No more speeding for you!!!

jharry3 said:

One thing I like about Texas is the 75 mph rural speed limits.    Troopers don't bother you until you go over  about 85 (or so).  I just stay at 80 and I'm happy.

It usually all works but, of course, with some spectacular exceptions, many times involving a motor home, or people pulling a trailer, writing checks their brakes and suspension can't cash.

lol going though Houston in some areas if you aren't doing 15+ over the posted limited you're getting your car rocked all around by the cars (and trucks) blowing by... 

had a friend driving from FL though houston and was doing the speed limit... he got pulled over and told to more closely match the speed of traffic... 15-20mph faster...

the one thing I don't like is that my prius doesn't like 75-80mph near as much as the 65ish... but a buck a tank or so isn't enough reason to slow down lol... 

Speeding isn’t a problem compared to people driving and doing the social media thing.  

This is just more government forcing it’s way into every facet of life.  

The insurance lobbyist in the US will throw so much money at politics this won’t happen here.  Until companies can no longer hire lobbyist and donate to elections, this is a no go in the USA.

Daylan C said:

This will cause issues in the several cities I've been in where the flow of traffic is 10-20 over the marked speed limit.

Like Atlanta.  

Boost_Crazy said:

Is speeding really a problem in this country? I drive a lot of miles, and I rarely see anyone speeding to the point of being a danger. Reckless driving, yes. I see dangerous driving on a daily basis, often well below the speed limit. I’d argue that cutting across multiple lanes of traffic  at 55 mph when traffic is going 30 in a 65 is much more dangerous then someone cruising along with traffic at 80 in a 65. 

 

Around here it is a very real problem because the cops allowed it to become one. Just like all the red light runners. The county roads I travel on have a max speed of 50mph, I can do 65 and be passed. This is a road with a jersey barrier on the left only a foot or so beyond the white line and flooded marshland on the right. Very little room for error.I see a new set of nasty skid marks daily, either climbing the barrier or off into the swamp. I saw one that shot over an overpass and hit the billboard beyond.

I think what this device needs is not the ability to turn it off, but the allowance of a certain amount of full power before it starts to dial it back. There are times when speeding or accelerating hard will get you out of an accident, being able to do that without having to push a button first would be best.

BoxheadTim said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

You could argue that it's not that big a problem in Europe either. Yes, idiots will be idiots anywhere, including the ones that go way too fast for the conditions and generally drive in a manner that might endanger other road users.

There has been a concerted effort in parts of Europe (including the UK) that equates speeding with dangerous driving and there have been more crackdowns recently even in countries that used to be more lenient like France (where they also lowered the speed limit recently).

It probably helps somewhat that their speed limits are largely determined by engineering studies, and US speed limits are often determined by politics.  Isn't the speed limit in France something like 81mph?

Everyone knows that in the US you have to exceed the limit.  When ODOT raised the speed limit on the Ohio Turnpike from 65mph to 70, what they found was the typical speeds were still 72-78mph (they have times stamped on your toll tickets, after all) but the slower drivers (the ones following the speed limit) sped up.  Note that it was implied that they accepted that when it was 65, the typical driver was driving 7-13mph over the limit.  You could blow past a state trooper at 10 over and they wouldn't care, unless maybe they were bored.  They KNOW that the roads "feel right" in the 75ish mph range, they're just finally making the limits high enough so that driving this speed isn't an offense.  But after 45 or so years of artifically low speed limits, some people also just have the habit of adding 10mph no matter what...  an unfortunate side effect.

Anyone  want to start betting how long this thread lasts?

Knurled. said:

BoxheadTim said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

You could argue that it's not that big a problem in Europe either. Yes, idiots will be idiots anywhere, including the ones that go way too fast for the conditions and generally drive in a manner that might endanger other road users.

There has been a concerted effort in parts of Europe (including the UK) that equates speeding with dangerous driving and there have been more crackdowns recently even in countries that used to be more lenient like France (where they also lowered the speed limit recently).

It probably helps somewhat that their speed limits are largely determined by engineering studies, and US speed limits are often determined by politics.  Isn't the speed limit in France something like 81mph?

My stepdad used to work for a local government overseeing road work and road construction. He'd be the first one to tell you that speed limits are a very political thing in Europe as well. Especially in Germany with both a strong car lobby and a strong environmental lobby.

Speed limits on French autoroutes (the equivalent to highways/interstates) is (or at least used to be, haven't been there for a while) 130km/h, which is about 81mph. The speed limit on the Route Nationals (kinda the equivalent to the US-XX non-interstates) used to be 90km/h and has just been lowered to 80km/h for what looks like mostly political reasons. Of course I'm sure there was no political angle to this at all, say, with encouraging more people to use the autoroutes (which are mostly toll roads).

STM317 said:

Boost_Crazy said:

Is speeding really a problem in this country?

For most years, speeding is the second most common cause of traffic fatality, not far behind impaired driving in the US. According to the NHTSA, in 2017 (the most recent full year of data) speeding was responsible for 9,717 of 37,133 traffic fatalities or 26%. Drunk/impaired driving caused 29%. Distracted driving caused 8.5% of traffic fatalities for comparison. In 2016, speeding was responsible for 27% of fatalities. So typically over the last 20 years or so, about 25-30% of traffic deaths in the US each year are speed related.

From your link:

"Traffic congestion is one of the most frequently mentioned contributing factors to aggressive driving, such as speeding. Drivers may respond by using aggressive driving behaviors, including speeding, changing lanes frequently, or becoming angry at anyone who they believe impedes their progress."

That will definitely help when people are all bunched up going the exact same speed. 

I am legitimately curious how the statistics are gathered/applied. If someone is drunk and speeding, does the fatality go in one category? Does it go in both? Does it automatically defaut to the impaired category?

STM317 said:

For most years, speeding is the second most common cause of traffic fatality, not far behind impaired driving in the US. According to the NHTSA, in 2017 (the most recent full year of data) speeding was responsible for 9,717 of 37,133 traffic fatalities or 26%. Drunk/impaired driving caused 29%. Distracted driving caused 8.5% of traffic fatalities for comparison. In 2016, speeding was responsible for 27% of fatalities. So typically over the last 20 years or so, about 25-30% of traffic deaths in the US each year are speed related.

IMHO this statistic is vastly overstated because of the way the data is gathered.  If a police officer investigates a crash, and it was determined that the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit, a box on the collision form gets checked, and the crash becomes "speed related", whether or not it was a primary factor in cause of the crash.  There's a lot of pressure on officers to call crashes "speed related" because there's grant money tied to "safety enforcement", and the easiest way to prove you're doing something is to write speeding tickets.  It's a lot easier to sit on the side of the highway and run radar than it is to catch the asshat playing ricky racer through traffic, or the knucklehead on their cellphone.

Back to crash data, most crashes (especially single vehicle) that are statistically caused by "speed" are actually caused by inattention, fatigue, or impairment of some sort.  Speed likely increased the severity of the injury, but didn't "cause" the crash.  Also left out is the fact that a number of fatal crashes are fatal because the occupant was unrestrained, and they would likely have survived had they worn a seat belt.  But that's still a "speed" fatality on paper...  because it's easy to say they were just going too fast.  Sure... had they not been moving, there wouldn't have been a crash...

In reply to Rodan :

There's a link to the PDF of the report at the bottom of this page. I tried to link the report directly earlier but it didn't work. The report includes different classifications for fatalities, including speeding, distracted driving, drunk/inebriated driving, not wearing your safety belt, etc.

Now I don't know exactly how they determine a fatality's cause if a person were drunk and speeding as z31 suggests, or how they classify a situation where a person not wearing a seat belt dies after being hit by somebody who was speeding. Is that fatality the result of being unrestrained, or the result of the collision that was caused by excessive speed? But insurance companies and crash reconstruction specialists determine the cause of these things all the time. Surely there is some guideline or metric to it that's more than just "the cop that filed the report said he thought the driver was speeding".

STM317 said:

In reply to Rodan :

Now I don't know exactly how they determine a fatality's cause if a person were drunk and speeding as z31 suggests, or how they classify a situation where a person not wearing a seat belt dies after being hit by somebody who was speeding. Is that fatality the result of being unrestrained, or the result of the collision that was caused by excessive speed? But insurance companies and crash reconstruction specialists determine the cause of these things all the time. Surely there is some guideline or metric to it that's more than just "the cop that filed the report said he thought the driver was speeding".

That's precisely what I'm telling you...  it's determined by the cop that investigated the crash.  All of the stats originate from a form that they fill out.  And the easy button is "speed".  This is especially true in single vehicle/ single occupant crashes where there is no other party (other car, passenger, pedestrian, etc.) to sue, or for insurance to pay out to.  If there is any potential for liability or criminal charges, the investigation will be a lot more thorough.

AnthonyGS said:

Speeding isn’t a problem compared to people driving and doing the social media thing.  

This is just more government forcing it’s way into every facet of life.  

The insurance lobbyist in the US will throw so much money at politics this won’t happen here.  Until companies can no longer hire lobbyist and donate to elections, this is a no go in the USA.

The insurance industry actually wants cars to be safer. Their ultimate goal is to collect a nonzero amount of money for insuring zero risk. If this system is safer, insurance companies will want it, if they can't have it legally mandated then they'll want to incentivize you to have it in your car - possibly even as an addon like those GPS/accel logger boxes.

With the insurance lobby in full force, I’m honestly astonished we ever got free from 55.

Thanks for keeping this reasonable. Great discussion!

Rodan said:

STM317 said:

In reply to Rodan :

Now I don't know exactly how they determine a fatality's cause if a person were drunk and speeding as z31 suggests, or how they classify a situation where a person not wearing a seat belt dies after being hit by somebody who was speeding. Is that fatality the result of being unrestrained, or the result of the collision that was caused by excessive speed? But insurance companies and crash reconstruction specialists determine the cause of these things all the time. Surely there is some guideline or metric to it that's more than just "the cop that filed the report said he thought the driver was speeding".

That's precisely what I'm telling you...  it's determined by the cop that investigated the crash.  All of the stats originate from a form that they fill out.  And the easy button is "speed".  This is especially true in single vehicle/ single occupant crashes where there is no other party (other car, passenger, pedestrian, etc.) to sue, or for insurance to pay out to.  If there is any potential for liability or criminal charges, the investigation will be a lot more thorough.

I have been rear-ended at a light twice while in traffic (ie. not at a red light on an empty fast-moving road). Both times I am sure the driver hit me because they were distracted, but told the officer that they couldnt stop in time, probably hoping to avoid that costly distracted driving ticket. When I got the accident reports for the insurance company, one was too fast for conditions, though I forget the cause of the earlier one. Either way, this is probably how a texting while driving problem becomes a speed related one, too fast for road conditions is easier than proving they were texting while driving, and gets the officer down the road to the next problem s/he needs to deal with. 

One thing I think of when speed is the topic is that with higher average speeds there are less vehicles on the road at any given time because it takes less time for folks to make their trips. If there's less congestion does that reduce incidents?

Another thing is that many posted speed limits haven't been changed in 40-50-60 years while the pavement is much better and the vehicles are much better.

How about, instead of treating the entire driving population like livestock and requiring the cars to drive themselves and robotically obey every speed edict, we require the celphones to DISABLE TEXT while in motion beyond say bicycle speed? The carriers could do this later this afternoon. 

Jay_W said:

How about, instead of treating the entire driving population like livestock and requiring the cars to drive themselves and robotically obey every speed edict, we require the celphones to DISABLE TEXT while in motion beyond say bicycle speed? The carriers could do this later this afternoon. 

That would carry some significant downsides though.  Sitting on a train?  No texting for you.  I'd rather see better driver training and aggressive enforcement against unsafe and/or distracted drivers (and not just the occasional speeding enforcement).  

Jay_W said:

How about, instead of treating the entire driving population like livestock and requiring the cars to drive themselves and robotically obey every speed edict, we require the celphones to DISABLE TEXT while in motion beyond say bicycle speed? The carriers could do this later this afternoon. 

Be even better if they could just disable texting phone in drivers seat area entirely so we could proceed at stoplights instead of waiting for folks to finish texting while others blast their horns. Also would reduce trip times (therefore congestion) with more people making it through green lights each time.

rslifkin said:

That would carry some significant downsides though.  Sitting on a train?  No texting for you.

Train, bus, passenger in a car, airplane (until the GPS reaches consumer cutoff speed), some boats...

I see this is treating people as livestock moreso than autonomous cars - at least you have the choice whether to use self-driving features (for the next few decades, at least).

And if you have to force people to look where the hell they're going when driving by disabling their phones, you're just designing a better idiot.

Just spit-balling. Maybe folks with standard issue driver licenses get limited and optional "advanced" licenses, taken at the drivers option and training and testing paid for by the driver to allow faster driving? Not an original idea, but maybe one worth merit. It shouldn't be difficult for modern cars to tell the difference when an "advanced" driver licence is at the wheel, maybe the advanced license has an RF chip? IDK. It's slow at work.

In reply to barefootskater :

Well with the multiple key solution a lot of auto makers have been using for things like the hellcat, it really wouldn't be hard to do these days. 

STM317 said:

Boost_Crazy said:

Is speeding really a problem in this country?

For most years, speeding is the second most common cause of traffic fatality, not far behind impaired driving in the US. According to the NHTSA, in 2017 (the most recent full year of data) speeding was responsible for 9,717 of 37,133 traffic fatalities or 26%. Drunk/impaired driving caused 29%. Distracted driving caused 8.5% of traffic fatalities for comparison. In 2016, speeding was responsible for 27% of fatalities. So typically over the last 20 years or so, about 25-30% of traffic deaths in the US each year are speed related.

NHTSA doesn't say it is a CAUSE, just "related".

If you were going over the speed limit and someone sideswiped you, it would be "speed related".

Besides, when the speed limits are so low that literally 80+% of the people are speeding, it is actually kind of telling that the numbers are so low 

edizzle89 said:

Knurled. said:

Daylan C said:

This will cause issues in the several cities I've been in where the flow of traffic is 10-20 over the marked speed limit.

Plus, if there is no difference in speed, traffic cannot work.  How do you change lanes if you can't speed up?

uh... slow down?

NEVER!