Motorists vs traffic cameras

yes, that too. 0.3G is probably harder than most drivers have ever decelerated on the street. 0.8G or higher probably would ensure a rear-ending given the awareness of the average driver.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel
Loading thread data ...

Multi-car accidents, or the ones involving just one vehicle?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Dear sir Dumb ass, ive been driving in Chgo for 35 years, got you beat.

============

It's doesn't matter anyway. Put too many cars in too small a place in ANY city in America and humans will behave the same way. Charles is attempting to portray Chicago as special, but New York, Boston and Rochester are the same way.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

In PA, if you're exceeding the speed limit in a construction zone, even only going 1 mph over the limit, the judge may find you guilty (i.e., the above limitations don't apply).

Unfortunately, there are too many deaths of road construction workers.

A lot of people seem to think of road safety rules as inconveniences, but lives *do* depend on them just like those pesky safety rules for construction workers building skyscrapers are important (e.g., wearing helmets, wearing safety harnesses so that workers don't fall to their deaths, no smoking around chemicals like gasoline). Personally, I like have a pulse, so I wear my seat belt when I drive, I rarely use a cell phone and stick to the speed limit (more or less).

Jeff

*********** There was no one working in the construction zone I had passed through (Sunday), but it is also more serious here if you are ticketed within an active construction zone.

I had actually left the zone and was in a 70 mph zone when I was stopped. I was going downhill with my cruise control at 70 but was strobed at 75 mph. Normally this would not get you a ticket in Texas, although technically I appeared to be guilty of a 5 mph overspeed.

I got deferred adjudication, which means this cannot be used against me for insurance, etc.

Reply to
HLS

Whether or not you consider them unsafe, these speeds are very much in excess of the law. And since this puts them at a 25-30 mph differential over specified traffic speeds, yes, they tend to be dangerous. These people typically weave back and forth across 5-6 lanes of traffic, not signalling, and do create a signicant hazard.

Reply to
HLS

I can't remember the last time I drove on a highway where most traffic wasn't going over the speed limit; driving at the speed limit would put you at a greater speed differential to the main flow than driving 25 over.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Here's a theory we can discuss to death: Things are not the same everywhere.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

I'm basing my comments on having driven just about all over the east coast.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

True, but keeping with traffic is safer in probably 99.9% of the cases. Slow drivers can be a hazard. Couple of years ago I wanted to check my fuel mileage by driving the same spot at different speeds. Posted speed limit was 65. At 55, I feared for my life and chose to speed up again to a more normal speed. I'd normally cruise at 70 and go past the radar a couple of times a week like that.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

I agree, actually. I'm just pointing out that people in this discussion are describing very different driving environments. I drive quite a bit on the NY State Thruway in Western NY, where the limit is mostly 65 mph. I occasionally see people doing 80+, but for the most part, 70-ish is the norm. On the other hand, when I lived in Long Island and commuted all over the NY metro area, and when (rarely) there weren't traffic jams, it wasn't unusual for all the traffic to be doing 75+ in a 55 zone, so close together that the cars seemed like they were linked together. Going slower was not an option.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Interstate highways are designed for higher speed travel and raising the speed limit 5 mph may not be that significant compared to other factors such as weather.

That same study says: "For example, as shown in Table 2, for rural-county-road accidents involving a car or light truck with a heavy truck, a

1% increase in the speed limits results in a 2.77% increase in the probability of fatality and a 2.35% increase in the probability of injury. For rural-state-route accidents involving a car or light truck with another car or light truck, a 1% increase in the speed limit results in a 11.9% increase in the probability of fatality and a 1.32% increase in the probability of injury. The accident-injury severity findings on non-interstate highways suggest that extreme caution needs to be exercised when raising the speed limits on these roads."

-- Ron

Reply to
Ron Peterson

Interstate highways are designed for higher speed travel and raising the speed limit 5 mph may not be that significant compared to other factors such as weather.

That same study says: "For example, as shown in Table 2, for rural-county-road accidents involving a car or light truck with a heavy truck, a

1% increase in the speed limits results in a 2.77% increase in the probability of fatality and a 2.35% increase in the probability of injury. For rural-state-route accidents involving a car or light truck with another car or light truck, a 1% increase in the speed limit results in a 11.9% increase in the probability of fatality and a 1.32% increase in the probability of injury. The accident-injury severity findings on non-interstate highways suggest that extreme caution needs to be exercised when raising the speed limits on these roads."

-- Ron =====================

I think lack of training is a huge factor in those stats. I'd like to see simulators used for driving tests, instead of what we have in my city: Tests administered on nice, quiet streets with 35 mph speed limits, in broad daylight. I have yet to hear about any fatal accidents involving parallel parking.

The simulators should put people in deadly situations, like heavy rain & fog at night, 18 wheelers all around to kick up more mist and wreck visibility. Traffic moving too fast, but dangerous to slow down. For extra distraction & terror, throw in some strange, sudden mechanical noises from the "car", and so much humidity that the defroster has trouble keeping the windows clear. Add an idiot with their brights on, hanging in that perfect spot on the left where their lights are constantly in the side view mirror. Find a way to measure stress level. Maybe heartbeat, or something similar to a polygraph. Add in distractions on both sides to test peripheral vision, which is an issue for some older drivers. Maybe throw in some kids' voices in the back seat, complaining about one thing or another as kids do when they're bored on long trips.

Fail the test and you can't take it again for five years. That'll solve a lot of problems.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

That's why power remote mirrors kick ass. When someone does that to me I adjust my mirror as far out as I can, hopefully it shines back in the douche's face and blinds him.

What's worse are older Ford trucks, their headlights have so much stray upward light even on low beam that one of them behind you feels like you're being followed by someone with brights on...

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Slow is not necessarily safe, and fast is not necessarily unsafe, I give you. Some drivers are unsafe at any speed.

A few weeks ago I came home from Houston just as the heavy weather was blowing in. I passed 12 major accidents in 50 miles, because people would not slow down in the heavy rain. I was running 55-65, as conditions allowed, but was being passed by all sorts of vehicles (most with their lights not turned on) at much higher speeds.

People here tend to hug the center lane, which is not legal but is understandable in heavy rain as the crown holds less water than the outer lane.

The bottom line, for me, is that many Texans are neither trained well as drivers, they do not tend to adhere to safety rules and the state laws, and they tend to be aggressive and inconsiderate. I try to be nontypical of those charges, but make my mistakes as well.

Reply to
HLS

They studied all types of accidents. 52.9% were two car, 12.1% were more then 2 car. 31.1% were single vehicle. Speed was identified as the primary cause in only 5.78% of them.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

If that's what they are doing then signaling is accomplishing nothing and they may as well not bother since it's distracting them from the high speed run.

As to your other assertion, I can tell you that in AZ it is NOT the law that you must signal when the roads are empty. I suspect that's not the law in your state either. The AZ law is very clear, you only need to signal when your movement will affect other traffic. There are many instances where someone's lane change will affect no one and legally they are not required to signal. As with many laws, most people, including the cops, are completely ignorant as to what the law actually say and just parrot whatever nonsense was in the state driving manual. Tell me what state you are in and I'll look it up.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

..

And in what percent was it a primary or contributing cause?

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

I don't buy that for a minute. Part of "speed" is "slow down." I've caused 2 accidents - many years ago. One was pure speed, going around a curve the car couldn't handle. The other was not slowing down in slick conditions, and choosing to stay too close to the guy in front of me, who stopped for a yellow, and I slid into him. Too fast for conditions. Speed. So it's been 100% speed for me. Since I've slowed down, I haven't even come close. But since it's only been 35 years since the last accident, maybe that's not enough time to tell.

--Vic

Reply to
Vic Smith

You are now approaching the age where falling asleep is more of a danger.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

All I could find for CT is from the driver's manual Signal Lights. Don't switch lanes without first signaling your intention to do so, and make sure you don't cut someone

off when you move over. After you've made the maneuver, turn your signal off.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.