

wow this is a can of worms.

first of all, usually when people say "x minority (racial) can't drive" they mean "immigrants can't drive"

which is true. take it from someone who sees fresh off the boat asian drivers all the time. if you learned another driving system before the western one, or are learning the western driving system at an older age (30-50) you wont be as good at driving in a western system

the same basic thing can be said of women drivers. until recently, most women drivers didn't start driving until after marriage - again, 30-50 range - and it led to a similar level of incompetence. once the stereotype is established it doesnt matter if it still holds true - people will cite run of the mill terrible women drivers ("run of the mill terrible drivers" exist across the board.) and hold that up as evidence that women can't drive.

For example - my grandfather didn't learn to drive until he was 40 (before then he worked in the yukon driving horses, not many roads up there). he is an abjectly terrible driver. On the other hand, my grandma(his wife) has been driving since she was 12, and is vastly better at driving. hell, she can drive a stick shift, smoke, and drink coffee at the same time with one arm. i can say this with certainty because

-i have seen her do it
-she was born with one arm.

anyway.... as to the original article, i have a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_effect

this effect represents the propensity of bad drivers to think that they are good drivers. this article isn't helping anything - a bad driver will read it and go "yeah, i hate those terrible drivers! and jeez, i guess this means that because i'm such a good driver, i can go faster than regular people."

EDIT: i forgot half a sentence :bush:

Jul 30, 2009#36

Shegokigo

I can't believe the amount of idiocy this thread has spawned within the first page. Seriously? Sexism and racism?

I thought HF was way above that.

Jul 30, 2009#37

Gurpel

Shegokigo said:
I can't believe the amount of idiocy this thread has spawned within the first page. Seriously? Sexism and racism?

I thought HF was way above that.

hay, dont forget me, i was being ageist.

Jul 30, 2009#38

Chazwozel

Edrondol said:
No, what it's saying is that men drive faster and more aggresively and women tend to drive more slowly and less aggresively. While women are in more accidents per million miles driven, men's accidents are more dangerous and are far more often fatal.

Here's another great site:

http://reportingstatistics.blogspot.com ... s-and.html

I know it's a blog, but their links are wonderful.

Why would you be in more accidents per million miles driven if you drove better?

Men generally take more risks. ---> more fatal accidents per million miles
Women generally don't know how to drive. ---> More accidents per million miles

Just because you drive more slowly and less aggressively doesn't make you a good driver.

Jul 30, 2009#39

"Asians just off the boat"?

Wait, wait, wait! That deserves another.

(On reread I think he meant it sarcastically. Please mean that sarcastically.)

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:59 am --

Interesting question, Chaz. Would I say women are better drivers than men because men cause more fatal accidents? Or would I say that men are better drivers because women get into more accidents?

Not sure. According to this, I'd rather get into an accident with a woman because I'm more likely to walk away from it.

Jul 30, 2009#40

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
Men generally take more risks. ---> more fatal accidents per million miles
Women generally don't know how to drive. ---> More accidents per million miles

Wow, is that really what you want to go with as your argument? I mean wow.

Men die in most of their accidents.
Women have more but don't die.

Men are the better driver?

Jul 30, 2009#41

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
Chazwozel said:

Men generally take more risks. ---> more fatal accidents per million miles
Women generally don't know how to drive. ---> More accidents per million miles

Click to expand...

Wow, is that really what you want to go with as your argument? I mean wow.

Men die in most of their accidents.
Women have more but don't die.

Men are the better driver?

I'd like to see the fatality rates of men and women drivers at high speed compared, and the low speed average accidents.

Jul 30, 2009#42

Gurpel

Edrondol said:
"Asians just off the boat"?

Wait, wait, wait! That deserves another.

(On reread I think he meant it sarcastically. Please mean that sarcastically.)

i was only being a little sarcastic.

being racist towards asians would be something like: those subhuman immigrants really piss me off

what i said was: people who have learned a fundamentally different style of driving will have a hard time learning the western one.

if that is racist somehow please inform me and i will edit my post.

EDIT: just for clarification, i edited my previous post. i had forgot about half a sentence. sorry if that made the post seem muddled.

Jul 30, 2009#43

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
I'd like to see the fatality rates of men and women drivers at high speed compared, and the low speed average accidents.

Why? Neither should be driving at high speeds.

Jul 30, 2009#44

Gurpel said:
Edrondol said:

\"Asians just off the boat\"?

Wait, wait, wait! That deserves another.

(On reread I think he meant it sarcastically. Please mean that sarcastically.)

Click to expand...

i was only being a little sarcastic.

being racist towards asians would be something like: those subhuman immigrants really piss me off

what i said was: people who have learned a fundamentally different style of driving will have a hard time learning the western one.

if that is racist somehow please inform me and i will edit my post.

Ah. I see. "Fresh off the boat" is a term used to denegrate immigrants since the early days of the US. Maybe I only know it because I'm older.

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:08 am --

Reading the entry in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_off_the_boat) it seems it's lost some of its racist undertones. Guess I learned something today.

Jul 30, 2009#45

strawman

Chazwozel said:
stienman said:

1. Higher speeds leave less room for driver error (ie, time to react to changing road conditions and other drivers)

Click to expand...

1. Only if you don't know how to drive at high speed. If you can't, don't do it. Again not claiming 100% deathproof, but if you know how to handle a high speed situation, you're better off. Most people don't.

Practice and training can make one better able to react appropriately more quickly than someone who isn't adequately trained.

However, you still have LESS time to react at a higher speed than a lower speed no matter how able you are to handle high speed. The issue isn't how well you can handle your car, the issue is that by the time you've processed the visual information, and started instructing your muscles to move from the gas to the brake, you've gone further at higher speed than you've gone at lower speed.

Chazwozel said:
stienman said:

2. Higher speeds result in greater injury and death when an accident does occur, regardless of driver error - further this is exponential, not linear.

Click to expand...

2. Only if your car isn't made for it. A corvette at 150mph handles far better than a Honda Civic at 90mph. I'm not saying you can't die, but the risk is significantly lower when you drive a car made for speeding over a Ford P.O.S.

That's irrelevant.

You will experience nearly 2x the force going 45 in a corvette than going 35 in that same car.

You will experience nearly 2x the force going 45 in a pinto than going 35 in that same car.

It's simple physics.

Yes, different cars have different capability to decelerate the human body safely when they hit something, but within the same vehicle the deceleration force is still exponentially greater the faster you go.

So, while your caveats are informational, at the end of the day a higher speed is worse due to many factors, and these two are big reasons to keep the speed down.

-Adam

Jul 30, 2009#46

Chazwozel

Edrondol said:
"Asians just off the boat"?

Wait, wait, wait! That deserves another.

(On reread I think he meant it sarcastically. Please mean that sarcastically.)

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:59 am --

Interesting question, Chaz. Would I say women are better drivers than men because men cause more fatal accidents? Or would I say that men are better drivers because women get into more accidents?

Not sure. According to this, I'd rather get into an accident with a woman because I'm more likely to walk away from it.

Well, thing is any accident can have detrimental effects and every accident is different. So, I'm the opposite. I'd rather be the passenger of a car of someone who knows how to react to the accident if it occurs, rather than someone who's prone to more accidents.

According to those facts, you'll less likely be in an accident if your male, but if you are you run a higher risk of that accident being fatal. If you're a woman your accident risk increases, but you run a lower risk of fatality. Would you rather ride with someone with a 30% chance to get into an accident with an 80% fatality rate if that accident occurs, or would you rather ride with someone with a 60% chance of accident and 50% fatality rate? My statistics are rusty but I run 24% chance of death with the male driver and 30% with the woman one in terms of accident probability and fatality probability.

I'm not trying to be sexist here, but it's a cultural thing here that men generally learn how to operate cars better. I can't help that we're all the product of a sexist society. I'm not saying that women can't learn how to drive, but society conditions them to drive the way they do. Am I claiming that all women suck as drivers? Hell no! Nor are all men wonderful drivers. I'm just reporting how the trend goes. Don't shoot the messenger.

Personal note: I have a male friend who's a semi-pro auto racer. I feel faaaaar safer as his passenger when he's doing crazy shit in his cars like gunning 140 mph over my other, female friend, who will occasionally nail a curb because (well I don't know why she does it), or fly around corners at 50 mph into the other lane because she doesn't understand the concept of centripetal force, friction, and basic driving maneuvers.

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:47 pm --

stienman said:
Chazwozel said:

stienman said:

1. Higher speeds leave less room for driver error (ie, time to react to changing road conditions and other drivers)

Click to expand...

1. Only if you don't know how to drive at high speed. If you can't, don't do it. Again not claiming 100% deathproof, but if you know how to handle a high speed situation, you're better off. Most people don't.

Click to expand...

Practice and training can make one better able to react appropriately more quickly than someone who isn't adequately trained.

However, you still have LESS time to react at a higher speed than a lower speed no matter how able you are to handle high speed. The issue isn't how well you can handle your car, the issue is that by the time you've processed the visual information, and started instructing your muscles to move from the gas to the brake, you've gone further at higher speed than you've gone at lower speed.

Chazwozel said:

stienman said:

2. Higher speeds result in greater injury and death when an accident does occur, regardless of driver error - further this is exponential, not linear.

Click to expand...

2. Only if your car isn't made for it. A corvette at 150mph handles far better than a Honda Civic at 90mph. I'm not saying you can't die, but the risk is significantly lower when you drive a car made for speeding over a Ford P.O.S.

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.

You will experience nearly 2x the force going 45 in a corvette than going 35 in that same car.

You will experience nearly 2x the force going 45 in a pinto than going 35 in that same car.

It's simple physics.

Yes, different cars have different capability to decelerate the human body safely when they hit something, but within the same vehicle the deceleration force is still exponentially greater the faster you go.

So, while your caveats are informational, at the end of the day a higher speed is worse due to many factors, and these two are big reasons to keep the speed down.

-Adam

I agree with you. No car is going to circumvent physics, but the fact of the matter is that you're more likely to survive a high speed crash in a Nascar grade racecar going 90 mph into a wall than a Geo Metro at the same speed. Simple absorption physics. i.e. If your car ain't made to go 100 mph, don't go 100 mph. This is something a lot of people ignore, especially those little wannabe race pro's with their crappy, loud Honda Civics.

Furthermore, the reason why sports cars are so much more expensive than sedans (for example) is because of the probability that the sports car owner WILL drive fast. This doesn't imply that sports cars are not safe, which is why I hate those fucking consumer report articles about Camaros, Mustangs, and Corvettes being the unsafest cars, and Volvo's ranking the highest. If people that bought Volvos drove at the speeds Corvettes are driven, you'd see a total reversal of accident to fatality ratios.

Man if you guys think I'm a cock about this....

I personally think anyone who can't do basic engine maintenance like change their own oil, replace an air filter shouldn't have a driver's license.

Jul 30, 2009#47

Tress

Wikipedia said:
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.[1]

Jul 30, 2009#48

sixpackshaker

It is the combo of Speeder hitting a distracted driver changing lanes w/o looking. Or the distracted driver running the speeder off the road and not getting into accidents themselves.

Jul 30, 2009#49

Chazwozel

Tress said:
Wikipedia said:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.[1]

Click to expand...

So the whole field of statistics falls under this, is what you're saying. :rofl:

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:08 pm --

sixpackshaker said:
It is the combo of Speeder hitting a distracted driver changing lanes w/o looking. Or the distracted driver running the speeder off the road and not getting into accidents themselves.

Well that's my point. A good driver that's speeding will know to look for soccer mom's on the right hand side and be cautious of them well before any situation like that occurs. A dumbass will fly past without a second thought.

Jul 30, 2009#50

strawman

Chazwozel said:
If people that bought Volvos drove at the speeds Corvettes are driven, you'd see a total reversal of accident to fatality ratios.

Show me the data.

If you don't have a good source for this assertion, then take the crash data for everything over 80mph and give me a sports car vs regular car breakdown of fatalities.

-Adam

Jul 30, 2009#51

Chazwozel

stienman said:
Chazwozel said:

If people that bought Volvos drove at the speeds Corvettes are driven, you'd see a total reversal of accident to fatality ratios.

Click to expand...

Show me the data.

If you don't have a good source for this assertion, then take the crash data for everything over 80mph and give me a sports car vs regular car breakdown of fatalities.

-Adam

I can't find that data. The car companies only report things like Head Injury Criterion, chest deceleration, and femur load. These are done at 35mph into a wall. Average cars are going to fair better than sports cars.

Another problem is that there isn't basic crash test data from high end sports cars. They're are either not enough on the road, or they simply don't do the crash tests on them.

It's simple logic though. A Corvette and a stock Honda Civic crash at 90mph. The Corvette has better airbags, better seat belts, it's frame is designed better with better crumple zones. The chances for the Corvette driver to survive are slim but better than the Civic driver.

Jul 30, 2009#52

Tress

Chazwozel said:
Tress said:

Wikipedia said:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.[1]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So the whole field of statistics falls under this, is what you're saying.

Of course! I'm certainly not making a comment on some retarded comments in this thread about race, gender, and age.

Jul 30, 2009#53

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
I can't find that data. The car companies only report things like Head Injury Criterion, chest deceleration, and femur load. These are done at 35mph into a wall. Average cars are going to fair better than sports cars.

Another problem is that there isn't basic crash test data from high end sports cars. They're are either not enough on the road, or they simply don't do the crash tests on them.

It's simple logic though. A Corvette and a stock Honda Civic crash at 90mph. The Corvette has better airbags, better seat belts, it's frame is designed better with better crumple zones. The chances for the Corvette driver to survive are slim but better than the Civic driver.

So again, you're talking about personal experience and claiming to be a whole stated fact that is applicable to generalizations?

Jul 30, 2009#54

Chazwozel

Tress said:
Chazwozel said:

Tress said:

Wikipedia said:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.[1]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So the whole field of statistics falls under this, is what you're saying.

Click to expand...

Of course! I'm certainly not making a comment on some retarded comments in this thread about race, gender, and age.

Well race has nothing to do with anything.

Like I stated before, gender is more of a cultural thing, and I'm not saying that all women are bad drivers either...

Age is a very real stat. Teenagers are bad. Older (60+) can be very dangerous behind the wheel.

-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:33 pm --

Shegokigo said:
Chazwozel said:

I can't find that data. The car companies only report things like Head Injury Criterion, chest deceleration, and femur load. These are done at 35mph into a wall. Average cars are going to fair better than sports cars.

Another problem is that there isn't basic crash test data from high end sports cars. They're are either not enough on the road, or they simply don't do the crash tests on them.

It's simple logic though. A Corvette and a stock Honda Civic crash at 90mph. The Corvette has better airbags, better seat belts, it's frame is designed better with better crumple zones. The chances for the Corvette driver to survive are slim but better than the Civic driver.

Click to expand...

So again, you're talking about personal experience and claiming to be a whole stated fact that is applicable to generalizations?

What personal experience? I've never been in a 90 mph crash, but if I was you bet your ass I'd want to be in a high end sports car over a Ford Focus.

Jul 30, 2009#55

strawman

Chazwozel said:
stienman said:

Chazwozel said:

If people that bought Volvos drove at the speeds Corvettes are driven, you'd see a total reversal of accident to fatality ratios.

Click to expand...

Show me the data.

Click to expand...

I can't find that data. The car companies only report things like Head Injury Criterion, chest deceleration, and femur load. These are done at 35mph into a wall. Average cars are going to fair better than sports cars.

Another problem is that there isn't basic crash test data from high end sports cars. They're are either not enough on the road, or they simply don't do the crash tests on them.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryTool ... tYear.aspx

Over 30 years of crash data, including high speed crashes, sortable by speed of accident, make, and model.

Knock yourself out.

Chazwozel said:
The Corvette has better airbags, better seat belts, it's frame is designed better with better crumple zones.

You obviously don't know the auto industry. On the off-chance that I'm wrong, go ahead and show me how you determined that the airbags, seat belts, and frame on a corvette are better in terms of safety than those same parts on the volvo.

-Adam

Jul 30, 2009#56

Seraphyn

Speeding is like the least dangerous thing I ever run into on the road. Driving too slow, staying in the wrong lane, frantically switching lanes, overtaking you then hit on the brake in front of you and such are at least a zillion times more dangerous then that guy that's going 220 on the left (fast) lane.

As for who is the most dangerous driver: Unfocused/distracted drivers are the most dangerous. Anytime you start doing anything that takes your mind/vision/attention off the road, you risk everyone's lives, no matter at what speed you're going at that moment.

Jul 30, 2009#57

Chazwozel

stienman said:
Chazwozel said:

stienman said:

Chazwozel said:

If people that bought Volvos drove at the speeds Corvettes are driven, you'd see a total reversal of accident to fatality ratios.

Click to expand...

Show me the data.

Click to expand...

I can't find that data. The car companies only report things like Head Injury Criterion, chest deceleration, and femur load. These are done at 35mph into a wall. Average cars are going to fair better than sports cars.

Another problem is that there isn't basic crash test data from high end sports cars. They're are either not enough on the road, or they simply don't do the crash tests on them.

Click to expand...

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryTool ... tYear.aspx

Over 30 years of crash data, including high speed crashes, sortable by speed of accident, make, and model.

Knock yourself out.

Chazwozel said:

The Corvette has better airbags, better seat belts, it's frame is designed better with better crumple zones.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't know the auto industry. On the off-chance that I'm wrong, go ahead and show me how you determined that the airbags, seat belts, and frame on a corvette are better in terms of safety than those same parts on the volvo.

-Adam

You're telling me a 5 point Z06 harness is on par with a sedan lap belt? I'm not going to get into better brakes and crumple zones... The sheer fact that a Z06 has a lower center of gravity over say a Volvo sedan means it's less likely to roll over in an impact.

Jul 30, 2009#58

sixpackshaker

A Corvette is built like a power-boat. It is just glue and strands of glass. The plastic fantastic is not good in a high-speed crash. Even cheap Japanese cars are good in accidents, but they just don't have the mass of a Crown Vic.

The only car I'd want to be in during a high-speed crash is a Flag Ship Mercedes. I've seen footage of one sliding off the road at 100mph spinning, and flipping for many yards. Then when it came to a halt, the doors opened and the passengers walked out.

Jul 30, 2009#59

Chazwozel

sixpackshaker said:
A Corvette is built like a power-boat. It is just glue and strands of glass. The plastic fantastic is not good in a high-speed crash. Even cheap Japanese cars are good in accidents, but they just don't have the mass of a Crown Vic.

The only car I'd want to be in during a high-speed crash is a Flag Ship Mercedes. I've seen footage of one sliding off the road at 100mph spinning, and flipping for many yards. Then when it came to a halt, the doors opened and the passengers walked out.

No car exterior is made to survive a crash. The metal frame is what is required to maintain so, for example, in a front end crash the engine doesn't say hello to your torso. A vette has a solid aluminum alloy frame which is stronger than most low end sedans.

Jul 30, 2009#60

figmentPez

Bad drivers reduce traffic jams

I'm not sure I believe it. It's only been tested in simulation, of pedestrian traffic at that, and it makes no mention of taking accidents, and the flow problems they cause, into account.

Jul 30, 2009#61

Chazwozel

Tally on cell phones on my hour drive from work today.

At least 10 women drivers yakking away for over 10 minutes a piece.

I saw 1 guy with his phone.

Also witnessed a lady in the fast lane driving the speed limit then proceed to cut off the car in the right lane as she got over.

One of the cell phone chicks barreled past me on the right lane at over 90 mph and then cut off a truck on the left lane, all while chatting like it ain't no thing.

Glad I know how to drive, and fully stop at the offramp before inching forward. Some lady decided not to want to wait for the guy turning left to the onramp, goes to pass him at full speed and nearly clipped my front end sitting at the offramp stop sign.

Oh and I almost got rearended when the guy in front of me stopped short at the traffic light on my home. I had plenty of space to stop, bitch tailgating me didn't. Oh yeah, she was on her cell phone.... :slap:

This is pretty much a daily routine for me, and you people are still trying to convince me that women aren't the worse of the two sexes in terms of driving?

Jul 30, 2009#62

The Lovely Boehner

Yes because your personal experience isn't statistically significant in the least. I don't know how you don't see this as someone working in science.

Jul 30, 2009#63

SeriousJay said:
I've been in 3 accidents in my life.

You really do have the "it happened to me therefore the world is like this" mentality down pat, don't you? Why people even bother responding to this bullshit I can't fathom.

Jul 30, 2009#64

Frankie Williamson

Shegokigo said:
You think police are heavily into Speed Traps because it's for the safety of the citizens? :blue:

Anytime I'm in the office, my Staff asks me why I'm not out writing tickets. Then when I go out and write tickets he gives me hell about not having my paperwork done.

I hate my job.

Jul 30, 2009#65

Ravenpoe

I have anecdotal evidence that contradicts EVERYONE in this thread.

So what now, bitches*?

*This is the non gender-specific variation of bitches

Jul 30, 2009#66

Chazwozel

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Yes because your personal experience isn't statistically significant in the least. I don't know how you don't see this as someone working in science.

I see it every damn day. I wish I was making this up.

Jul 30, 2009#67

drawn_inward

Speed doesn't kill people. People kill people. :tongue:

Jul 30, 2009#68

blotsfan

People don't kill people. Candlejack kills pe

Jul 30, 2009#69

strawman

Chazwozel said:
You're telling me a 5 point Z06 harness is on par with a sedan lap belt?

What 5 point harness? It's not even an option on that vehicle, or the highest level corvette, nevermind standard. Are you talking about aftermarket accessories?

Chazwozel said:
The sheer fact that a Z06 has a lower center of gravity over say a Volvo sedan means it's less likely to roll over in an impact.

Ok, perhaps risk of rollover is lower. It's probably not significant in the mix, but if it is I'd like to see the data.

Have you crunched through the FARS system data yet? So far you haven't given me anything significant that proves your point, so I'm still scratching my head...

-Adam

Jul 30, 2009#70

Chazwozel

stienman said:
Chazwozel said:

You're telling me a 5 point Z06 harness is on par with a sedan lap belt?

Click to expand...

What 5 point harness? It's not even an option on that vehicle, or the highest level corvette, nevermind standard. Are you talking about aftermarket accessories?

Chazwozel said:

The sheer fact that a Z06 has a lower center of gravity over say a Volvo sedan means it's less likely to roll over in an impact.

Click to expand...

Ok, perhaps risk of rollover is lower. It's probably not significant in the mix, but if it is I'd like to see the data.

Have you crunched through the FARS system data yet? So far you haven't given me anything significant that proves your point, so I'm still scratching my head...

-Adam

I don't get how the website works, and I'm not spending an hour to make nice excel graphs for this thread. Being right on the internet isn't that important to me.

But what I gather is you're claiming that in a 80-90 mph crash a honda civic is safer than a Lamborghini. I say no. The Lamborghini will handle better, has better brakes, and control in that situation over a regular sedan. Speed doesn't kill, morons who drive cars that shouldn't be driven at high speed kill.

Jul 30, 2009#71

Chazwozel said:
Being right on the internet isn't that important to me.

Oh shit, I may just have found my sig quote.

Jul 30, 2009#72

strawman

Chazwozel said:
But what I gather is you're claiming that in a 80-90 mph crash a honda civic is safer than a Lamborghini. I say no. The Lamborghini will handle better, has better brakes, and control in that situation over a regular sedan. Speed doesn't kill, morons who drive cars that shouldn't be driven at high speed kill.

In a crash none of those things matter. They may help prior to a crash, but during a crash? No. The nearly instantaneous forces a human undergoes during the actual impact are not significantly affect by how the car is handling during the 800mS of that impact.

All I'm doing is questioning your assertion that one car is safer than another at high speeds. I'm not saying that the opposite is true, I'm merely wondering where you're getting your information from. So far you haven't backed it up with anything at all.

Chazwozel said:
Being right on the internet isn't that important to me.

Wait, what? Here we are having a nice superfluous discussion and you're giving up?!?

I hereby revoke your internet assholery license.

In short:

-Adam

Jul 30, 2009#73

The Lovely Boehner

stienman said:
Wait, what? Here we are having a nice superfluous discussion and you're giving up?!?

I hereby revoke your internet assholery license.

In short:

-Adam

you know, i don't really usually condone image macros, but HOLY SHIT

Jul 30, 2009#74

I like the car in the electrical wires. The text is extra judgmental. You're not just doing it wrong...you're DOING WRONG! :devil:

Jul 30, 2009#75

R

Raikhan

Ahhh stienman, you just made my night.. that was beautiful and hilarious

Jul 31, 2009#76

Mr_Chaz

I find Chaz's entire argument obtuse here. He's arguing that if you're breaking the speed limit then you're safer (note, not safe, just safer) if you're driving a sport car. You know what's even safer than that? Not breaking the speed limit.

Crash at 70 in a sports car or a normal car, crash at 90 in a sports car or a normal car. Which one's safest?

Certainly not either of the ones at 90.

Jul 31, 2009#77

Chazwozel

Mr_Chaz said:
I find Chaz's entire argument obtuse here. He's arguing that if you're breaking the speed limit then you're safer (note, not safe, just safer) if you're driving a sport car. You know what's even safer than that? Not breaking the speed limit.

Crash at 70 in a sports car or a normal car, crash at 90 in a sports car or a normal car. Which one's safest?

Certainly not either of the ones at 90.

Which would you rather be in in an emergency evasive maneuver at 90 mph? A Corvette or a Geo Metro. I'm the one being obtuse? You got Steinman telling me to crunch an hours worth of data to prove my point. And then I have you telling me that the lower speed is safer when that's not at all relevant to my point. And then you have douchebags like Raikhan cheerleading on...

NO SHIT! I believe I said that's "why it pisses me off that consumer reports always ranks sports cars as unsafe due to the fact that accidents involving them are at high speed". They have high fatality rates because people get into high speed accidents with them more often then Volvos. Drive if people drove Volvos around at those same speeds 90+ mph, the fatality of those crashes would overtake those of sports cars. Sports cars ARE safer at higher speeds compared to regular cars because they're fucking made to go fast.

I don't know why I switched my arguement to Corvettes, when I stated Nascar grade racecar at first, but it still makes sense. A Corvette is designed to go fast and be safer at high speeds over a regular sedan.

I agree with you. No car is going to circumvent physics, but the fact of the matter is that you're more likely to survive a high speed crash in a Nascar grade racecar going 90 mph into a wall than a Geo Metro at the same speed. Simple absorption physics. i.e. If your car ain't made to go 100 mph, don't go 100 mph. This is something a lot of people ignore, especially those little wannabe race pro's with their crappy, loud Honda Civics.

Here's the original statement:

Chazwozel wrote:
[quote:20h9qqoq]stienman wrote:
2. Higher speeds result in greater injury and death when an accident does occur, regardless of driver error - further this is exponential, not linear.

2. Only if your car isn't made for it. A corvette at 150mph handles far better than a Honda Civic at 90mph. I'm not saying you can't die, but the risk is significantly lower when you drive a car made for speeding over a Ford P.O.S.[/quote:20h9qqoq]

If you've got a Corvette with a 5 point harness and rollbar, you will far better than a Honda Civic, even if it has the same harness and a rollbar. The Vette has better crumple zones, stronger frame, a lower center of gravity, and more airbags.

I never disagreed with his statement, I simply stated that it's less so with cars made to go fast. Of course you run a bigger risk of death in an accident at high speed no matter what you drive, my entire argument still stands that sports cars are better in high speed situations than regular cars are because they're designed to handle those situations! Whether or not the driver is an idiot also factors into the equation.

As for the 'speed limit' is the safe speed argument. I couldn't disagree more. There's nothing wrong with doing 75-85 mph on a 65 mph stretch of highway. You have to drive smart and know how to drive, but it's no more unsafe than chugging along too slow at 55 on that same stretch. Yes, I throttle down when my kids are in the to 5-10 mph over the limit. Steinman is 100% correct that the faster you go the harder the deceleration is on your body. I don't drive my kids around in a Nascar either.

What IS dangerous is people hauling around 25 mph roads at 50-60. I'm fine with speeding, but there is a time and place where it's acceptable. Speed doesn't kill, bad drivers do. OP article is correct-a-mundo. Good drivers know when it's safe to go faster and when it's time to slow it down.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/ho ... CONCLUSION

Gist of the article:

After the National speed limit was repealed, the state of Montana removed all non-urban speed limits in their state. A few years later, engineers working with the state decided to venture out to see just what kind of post-apocalyptic Death Race wasteland their lawless state had produced. What they found was that, you guessed it, on the roads where they removed the speed limits, fatalities didn't go up at all.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/national- ... el-prices/

Yeah dropping the speed limits from 65 to 55 in the 80's did nothing in terms of safety.

The reason you have a speed limit is so states can collect money off your ass for driving at reasonable high speeds on the highway.

And then you have the best argument for lifting speed limits:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNATuw1DRs:20h9qqoq][/youtube:20h9qqoq]

Speed limits are like alcohol ban laws. They're for douchebags who can't control themselves and need rules to govern their everyday judgment. I don't need a speed limit to tell me that driving 90 mph through a 25 zone neighborhood is dangerous, but in some instances the post 25mph speed limit is ridiculous.

Jul 31, 2009#78

nufan

I have to say this has been an entertaining read so far.
First here is my not so hilarious translation of a few posts.

hi I'm chazwozel, men are better drivers and when I speed in my super jet car I am better at avoiding accidents in the first place so I don't have to worry about speed killing me. I can react better at 90 mph than 50 mph because I'm so focused on my car. I'm like johnny mnemonic jacked into that engine heart loving it better than jesse james.

Hi I'm adam I'm an average driver with an average car, I can drive okay but I'm pretty sure someone out there is going to hit me at somepoint and if they do I hope they aren't going 90mph because my airbags can absorb x-y over 4z6x and if you will look at this chart here...

Hi I'm Shego. :eyeroll: and we're off...

Hi I'm Ed, *spock voice* fascinating.

Hi I'm nufan and I'm stuck taking the goddamn bus.

Somehow I see both Steinman and Chaz's point here though from very different approaches to getting into a vehicle and what they do on the road. I *think* what steinman is trying to relate is that it doesn't matter how GOOD you are someone else will hit you, and Chaz is trying to counter that with good drivers can react at any speed and avoid anything.

It's not how fast you can react, it's how fast the other driver can react. Regardless of speed, car, driver's dna. In a perfect world there are no accidents but if someone hits you going 100mph you really think you are good enough to see it coming? I'm not talking being cut off in traffic, I'm talking about the asshole that runs a stop sign because he's laughing with his dumbass buddies and slams a family SUV killing someones sister.

:aaahhh: :tina:

Jul 31, 2009#79

Shegokigo

nufan said:
Chaz:
I'm like johnny mnemonic jacked into that engine heart loving it better than jesse james.

nufan said:
Hi I'm Shego. :eyeroll: and we're off...

Just wanted to say: Best impression ever.

Jul 31, 2009#80

Never has a thread made me go both WHAAA-?? and WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! so much.

Nufan, that kicked ass.

Edronspock said:
Fascinating.

Jul 31, 2009#81

Shegokigo

Edrondol said:
Never has a thread made me go both WHAAA-?? and WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! so much.

Really? I thought the Transformers 2 thread had plenty of both. :slywink:

Jul 31, 2009#82

JCM

stienman said:
Chazwozel said:

But what I gather is you're claiming that in a 80-90 mph crash a honda civic is safer than a Lamborghini. I say no. The Lamborghini will handle better, has better brakes, and control in that situation over a regular sedan. Speed doesn't kill, morons who drive cars that shouldn't be driven at high speed kill.

Click to expand...

In a crash none of those things matter. They may help prior to a crash, but during a crash? No. The nearly instantaneous forces a human undergoes during the actual impact are not significantly affect by how the car is handling during the 800mS of that impact.

All I'm doing is questioning your assertion that one car is safer than another at high speeds. I'm not saying that the opposite is true, I'm merely wondering where you're getting your information from. So far you haven't backed it up with anything at all.

Chazwozel said:

Being right on the internet isn't that important to me.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? Here we are having a nice superfluous discussion and you're giving up?!?

I hereby revoke your internet assholery license.

In short:

-Adam

Damn you for making me snort coffee all over the keyboard!

Jul 31, 2009#83

Chazwozel

nufan said:
Somehow I see both Steinman and Chaz's point here though from very different approaches to getting into a vehicle and what they do on the road. I *think* what steinman is trying to relate is that it doesn't matter how GOOD you are someone else will hit you, and Chaz is trying to counter that with good drivers can react at any speed and avoid anything.

Kinda, I believe that what makes a driver good is being aware of his surroundings better than your average Joe Blow that doesn't pay attention to the road (sorry but the majority of women fall under the 'don't pay attention category). You're right, I'm not of the camp that "someone else will hit you." If you know how to drive you learn how to prevent that crap, but obviously there are random acts of God, so to speak, where an accident is unavoidable. And, no, people don't have superhuman reaction times when they drive sports cars, but the car handles and brakes better possibly avoiding an accident. My sort of driving is a hybrid awarness/ defensive driving. Steinman is all defensive. That's fine.

No, I don't rip through the highway at God knows what speed, but I like to go 85 mph on average on a long stretch of road that I'm familiar with. No, I don't drive a sports car. I drive a Subaru Impreza. Regular ol' car, that I wouldn't top out more than 90 on. When I had a Jeep Wrangler I wouldn't drive it past 70 since it felt unsafe any faster to me.

Moral of my story is, let people drive at the speeds they're comfortable with and if you don't like it, shut the fuck up and stay in the grandpa lane.

As to the are women worse drivers then men arguement:

Are Women Taking More Risks While Driving? A Look at Michigan Drivers

Download this publication for gender-related statistics.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/chap26.pdf

Gender-related differences have also been observed in motor-vehicle
crash involvement rates.

See table 1, page 4
Driver of Striking Vehicle in Rear End Crash by Age and Gender
Michigan 1987 and 1994

See table 2, page 5
Differences in Rate per 1,000 Licensed Drivers in Rear-End Crash
Striking Vehicle by Age and
Gender in Michigan 1987 ? 1994

?If rear-end crashes can be assumed to be a consequence of following
too closely, these findings
support those of the headway study in that younger drivers more than
older drivers and males more than females engage in this particular
risky driving behavior.?

SPEED
?Traveling at excessive speeds can also be considered as a measure of
drivers willingness to expose
themselves to the risk of crash. In 1984, Wasielewski published an
analysis of speeding as a measure
of driver risk.?

(?)

?Wasielewski found a statistically significant decline in travel
speeds with age and noted that women
were less likely than men to be among the drivers at very high or very
low speeds. Analysis of
driving records showed that drivers with the fastest driving speeds
were more likely than others to
have crashes or violations on their driving records.?

See table 3, page 6
?It shows the frequency of occurrence and the incidence rate per 1,000
licensed drivers of these crashes by gender and age. The table shows
clearly that younger drivers were more likely than older drivers to be
speeding before a collision. Overall, men were about twice as likely
as women to be speeding before a collision?.

See table 5, page 7
Percentage Distribution of Self-Reported Speeds on Michigan Rural
Freeways (Speed Limit 65 MPH)
by Gender and Age in 1995

SAFETY BELT USE
Safety belts are designed specifically for reducing death and injuries
from traffic crashes. They are
only effective, however, if they are used. A lack of safety belt use
has been shown to be positively
correlated with high risk driving behavior.

See figure 2, page 8

?It shows the overall safety belt use rates by survey year and gender
across all age groups, as determined by direct-observation.?

?This figure shows clearly that safety belt use among women has been
consistently higher than men in every survey year.?

Download here.
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/chap26.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a study from Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public
Health female drivers are involved in slightly more crashes than men.

?Although men are three times more likely than women to be killed in
car crashes, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and
Public Health have found that, when the total numbers of crashes are
considered, female drivers are involved in slightly more crashes than
men. Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles
driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on
average they drove 74 percent more miles per year than did women.

The investigators, who published their results in the July issue of
Epidemiology, found that although teenage boys started off badly, with
about 20 percent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls,
males and females between ages 20 and 35 were equally at risk of being
involved in a crash, and after age 35 female drivers were at greater
risk of a crash than their male counterparts.?
http://www.junkscience.com/news2/womendri.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Women behind the wheel: Statistical overview of road crash involvement (1998)

This report forms part of a series published by the Federal Office of
Road Safety (FORS) on women and road safety. It presents national road
crash statistics for women, and in particular, women drivers involved
in fatal crashes and crashes resulting in hospitalization.

For reasons of copyright, I cannot reproduce the material here,
however you can download the complete document here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/199 ... _Fem_5.pdf

Female Drivers

Women behind the wheel: mid-age drivers
This monograph focuses on mid-age driver behavior.
Download here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/199 ... _Fem_3.pdf

Women behind the wheel: young drivers
This monograph focuses on young driver behavior.
Download here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/199 ... _Fem_6.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Women are generally considered better risks on the road than men.

?In 2002, for example, the National Safety Council (NSC) reported 50.1
percent of licensed drivers were males. They also accounted for 62
percent of the actual miles driven. In that same year, male drivers
were involved in 38,900 fatal crashes, while female drivers were
involved in 13,800 fatal crashes. Thus, women are generally considered
better risks on the road than men. It should be said that this gap is
beginning to narrow. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
reportedly has said that between 1975 and 2002, females deaths in
motor vehicle crashes rose 14 percent while male deaths declined 10
percent.?

Cleveland.com: December 03, 2005
http://www.cleveland.com/autoinsight/pl ... xml&coll=2

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender and Auto Insurance
?Males under the age of 30 are charged higher rates than females
because they are involved in more accidents per mile than any other
demographic.?
Source: The Washington State Office of the Attorney General
http://www.atg.wa.gov/teenconsumer/page ... urance.htm

Gender:
?Statistics show that men are more likely to speed and gets into car
accidents are usually charged a higher premium.?
http://www.car-accidents.net/car-accidents-high.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------

?According to annual police reports, men's accident involvement per
100 licensed drivers is about twice women's in each age group.?

Automobile Insurance Pricing: Operating Cost versus Ownership Cost;
the Implications for Women
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/chap39.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Who?s a better driver, a man or a woman?

?That question, discussed and argued for many years, was the subject
of a survey conducted by Prince Market Research (PMR) on behalf of
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. as part of Firestone?s Centennial
activities.

When asked, who drives more safely, men or women, a little more than
half (56%) of the total survey respondents said women drive more
safely. Further results show each gender believing they drive safer
than the opposite sex. Approximately three-quarters (76%) of the women
interviewed said they are safer drivers, while more than two-thirds
(69%) of the men surveyed believe they are the safer drivers.?

(?)

?53% of the women surveyed said they occasionally exceed the speed
limit, while 60% of the men said that they did.?

Driving Trends: Men And Women Behind The Wheel
Courtesy Of The Car Care Council
http://web.archive.org/web/200202210132 ... k-01.shtml

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Men are more likely to drive while intoxicated, not use a seatbelt,
and exceed the speed limit.

? For example, Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) national data
from 1982 to 1995 revealed that male drivers involved in fatal crashes
were almost twice as likely as females to be intoxicated (21.8 percent
compared to 11.2 percent respectively). Use of seatbelts differs in
percent Alabama by sex. According to the Alabama Department of Public
Health?s 1997 Alabama Behavioral Risk Factor Survey data, an estimated
56.3 percent of males compared to 74.7 percent of females reported
that they always used seatbelts. All these behaviors lead to
disproportionate accident rates between men and women.?

Alabama Health Statistics and Surveillanc
http://ph.state.al.us/chs/HealthStatist ... s/mva1.PDF

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Gender Issues

?Gender differences also play an important role in driving practices.
Young males are more likely to overestimate their driving ability
(Gregersen & Bjurulf, 1996), and this overconfidence has been shown to
be correlated with increased risk-taking behavior involvement in
accidents and violations (Elander, West, & French, 1993).?

?In the California Highway Patrol (2000) report, 317 males between the
ages of 16-19 died in car crashes in California as compared to 155
females; 64% of the males were at fault, and 62% of the females. The
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2001) reported that in the
year 2000 in the United States, two out of every three teenagers
killed in car accidents were male.?

(?)

?Males were more likely to report higher levels of confidence in their
future ability to drive than did females? Significant gender
differences were also found in terms of considering a risky behavior
as dangerous. Out of the six reported dangerous behaviors they were
asked to rate, four of them showed significant gender differences
(speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, slow driving), with
females rating the behavior as more dangerous in each case.?

Adolescence, Winter, 2004
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9487159

Data
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... 87159/pg_4

-------------------------------------------------------------------

From the School of Population Health, Mayne Medical School, University
of Queensland:

Age and gender differences in risk-taking behavior as an explanation
for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young
males.

Read the abstract here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=5

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Crash data from two UK resources were examined for differences between
male and female passenger car drivers in collision circumstances and
injury outcomes.

?The proportion of female car license holders is growing, women are
more likely to be the driver in a collision and are more vulnerable to
injury particularly neck strain. Women drive smaller, lighter cars
compared to men and are more often the driver of the smaller vehicle
in a multivehicle collision.?

Vehicle Safety Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

Jul 31, 2009#84

sixpackshaker

The advice I used to give to my students...

"Drive like everyone around you is an idiot."

Jul 31, 2009#85

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
Moral of my story is, let people drive at the speeds they're comfortable with and if you don't like it, shut the fuck up and stay in the grandpa lane.

If only that HAD been your "moral/point" from the get-go instead of:

Chazwozel said:
Me man. Man drive good. Woman no need car. No road between kitchen and bedroom!

Jul 31, 2009#86

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
Chazwozel said:

Moral of my story is, let people drive at the speeds they're comfortable with and if you don't like it, shut the smurf up and stay in the grandpa lane.

Click to expand...

If only that HAD been your "moral/point" from the get-go instead of:

Me man. Man drive good. Woman no need car. No road between kitchen and bedroom!

Women need to get the fuck off the cell phone and shut their flapping traps for 30 minutes in the car. Sound better?

Jul 31, 2009#87

Mr_Chaz

nufan said:
Somehow I see both Steinman and Chaz's point here though from very different approaches to getting into a vehicle and what they do on the road. I *think* what steinman is trying to relate is that it doesn't matter how GOOD you are someone else will hit you, and Chaz is trying to counter that with good drivers can react at any speed and avoid anything.

Yeah, I see where Chaz is coming from, but I most definitely side with Steinman on it. I always feel that no matter what you do, other people are idiots (this philosophy has done me well so far), so I'll play it safe on their behalf. I'm not saying I never speed, but I certainly never push it more than maybe 10% over the limit. So if it comes to going 70 or 90? 70 every time, because that's much closer to the flow of traffic. If the flow of traffic's pushing 90? Then fuck 'em, they shouldn't be, so I'll do what I'm comfortable with, and (importantly) I'll do my best to keep out of their way.

Jul 31, 2009#88

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
Women need to get the fuck off the cell phone and shut their flapping traps for 30 minutes in the car. Sound better?

Let me try arguing like you Chaz:

Every vehicle accident I've seen in the past 2 years, every single one of them, had a male driver. Therefore, no amount of research or graphs shown to me is valid. Male drivers are worse than female ones. The end. I win.

Jul 31, 2009#89

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
Chazwozel said:

Women need to get the smurf off the cell phone and shut their flapping traps for 30 minutes in the car. Sound better?

Click to expand...

Let me try arguing like you Chaz:

Every vehicle accident I've seen in the past 2 years, every single one of them, had a male driver. Therefore, no amount of research or graphs shown to me is valid. Male drivers are worse than female ones. The end. I win.

I just listed a buttload of graphs and research that points to women not knowing what to do in an auto emergency.

Anyway, sounds like you get into a lot of accidents. :unibrow:

Jul 31, 2009#90

Espy

WOMEN. amiriteguys?

Jul 31, 2009#91

Shegokigo

Chazwozel said:
I just listed a buttload of graphs and research that points to women not knowing what to do in an auto emergency.

I might have taken you more seriously had you done that in the first place.

Chazwozel said:
Anyway, sounds like you get into a lot of accidents.

I know you'll find this hilarious but I've been in one accident in 9 years of driving. (Which was caused by a male driver who side swiped me and ran me into the median) I'm also a "fast driver" usually hitting the 80s or so on the highway and 20-30mph faster than most speedzones ask.

My brother on the other hand, has been in 4 accidents in the past 2 years. :Leyla:

Jul 31, 2009#92

ElJuski

Espy said:
WOMEN. amiriteguys?

They got vaginas and shit.

Jul 31, 2009#93

Chazwozel said:
Women need to get the fuck off the cell phone and shut their flapping traps for 30 minutes in the car. Sound better?

That is further hilarious. Come to Los Angeles and then make that statement.

Your insistence on staying in the "this is what I see so this is the world" club is befuddling to me, but you really seem to like it there, so enjoy.

Jul 31, 2009#94

Jake

Mexicans get in fewer accidents due to the superior handling provided by the big-ass spoilers on their 1990s Civics.

Discuss.

Also, Asians get in more accidents because their eyes are all squinty and shit.

Jul 31, 2009#95

ElJuski

Jake said:
Also, Asians get in more accidents because their eyes are all squinty and shit.

False. They get into more accidents because they are from the FUCKING MOON. They can't drive their space-cars and are forced to (poorly) adapt to our regular people ways.

MOONPEOPLE :angry:

-- Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:03 pm --

also Zen, the fuck are you doing typing on internet when Chaz obviously needs a sandwich

Jul 31, 2009#96

ElJuski said:
also Zen, the fuck are you doing typing on internet when Chaz obviously needs a sandwich

YOU GET ME A POT PIE, BITCH.

Jul 31, 2009#97

ElJuski

oh uh yes mrs. monkey sure mrs. monkey i will make you a pot pie mrs. monkey

Jul 31, 2009#98

That would be good as I am hungry from all the bad driving I did whilst flapping my gums on my cellphone today.

Jul 31, 2009#99

Shegokigo

*flap flap flappity flap flap*

Jul 31, 2009#100

I said GUMS, Shego!

(Oh, I'm going to hell...)

Jul 31, 2009#101

JCM

Espy said:
WOMEN. amiriteguys?

WOMEEEEEN!!!!!
*Post done in satire to the chauvinist tone in this thread, heck I dont even drive well and have never bothered to get a license.

Aug 1, 2009#102

Bubble181

Meh. I'm not a fantastic driver. I tend to drive relatively safely, though. Only place I speed a lot is on a 4-band, dead-straight (one, shallow, curve on over 2 miles of road) piece of road that's zoned 50 kph around here, for no discernible reason whatsoever. I tend to do 120 there. :confused:

Otherwise, when the conditions are sub-optimal, I drive somewhere slightly below the limit to far below the limit (heavy rainfall, dark, snowfall, heavy fog,...can all bring down my speed very fast

). When the conditions are good, though, I do tend to drive over the speed limit.

Also, I've been in 4 accidents, and the only two things they've had in common was that the other driver was female, and that I was driving. Clearly, I'm awesome, so it's the women's fault :-P

Slightly more seriously, though certainly also just anecdotical and not meant as evidence of whatever, since I don't agree with the point this could help defend, in my experience men tend to use handsfree calling ay more often. I hardly ever - if ever- see a man talking on the phone behind the wheel. I've literally never known a woman to use a hands free set while I was in the car (and yes, I do drive with plenty of female drivers and they're not all my mom :-p).
Eh.

Forums