Looks like lobbyists are looking to roll back speed limits to 65. It would appear that truckers complaining about difference in speed if the speed limiter regulation is adopted backfired.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/10/07/new-data-on-highway-deaths-suggest-that-congress-needs-to-revisit-speed-limits-advocates-say/
Headline: "New data on highway deaths suggest that Congress needs to revisit speed limits, advocates say"
2/3rds of the way down: "There is conflicting data on the impact of speed on overall fatality rates."
Um....
And the most laughable quote in the article: "nearly half of all drivers see speeding as a problem, and one in five admitted doing it." Really...20% of people said they have sped? If that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about the issue. Actual data shows on many highways well over 90% of the people are speeding.
I certainly hope if this does start looking more likely, there is a lot more defiance from the states this time.
I also question this big safety push - they are likely to make getting around a lot more miserable, and still have a good number of fatalities. Dropping the speed limit does nothing to prevent a fatal crash from someone improperly passing and hitting an opposing vehicle head on.
This exchange from The Gumball Rally says it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPQDW6ZOpA
I doubt it'll happen for several reasons, one of which being the widely varied conditions in different states. Recent data has shown that most accidents nowadays are caused by distracted driving. Lowering the speed limit won't help that. In fact, it might increase it because people may spend more time using their devices while driving. A better law would be a national ban on texting while driving
One of the few good things about today's political climate of that this will never happen- even if you buy the arguments, it's a high risk-low reward proposition, which means it won't even make it to the bill drafting stage.
I doubt this will happen, but if it did, you can bet your @$$ I'll still set the cruise control at 80+ out on the open interstate. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you stay 100% focused on the road, It's really not that hard. Put down the damn burger, put down the damn phone and have some respect for your life and the lives of others. To truly eliminate the possibility of a speed related crash, everyone would have to drive at 20 mph all the time. These people fail to realize that speed is far from being the only factor in crashes.The reason there are so many fatalities on the highways is because people in this country do not take driving seriously, and they don't respect the potential they have to kill themselves and others. They think they can multitask between driving a vehicle and eating a burger or putting on makeup or using a cell phone. The answer is not reducing speed limits. The answer is changing American driving culture so that people realize and respect what they become capable of doing when they get behind the wheel. To me driving is an activity in itself, and when people drive, they should focus on that and only that until they reach their destination. Anything that doesn't have to do with the operation of a vehicle has absolutely no place in the attention span of a person while driving.
It's probably obvious that I feel very strongly about this; I just can't stand it when speed/high speed limits are always the first things attacked whenever road safety is attempted to be improved. The problem is much, much more complicated than just how quickly you move across the ground.
Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).
Not gonna happen. If this gets proposed, there will be such a backlash from the grassroots that representatives and senators won't dare defy their constituents on this one. People don't care about the truly important issues, but they get all up in arms over stuff like this.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2016, 07:37:05 AM
Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).
The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either. If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2016, 07:37:05 AM
Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).
The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either. If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.
Of course, stuff like that is why the Interstate system should have widespread variable speed limits. Decrease the speed limit during heavy rain or snow.
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2016, 07:37:05 AM
Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).
The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either. If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.
And they never site where the speeding related accidents occur. If 100 fatals were recorded, and 99 of them were on local roadways with 45 mph limits, reducing the limit from 75 to 65 on the interstate ain't doing to do a damn bit of good.
One of the arguments now seems to be that the speed limit needs to be lower BECAUSE of distracted driving, under the argument that it's less safe now than it was and therefore the limit must be reduced. Never mind that increasing safety is actually the REASON why distracted driving is on the rise; make driving too easy and boring, and people will try to occupy their minds another way. If you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift.
Quote from: cl94 on October 19, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either. If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.
Of course, stuff like that is why the Interstate system should have widespread variable speed limits. Decrease the speed limit during heavy rain or snow.
IMO it is the responsibility of the driver to know when they need to go slower. If they can't judge it properly, tear their licence into confetti. Who's going to judge when to lower the speed? Is I-81 going to have a speed limit of 20 much of the winter because Cuomo likes to make a show of "doing something" even if it won't start snowing for a few hours?
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 19, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2016, 07:37:05 AM
Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).
The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either. If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.
Of course, stuff like that is why the Interstate system should have widespread variable speed limits. Decrease the speed limit during heavy rain or snow.
IMO it is the responsibility of the driver to know when they need to go slower. If they can't judge it properly, tear their licence into confetti. Who's going to judge when to lower the speed? Is I-81 going to have a speed limit of 20 much of the winter because Cuomo likes to make a show of "doing something" even if it won't start snowing for a few hours?
I agree with vdeane 100%.
In fact, this why, here in NC at least, once can still be charged with driving too fast for conditions even if going below the speed limit. I will admit that this can be very subjective on the part of the charging officer and as such is
usually only charged when a crash has taken place.
If an officer sees something that is above and beyond stupid, he may choose to charge a driver with Careless and Reckless driving, at which point the speed # in and of itself is actually irrelevant-all the officer would need to do is prove the driver was operating his vehicle "upon a highway or any public vehicular area carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others" (NCGS §20-140(a))So, lowering the maximum speed limit is really not necessary unless the only thing the government is after is widening the base for their random taxation patrols.
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 19, 2016, 01:40:01 PM
So, lowering the maximum speed limit is really not necessary unless the only thing the government is after is widening the base for their random taxation patrols.
In reality, cops aren't pulling people over in very heavy rain and snow. It's really too dangerous to do so.
That's true.
Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 19, 2016, 01:40:01 PM
So, lowering the maximum speed limit is really not necessary unless the only thing the government is after is widening the base for their random taxation patrols.
In reality, cops aren't pulling people over in very heavy rain and snow. It's really too dangerous to do so.
Oh I dunno, I work with a few who....ahh never mind it only snows here once every 2 years or so. I meant to add the "tongue sticking out smiley" to my previous comment but I keep getting interrupted, ironically enough, by units calling in traffic stops, LOL. 8-)
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 01:49:49 PM
That's true.
Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.
It depends. Light snow in Georgia might cause everyone to freak out and stay home. Light snow in Michigan's UP is a daily occurrence and is anything less than an inch or two, and no one slows for that.
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 01:49:49 PM
That's true.
Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.
It depends. Light snow in Georgia might cause everyone to freak out and stay home. Light snow in Michigan's UP is a daily occurrence and is anything less than an inch or two, and no one slows for that.
Imagine if the speed limit for the E-W Tollway dropped to 45 mph due to light snow, yet normal traffic volumes were naturally keeping the roadway clear of any accumulation. Now imagine being ticketed for speeding at 55 mph.
I realize, of course, that my specific example is fantasy-land, because nobody really even patrols that highway for speeders and they don't stop them for anything within 15 or 20 over the limit. I just wanted something in your area.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on October 19, 2016, 03:31:06 AM
I doubt this will happen, but if it did, you can bet your @$$ I'll still set the cruise control at 80+ out on the open interstate. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you stay 100% focused on the road, It's really not that hard. Put down the damn burger, put down the damn phone and have some respect for your life and the lives of others. To truly eliminate the possibility of a speed related crash, everyone would have to drive at 20 mph all the time. These people fail to realize that speed is far from being the only factor in crashes.The reason there are so many fatalities on the highways is because people in this country do not take driving seriously, and they don't respect the potential they have to kill themselves and others. They think they can multitask between driving a vehicle and eating a burger or putting on makeup or using a cell phone. The answer is not reducing speed limits. The answer is changing American driving culture so that people realize and respect what they become capable of doing when they get behind the wheel. To me driving is an activity in itself, and when people drive, they should focus on that and only that until they reach their destination. Anything that doesn't have to do with the operation of a vehicle has absolutely no place in the attention span of a person while driving.
It's probably obvious that I feel very strongly about this; I just can't stand it when speed/high speed limits are always the first things attacked whenever road safety is attempted to be improved. The problem is much, much more complicated than just how quickly you move across the ground.
Yes, exactly. The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Yes, exactly. The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.
That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster. Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Yes, exactly. The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.
That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster. Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.
Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Yes, exactly. The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.
That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster. Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.
Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?
The rack, draw and quarter them, Chinese water torture?
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Yes, exactly. The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.
That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster. Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.
Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?
The rack, draw and quarter them, Chinese water torture?
Have phones automatically disable interacting with them when traveling at 30 mph or more, with the exception of calling 911. (Except for incoming calls and texts, the display will still update; using the phone as a GPS will still work, as will showing the time or battery percentage.)
Quote from: 1 on October 19, 2016, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 19, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
Yes, exactly. The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.
That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster. Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.
Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?
The rack, draw and quarter them, Chinese water torture?
Have phones automatically disable interacting with them when traveling at 30 mph or more, with the exception of calling 911. (Except for incoming calls and texts, the display will still update; using the phone as a GPS will still work, as will showing the time or battery percentage.)
That won't work. You still have passengers who should be able to use their phones to their heart's content. Also, disabling them that way will stop them from using them on trains or buses.
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 05:39:44 PMThe rack, draw and quarter them
Hanging, rather than racking - the rack's for before the trial, to get information of fellow conspirators.
And obviously the hurdle drag through town to the execution site, and the emasculation before the disembowelment, are clearly givens here.
Quote from: Brandon on October 19, 2016, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2016, 01:49:49 PM
That's true.
Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.
It depends. Light snow in Georgia might cause everyone to freak out and stay home. Light snow in Michigan's UP is a daily occurrence and is anything less than an inch or two, and no one slows for that.
If the UP gets only 2 inches of snow, it's cleared from the roads before you finish breakfast.
I honestly do about 80 whenever I'm able to, even on the crowded portions of I-95 around Baltimore, DC and Northern Virginia and the Baltimore Beltway, obviously when they're not crowded. I'm not a libertarian, but I sure drive like one sometimes.
I wouldn't mind seeing a national* speed limit on trucks and better enforcement of lane-usage restrictions. At least if we can keep the trucks in the right lane, cars will flow more easily in the left lane, reducing some of the distraction.
* Not that I'm for national laws of this sort in general. But it would be more convenient to impose this limit nationally versus waiting for all 50 states to adopt lower limits for trucks. A nationwide law gives the trucking companies more incentive to police their drivers.
Besides, aren't self-driving cars going to take care of all of this for us? :D
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 10:26:54 AM
* Not that I'm for national laws of this sort in general. But it would be more convenient to impose this limit nationally versus waiting for all 50 states to adopt lower limits for trucks. A nationwide law gives the trucking companies more incentive to police their drivers.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Many drivers are independent contractors, not working for any specific company. They are simply waiting for the next call to do some hauling.
Also, it's virtually impossible to restrict trucks to a single lane, except in certain, limited circumstances. If a trucker is doing 50 mph, do you prohibit all truckers from going faster than that for hundreds of miles until that truck exits the highway?
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
I know where he got the ticket that inspired that song. I-87 near the Twin Bridges.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AM
Also, it's virtually impossible to restrict trucks to a single lane, except in certain, limited circumstances. If a trucker is doing 50 mph, do you prohibit all truckers from going faster than that for hundreds of miles until that truck exits the highway?
Let's use some common sense. On two-lane highways, the general requirement is that people stay in the right lane except to pass. Many highways with three or more lanes already restrict trucks to the two rightmost lanes or ban them from the left-most lanes. Add a speed limit to trucks and enforce these laws.
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AM
Also, it's virtually impossible to restrict trucks to a single lane, except in certain, limited circumstances. If a trucker is doing 50 mph, do you prohibit all truckers from going faster than that for hundreds of miles until that truck exits the highway?
Let's use some common sense. On two-lane highways, the general requirement is that people stay in the right lane except to pass. Many highways with three or more lanes already restrict trucks to the two rightmost lanes or ban them from the left-most lanes. Add a speed limit to trucks and enforce these laws.
There's already a speed limit. And many times, trucks are governed to a limit lower than that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 12:48:08 PM
There's already a speed limit. And many times, trucks are governed to a limit lower than that.
I wasn't aware there is already a national speed limit for trucks. So we are good.
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 12:50:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 12:48:08 PM
There's already a speed limit. And many times, trucks are governed to a limit lower than that.
I wasn't aware there is already a national speed limit for trucks. So we are good.
There isn't, but most large companies govern their trucks to 60-70.
And in terms of a speed limit, I mean there's already a set speed limit, which is the large black and white sign on the side of the road for all vehicles (unless otherwise specified). There isn't much info out there stating that the current speed limit is a problem for truckers, so to institute a special speed limit for truckers is nothing more than a feel-good piece of legislation.
See also: NMSL (v1).
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 01:00:37 PMIf you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift
Probably irrelevant - you don't really shift while cruising on a highway, but makes life difficult in stop-and-go, where it makes no difference.
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2016, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 01:00:37 PMIf you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift
Probably irrelevant - you don't really shift while cruising on a highway, but makes life difficult in stop-and-go, where it makes no difference.
That is part of why I caved in and made the switch to a CVT from a manual. Clutches don't last forever and I'm sure my dad and I killed a couple in NYC-area traffic. That and the hills in Troy are an absolute PITA with a stick (and my current car has auto-braking on hills to prevent rolling back when starting).
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2016, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 01:00:37 PMIf you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift
Probably irrelevant - you don't really shift while cruising on a highway, but makes life difficult in stop-and-go, where it makes no difference.
I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2016, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 01:00:37 PMIf you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift
Probably irrelevant - you don't really shift while cruising on a highway, but makes life difficult in stop-and-go, where it makes no difference.
I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.
I drive a stick and set my cruise control at 72 in 65 mph zones. So it looks like, not only do you believe in the "speed kills" narrative, but you feel superior because you drive an automatic.
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2016, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 01:00:37 PMIf you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift
Probably irrelevant - you don't really shift while cruising on a highway, but makes life difficult in stop-and-go, where it makes no difference.
Depending on traffic, I often shift even on the highway. In any case, people that are distracted usually don't reserve their behaviors for the highway, and if they get accustomed to actually driving when they're in the car (instead of eating, using their phone, etc.), it might translate over by association. At the very least, it makes driving less boring, and boredom is the reason people drive distracted in the first place.
Quote from: epzik8 on October 20, 2016, 09:33:23 AM
I honestly do about 80 whenever I'm able to, even on the crowded portions of I-95 around Baltimore, DC and Northern Virginia and the Baltimore Beltway, obviously when they're not crowded. I'm not a libertarian, but I sure drive like one sometimes.
You are aware of the reckless driving provisions in Virginia law, right?
It was quite funny watching everyone go 79 and no faster along I-81 and I-66 a couple weekends ago
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 20, 2016, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 20, 2016, 09:33:23 AM
I honestly do about 80 whenever I'm able to, even on the crowded portions of I-95 around Baltimore, DC and Northern Virginia and the Baltimore Beltway, obviously when they're not crowded. I'm not a libertarian, but I sure drive like one sometimes.
You are aware of the reckless driving provisions in Virginia law, right?
That only applies in VA, right?
And based on what I've seen, many people in the NoVA area don't seem too concerned about it especially when traffic is heavy.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 08:09:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 20, 2016, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 20, 2016, 09:33:23 AM
I honestly do about 80 whenever I'm able to, even on the crowded portions of I-95 around Baltimore, DC and Northern Virginia and the Baltimore Beltway, obviously when they're not crowded. I'm not a libertarian, but I sure drive like one sometimes.
You are aware of the reckless driving provisions in Virginia law, right?
That only applies in VA, right?
And based on what I've seen, many people in the NoVA area don't seem too concerned about it especially when traffic is heavy.
It does only apply in Virginia. Thankfully.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2016, 05:39:08 PM
I drive a stick and set my cruise control at 72 in 65 mph zones. So it looks like, not only do you believe in the "speed kills" narrative, but you feel superior because you drive an automatic.
Wow. Wrong and even more wrong. Speed doesn't kill. What kills is what happens when something at great speed makes contact with something at a much lower speed.
Quote from: cl94 on October 20, 2016, 06:53:42 PM
It was quite funny watching everyone go 79 and no faster along I-81 and I-66 a couple weekends ago
I'm still amazed that this has never been my experience driving on a Virginia interstate. Vehicles routinely speed by me doing in excess of 80 mph. Maybe they're running radar detectors despite the ban.
It is worth noting that the original NMSL was motivated not by safety but by fuel economy.
The point at which a vehicle hits its optimum speed varies depending on driving conditions and the design of the vehicle itself, and the proliferation of overdrive gears has helped make cars more efficient at higher speeds... but it remains true that a car traveling at 80 MPH is pretty much guaranteed to be getting fewer MPG than one traveling at 65 MPH. There is, therefore, often an environmental motive behind lobbying to suppress interstate speed limits.
The problem, of course, is that the physical design of the road influences drivers' speed more than the posted limit does. So if you want to make everyone slow down for the sake of conserving fuel, changing the speed limit isn't really going to achieve that. You would need to mandate speed governors in passenger vehicles. Indeed, using WaPo's own arguments, large numbers of people don't obey speed limits. So, you think they're going to start obeying them if you lower them?
Can't stand the whole "speed kills" claims that people make. There should NEVER, ever, EVER be another NMSL. I was born the year that the NMSL was repealed, and I couldn't imagine having to go 55 on a freeway out in the middle of nowhere. Boring! :sleep:
Quote from: Duke87 on October 20, 2016, 09:54:31 PM
Indeed, using WaPo's own arguments, large numbers of people don't obey speed limits. So, you think they're going to start obeying them if you lower them?
Unfortunately there's a perception that "people will always go X mph over the limit", where X is usually 5 or 10. While some people do (such as myself, because I simultaneously believe most speed limits are underposted and don't want to get a ticket), most people are just driving whatever feels comfortable for the roadway, with a small number of speed demons and some people porking along at the limit. The solution, of course, is to raise the speed limit so the people who actually go the limit aren't going slower than the majority of traffic on the road, but the lobbyists don't want to hear it because they want the police to be able to pull over most people at their leisure (usually for revenue but sometimes for the war on drugs).
Quote from: compdude787 on October 21, 2016, 03:02:15 AM
Can't stand the whole "speed kills" claims that people make. There should NEVER, ever, EVER be another NMSL. I was born the year that the NMSL was repealed, and I couldn't imagine having to go 55 on a freeway out in the middle of nowhere. Boring! :sleep:
I can't either. It feels painful when I have to slow to those speeds for traffic or some work zones where the lanes are fine but they lower the limit anyways (or lower the limit far away from where the work is actually being done).
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 08:18:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2016, 05:39:08 PM
I drive a stick and set my cruise control at 72 in 65 mph zones. So it looks like, not only do you believe in the "speed kills" narrative, but you feel superior because you drive an automatic.
Wow. Wrong and even more wrong. Speed doesn't kill. What kills is what happens when something at great speed makes contact with something at a much lower speed.
Guess you should take a look at your previous post. It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".
Here's how it rendered on my computer:
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 02:56:19 PM
I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.
Even during the height of the NMSL days, I can remember long road trips where my dad would be doing his customary 60-61 (and saying he was letting his hair down, feeling like a criminal, lol) in the right lane and getting his doors blown off by many people running 80+ in the left. The speed differential between the legal beagles and the scofflaws was utterly ridiculous. At least the way things are now, the legal beagles are doing 65-70, even 80 in the states that allow it and yes, there are some 90-100 mph idiots out there, but not the steady stream of people going 15-25 over the limit that there was during the NMSL days.
My usual freeway cruising speed is 5-6 over whatever the limit is (why I really don't know, guess I got that from my dad) and although I do get passed here and there, I don't usually have people going by me fast enough to shake my car. There isn't a huge differential between me and those who are passing me, nor between me and the legal beagles that I am passing.
As for low limit governors on trucks (well really any vehicle) no, just no. I hate them with a passion.
Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.
The solution isn't lower speed limits. The speed limits need to be set at the appropriate speed that engineers (not politicians) say should be the limit for that road. Then the penalties for exceeding those appropriately set limits (with some slop allowed for differing speedometers) need to be so prohibitively draconian that no one would want to exceed those limits by any significant amount. I know some people referenced VA's reckless driving statute above and how people violate it all the time. People violate because a) they feel like the limit is set to low for the road they are travelling on (and in many cases, they are right) and b) they still feel that the possible penalty is still worth the risk-or maybe that a good lawyer will be able to find them a loophole that allows them to plead to a lesser offense that won't be too unpalatable, or even get them out of it altogether. If the limits are set high enough, and the penalties severe enough, then why would any sane person want to even chance it?
While I don't want to wade too much into political discussion here, at least at some point in the past the likely next president advocated a return to the 55 mph speed limit (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/24/hillary-clinton-pushes-for-reinstatement-of-national-55-mph-limi/). There would probably be serious backlash against any effort to impose such a limit again (in the 1973 oil crisis, the states were already moving in that direction anyway, whereas now that seems unlikely to occur), but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2016, 01:14:43 PM
Guess you should take a look at your previous post. It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".
Here's how it rendered on my computer:
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 02:56:19 PM
I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.
That's how you chose to interpret it. I don't care whether the speeders are using manual or automatic. I do care that I have to watch out for them as I maneuver around slower traffic, lest they come out of nowhere.
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 21, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.
I used to drive an Isuzu cab-over box truck, and you could drive with the pedal to the floor and it wouldn't go over 73 mph unless there was a strong tail wind. When I found myself in the situation you describe, trying to pass someone but unable to complete the maneuver, I would slow down and cut back over into the right lane to let other traffic on by. There isn't 'nothing' the driver can do, just 'something' he's unwilling to do.
Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2016, 03:37:49 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 21, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.
I used to drive an Isuzu cab-over box truck, and you could drive with the pedal to the floor and it wouldn't go over 73 mph unless there was a strong tail wind. When I found myself in the situation you describe, trying to pass someone but unable to complete the maneuver, I would slow down and cut back over into the right lane to let other traffic on by. There isn't 'nothing' the driver can do, just 'something' he's unwilling to do.
Yeah, valid point, but you you have been driving a long time, you know what happens next. The car/truck that had been behind the one that pulled out fills the gap, everyone in both lanes are now lined up nose to tail, so slowing down for the truck stuck in the left lane really isn't an option any more at that point.
I mean, yeah, they "could" slow down further but then they are going to hold up the entire line of cars that are already in the passing lane, which you know as well as I do causes people do start doing all sorts of stupid stuff. They see the cars in the right lane are now passing them so they get desperate and that's where the wrecks happen. I've been caught out on both sides of that one. I have been stuck in the right lane trying to leave a safe distance to the car in front only to almost have my nose chopped off by a dive bomber from the left lane because it seized up all of a sudden, and I almost ate the ass end of a car in the left lane because everyone decided to slam on the brakes because the left lane seized up-only thing that saved me there was that I don't tailgate, and the guy behind me decided it was better to get a grill full of grass from the center median than a grill full of Mustang.
I guess my experience is colored by the areas of the country I do most of my driving in, too.
I'm not without fault, I am one of the "we" I referenced in the quoted post. I have found myself finally getting extricated from the cluster that the left lane trucker caused beeping the horn, flipping him off and cussing him and every member of his family that ever existed because I look ahead and see miles of clear road. It took me marrying the daughter of a trucker to finally realize that usually they aren't just screwing with us because they can.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 21, 2016, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
And as for passengers in vehicles???
Quote from: jbnv on October 21, 2016, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2016, 01:14:43 PM
Guess you should take a look at your previous post. It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".
Here's how it rendered on my computer:
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 02:56:19 PM
I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.
That's how you chose to interpret it. I don't care whether the speeders are using manual or automatic. I do care that I have to watch out for them as I maneuver around slower traffic, lest they come out of nowhere.
I had the same reaction vdeane did, perhaps unsurprisingly because in 27 years of driving I've never owned an automatic-shift vehicle. Whether you meant it that way or not, "the speed demons driving their sticks" being compared to cruise control users came across as a bizarre attack on manual-shift drivers. Illogical, too, since there's no reason a manual-shift driver would not be using cruise control. I do all the time–funny thing is, I use it most often at about 28 mph on the street leading into and out of our neighborhood as a way to keep my speed down. But it's a lifesaver on long hauls like 700-mile days regardless of what speed I might be driving at any given time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 21, 2016, 07:26:34 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 21, 2016, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2016, 01:14:43 PM
Guess you should take a look at your previous post. It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".
Here's how it rendered on my computer:
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2016, 02:56:19 PM
I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.
That's how you chose to interpret it. I don't care whether the speeders are using manual or automatic. I do care that I have to watch out for them as I maneuver around slower traffic, lest they come out of nowhere.
I had the same reaction vdeane did, perhaps unsurprisingly because in 27 years of driving I've never owned an automatic-shift vehicle. Whether you meant it that way or not, "the speed demons driving their sticks" being compared to cruise control users came across as a bizarre attack on manual-shift drivers. Illogical, too, since there's no reason a manual-shift driver would not be using cruise control. I do all the time–funny thing is, I use it most often at about 28 mph on the street leading into and out of our neighborhood as a way to keep my speed down. But it's a lifesaver on long hauls like 700-mile days regardless of what speed I might be driving at any given time.
I used cruise control all the time when I drove a manual. Actually did it more than I do now with a CVT. Granted, it's easier to use cruise control near Buffalo than it is near Albany, but still. Quite a few places through there where the speed limit was ungodly slow and I used cruise to stop myself from getting tickets.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 21, 2016, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
And as for passengers in vehicles???
I have a better idea. Don't do anything and quit being a nanny state.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2016, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 21, 2016, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
And as for passengers in vehicles???
I have a better idea. Don't do anything and quit being a nanny state.
Thank you. Just ban texting and driving, actually enforce the laws, and give out Darwin Awards with the tickets.
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 21, 2016, 06:12:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2016, 03:37:49 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 21, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.
I used to drive an Isuzu cab-over box truck, and you could drive with the pedal to the floor and it wouldn't go over 73 mph unless there was a strong tail wind. When I found myself in the situation you describe, trying to pass someone but unable to complete the maneuver, I would slow down and cut back over into the right lane to let other traffic on by. There isn't 'nothing' the driver can do, just 'something' he's unwilling to do.
Yeah, valid point, but you you have been driving a long time, you know what happens next. The car/truck that had been behind the one that pulled out fills the gap, everyone in both lanes are now lined up nose to tail, so slowing down for the truck stuck in the left lane really isn't an option any more at that point.
I mean, yeah, they "could" slow down further but then they are going to hold up the entire line of cars that are already in the passing lane, which you know as well as I do causes people do start doing all sorts of stupid stuff. They see the cars in the right lane are now passing them so they get desperate and that's where the wrecks happen.
Sorry, but this is what turn signals are for. If you're stuck in the left lane, holding up faster traffic and unable to pass, then,
as soon as you starting dropping back, you put on your right signal to show everyone what you're doing. In my experience, people immediately understand your intention, appreciate it, and do not engage in the behavior you describe. Whereas, without your signaling in advance, people don't know what you're doing, assume you're just an annoying slowpoke, and do anything they can to get around you.
Quote from: cl94 on October 21, 2016, 09:16:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2016, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 21, 2016, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
And as for passengers in vehicles???
I have a better idea. Don't do anything and quit being a nanny state.
Thank you. Just ban texting and driving, actually enforce the laws, and give out Darwin Awards with the tickets.
In some states, it is banned. The problem with enforcing the laws is that there are simply too many laws to enforce. If a cop sees 4 drivers go by...1 speeding, 1 not using turn signals, 1 drinking a beer, and 1 using a cell phone, which one does the cop go after?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2016, 10:44:03 AM
In some states, it is banned. The problem with enforcing the laws is that there are simply too many laws to enforce. If a cop sees 4 drivers go by...1 speeding, 1 not using turn signals, 1 drinking a beer, and 1 using a cell phone, which one does the cop go after?
Most likely the one that's in the easiest position for the policeman to pull over, unless one is an out-of-state license plate.
Quote from: 1 on October 22, 2016, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2016, 10:44:03 AM
In some states, it is banned. The problem with enforcing the laws is that there are simply too many laws to enforce. If a cop sees 4 drivers go by...1 speeding, 1 not using turn signals, 1 drinking a beer, and 1 using a cell phone, which one does the cop go after?
Most likely the one that's in the easiest position for the policeman to pull over, unless one is an out-of-state license plate.
So go after the guy that didn't use a turn signal, ignoring the drunk (who could be driving on a suspended license due to previous DUIs)?
And when that guy is pulled over, 3 others who committed infractions continue going, with everyone else saying "Where's a cop when you need one?". Well, that cop is currently going to have to spend an hour or two dealing with locking up the drunk again.
It's simply a no-win situation, because for everyone that is caught doing something wrong, numerous others get away with driving infractions...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
And as for passengers in vehicles???
You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 22, 2016, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
And as for passengers in vehicles???
You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.
So passengers aren't allowed to use their phone for directions?
I ride in a carpool. I can't use my phone to make a work-related phone call?
I just traveled 16 hours in a car to Florida. Is that a 'short' period of time? I'm not allowed to check my email while my wife drives?
I know, I know...you're only thinking people in cars are family or friends, and are just in the car for 'short' periods of time. By far, that's not the case for many people.
And finally, so much is made about punishing everyone for the few that cause the issue. That's exactly what you're proposing.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 21, 2016, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
And as for passengers in vehicles???
Do the thing that they do in Pokemon Go where it warns you that you're going too fast, then you can say "I am a passenger."
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 22, 2016, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
And as for passengers in vehicles???
You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.
LOL, that could work too, I suppose. :-D
Quote from: compdude787 on October 22, 2016, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 21, 2016, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: TXtoNJ on October 20, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.
It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.
As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.
Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.
That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.
And as for passengers in vehicles???
Do the thing that they do in Pokemon Go where it warns you that you're going too fast, then you can say "I am a passenger."
Except that doesn't work either. I know plenty of people who played Pokemon Go while driving, just hitting they are a passenger, and Waze also has that prompt, and all it makes me do is either spend more time reading and pressing buttons on my touchscreen, or use Google Maps instead of it.
Is there research on whether the anti-phone-use laws actually even help safety? People seem to ignore them, and worse, try to hide their phone usage while they're driving keeping the phone is a worse position that takes their eyes further off the road.
I too personally find I pay much more attention to the road and am less likely to fiddle with anything when I feel like I'm going the maximum safe speed for the road. Low speed limits encourage distracted driving, for me at least.
I'd prefer that the cops quit enforcing traffic laws and patrol high-crime areas where there are lots of shootings, drug deals, etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2016, 11:52:03 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 22, 2016, 11:44:55 AM
You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.
So passengers aren't allowed to use their phone for directions?
I ride in a carpool. I can't use my phone to make a work-related phone call?
You could do both, hands-free, just as the driver can....although I'm of the opinion that extended phone calls when in a confined space with others who aren't also participating in the call is rather rude and therefore probably ought to wait.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2016, 11:52:03 AMI just traveled 16 hours in a car to Florida. Is that a 'short' period of time? I'm not allowed to check my email while my wife drives?
I know, I know...you're only thinking people in cars are family or friends, and are just in the car for 'short' periods of time. By far, that's not the case for many people.
Actually, I'm regularly driving between Connecticut and Memphis, and since I'm a telecommuter, I haven't really thought about the physical commute experience in a while. (Although I do recall my time on an express bus as being a great opportunity to nap, or read a dead tree book.)
I've found that there aren't too many emails that require a response before the next gas/bio stop...especially if you set an out of office message saying "call me at...if you need an immediate response". And yes, a few of those calls, answered hands-free, have resulted in my giving Google Maps a voice command to route me to the next Mickey D's along the route, so I can break out the laptop and address the fire drill.
Cell phones, especially smart phones, are relatively new things. For many decades drivers and passengers survived short jaunts and long road trips quite well without them.
If locking such devices when traveling at certain speeds is what it takes to protect people from the idjits who insist on texting while driving....it'll suck, but it'll worth it. If you don't believe me, come sit at my desk for a while and read some auto insurance claim files.
That being said...I doubt that any such "features" will be built into future gadgets. At least on today's devices, I would assume that the only thing needed to circumvent the measures would be turning off the GPS receiver / location services daemon.
Mostly I was just obliquely commenting on just how much more frequently distracted driving is factoring into my claims data, as well as on how over-attached some of us (myself included!) have become to our gadgets.
I'd really, really prefer to see people have the good sense to do the right thing on their own when it comes to gadget use and driving. Sadly, I don't see it happening.
I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.
I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them. Those laws can be persuasive evidence of the applicable standard of care in a civil case, and once a court accepts that, the defendant's phone records will usually become discoverable to prove that, for example, he sent a text message one minute before rear-ending someone at 70 mph.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2016, 08:09:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 20, 2016, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 20, 2016, 09:33:23 AM
I honestly do about 80 whenever I'm able to, even on the crowded portions of I-95 around Baltimore, DC and Northern Virginia and the Baltimore Beltway, obviously when they're not crowded. I'm not a libertarian, but I sure drive like one sometimes.
You are aware of the reckless driving provisions in Virginia law, right?
That only applies in VA, right?
And based on what I've seen, many people in the NoVA area don't seem too concerned about it especially when traffic is heavy.
Yes, the "80 MPH is reckless driving" is (as far as I know) only applicable in Virginia. Or "20 MPH over the posted limit is reckless driving" only applies in Virginia (last time I checked, in Maryland, 30 over the posted limit can lead to a reckless driving charge).
The 20-30 above is much fairer than 80 mph, especially if the speed limit is 70.
To contrast, New York does not assign reckless driving for speeding. More than 20 above gives more points, but reckless driving here is a misdemeanor, with the potential of licence revocation and/or jail time.
Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.
That's the phrase I use often.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them.
One thing that bugs me is the lengths that cops are going to when enforcing these laws. They are using unmarked SUVs and sometimes even tractor-trailers just to catch drivers who are texting or, in the states that ban it, talking on their cell phones. Why don't they use those vehicles in the areas with the highest concentrations of drug trade or violent crime?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2016, 08:18:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.
That's the phrase I use often.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them.
One thing that bugs me is the lengths that cops are going to when enforcing these laws. They are using unmarked SUVs and sometimes even tractor-trailers just to catch drivers who are texting or, in the states that ban it, talking on their cell phones. Why don't they use those vehicles in the areas with the highest concentrations of drug trade or violent crime?
I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?
Quote from: kkt on October 22, 2016, 10:07:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2016, 08:18:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.
That's the phrase I use often.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them.
One thing that bugs me is the lengths that cops are going to when enforcing these laws. They are using unmarked SUVs and sometimes even tractor-trailers just to catch drivers who are texting or, in the states that ban it, talking on their cell phones. Why don't they use those vehicles in the areas with the highest concentrations of drug trade or violent crime?
I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?
And who says drug dealing surveillance isn't done using trucks and such?
Although, generally speaking, drug dealers are very keen about knowing their environment and keeping an eye out for something unusual. Many texting drivers could have a car full of clowns driving next to them for 20 miles and they'll never notice.
Quote from: cl94 on October 22, 2016, 08:12:44 PM
To contrast, New York does not assign reckless driving for speeding. More than 20 above gives more points, but reckless driving here is a misdemeanor, with the potential of licence revocation and/or jail time.
In Virginia, reckless driving is also a criminal offense ("Class 1 Misdemeanor"), and there is definitely the possibility of a heavy fine and jail time.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
Yes, the "80 MPH is reckless driving" is (as far as I know) only applicable in Virginia. Or "20 MPH over the posted limit is reckless driving" only applies in Virginia (last time I checked, in Maryland, 30 over the posted limit can lead to a reckless driving charge).
Hawaii has a similar prohibition of "excessive speeding", punishable as a petty misdemeanor with possible imprisonment. Hawaii's thresholds are similar to Virginia's, including the flat ban on 80 or over, but Virginia's "20 MPH over the posted limit" is replaced by 30 MPH over. (Hawaii's highest speed limit is only 60 MPH.) This is a fairly recent enactment, in response to a spate of fatal accidents from racing on public highways.
Quote from: slorydn1 on October 21, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
Even during the height of the NMSL days, I can remember long road trips where my dad would be doing his customary 60-61 (and saying he was letting his hair down, feeling like a criminal, lol) in the right lane and getting his doors blown off by many people running 80+ in the left. The speed differential between the legal beagles and the scofflaws was utterly ridiculous. At least the way things are now, the legal beagles are doing 65-70, even 80 in the states that allow it and yes, there are some 90-100 mph idiots out there, but not the steady stream of people going 15-25 over the limit that there was during the NMSL days.
My usual freeway cruising speed is 5-6 over whatever the limit is (why I really don't know, guess I got that from my dad) and although I do get passed here and there, I don't usually have people going by me fast enough to shake my car. There isn't a huge differential between me and those who are passing me, nor between me and the legal beagles that I am passing.
As for low limit governors on trucks (well really any vehicle) no, just no. I hate them with a passion.
Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.
The solution isn't lower speed limits. The speed limits need to be set at the appropriate speed that engineers (not politicians) say should be the limit for that road. Then the penalties for exceeding those appropriately set limits (with some slop allowed for differing speedometers) need to be so prohibitively draconian that no one would want to exceed those limits by any significant amount. I know some people referenced VA's reckless driving statute above and how people violate it all the time. People violate because a) they feel like the limit is set to low for the road they are travelling on (and in many cases, they are right) and b) they still feel that the possible penalty is still worth the risk-or maybe that a good lawyer will be able to find them a loophole that allows them to plead to a lesser offense that won't be too unpalatable, or even get them out of it altogether. If the limits are set high enough, and the penalties severe enough, then why would any sane person want to even chance it?
You could not have said it better.
Set the limit to 75 (or some actual number based on ACTUAL STATISTICS, not just some politician's money-grabbing scheme) and if you violate it by more than x amount (5 mph? 10% above the limit?) then you get in trouble.
People do violate because they feel the limit is too low - there are too many speed traps nationwide that are nothing more than a way for people to get money. For example, why exactly is this road (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2457408,-88.3585205,3a,75y,357.04h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAlKGjxDQ5sxinelMKJKG1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 25? It's a four lane arterial in a completely open area. There is a residential zone
half a mile ahead, but that would be like making the main street through town 25 the whole way, even in the business districts on the outskirts. The road I linked to should be 35 easily, maybe dropping to 30 in the residential zone, because it is hard to enforce 25 on arterials, I've found.
But seriously: if we really go through with this, just know that I can't drive 65.
Quote from: kkt on October 22, 2016, 10:07:07 PM
I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?
There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2016, 11:26:47 PM
And who says drug dealing surveillance isn't done using trucks and such?
I didn't say that, but I think it's a better use of law enforcement dollars than traffic enforcement.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2016, 01:03:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 22, 2016, 10:07:07 PM
I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?
There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.
According to the National Gang Center (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems), there were 2,363 gang related homicides in 2012 (most recent year they have stats on). Mind you this includes all gang homicides - I can't find any data on how many of those 2,363 people were non-gang members. Would probably be difficult to determine.
According to the NHTSA (http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/812012.pdf), there were 3,328 deaths attributable to distracted driving in the same year, 415 of which were attributable specifically to someone using their cell phone.
So, at the very least we can safely say that distracted driving kills more people than gangs do. It is impossible to determine from the given data whether drivers distracted by a cellphone specifically outnumber non-gang members killed by gang members. Your assertion
could be true.
What I find surprising in all this is how few deaths are actually attributed to a driver using their cellphone - only about 1.2% of the total. So I went probing around a bit more and I found this white paper from NSC (http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-crash-data.aspx) discussing how cellphone use by drivers in accidents may be highly underreported. Make of that what you will.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2016, 08:19:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2016, 01:03:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 22, 2016, 10:07:07 PM
I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?
There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.
According to the National Gang Center (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems), there were 2,363 gang related homicides in 2012 (most recent year they have stats on). Mind you this includes all gang homicides - I can't find any data on how many of those 2,363 people were non-gang members. Would probably be difficult to determine.
According to the NHTSA (http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/812012.pdf), there were 3,328 deaths attributable to distracted driving in the same year, 415 of which were attributable specifically to someone using their cell phone.
So, at the very least we can safely say that distracted driving kills more people than gangs do. It is impossible to determine from the given data whether drivers distracted by a cellphone specifically outnumber non-gang members killed by gang members. Your assertion could be true.
What I find surprising in all this is how few deaths are actually attributed to a driver using their cellphone - only about 1.2% of the total. So I went probing around a bit more and I found this white paper from NSC (http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-crash-data.aspx) discussing how cellphone use by drivers in accidents may be highly underreported. Make of that what you will.
12.5%. Whatever the case, I expect that percentage to go up. I can't count how many times I've almost been hit by someone who was too busy texting to look at the road and it's a 5 point offense here (11 gets license revoked), about equal to going over 20 above. Stop hiding behind bushes looking for speeders and and go after those idiots. They're more likely to kill someone than a person going 5 over on an empty road who is paying attention.
Quote from: cl94 on October 23, 2016, 08:29:31 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2016, 08:19:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2016, 01:03:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 22, 2016, 10:07:07 PM
I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?
There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.
According to the National Gang Center (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems), there were 2,363 gang related homicides in 2012 (most recent year they have stats on). Mind you this includes all gang homicides - I can't find any data on how many of those 2,363 people were non-gang members. Would probably be difficult to determine.
According to the NHTSA (http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/812012.pdf), there were 3,328 deaths attributable to distracted driving in the same year, 415 of which were attributable specifically to someone using their cell phone.
So, at the very least we can safely say that distracted driving kills more people than gangs do. It is impossible to determine from the given data whether drivers distracted by a cellphone specifically outnumber non-gang members killed by gang members. Your assertion could be true.
What I find surprising in all this is how few deaths are actually attributed to a driver using their cellphone - only about 1.2% of the total. So I went probing around a bit more and I found this white paper from NSC (http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-crash-data.aspx) discussing how cellphone use by drivers in accidents may be highly underreported. Make of that what you will.
12.5%. Whatever the case, I expect that percentage to go up. I can't count how many times I've almost been hit by someone who was too busy texting to look at the road and it's a 5 point offense here (11 gets license revoked), about equal to going over 20 above. Stop hiding behind bushes looking for speeders and and go after those idiots. They're more likely to kill someone than a person going 5 over on an empty road who is paying attention.
I look at it this way: About 25 years ago, no one was killed by cell phone use. There are fewer deaths today than there were 25 years ago. So are we saying that there would be even fewer deaths if there weren't cell phones? Probably. But I don't think the numbers are really as high as some people make it out to be.
There are some people that appear to try to attribute every accident to cell phone use...just like there are people that blame speeding for every accident. The vast majority of accidents today though are probably caused by the same reasons that accidents occurred 25 or 50 years ago, which is made up of a whole host of various reasons.
I have heard that the proportion of accidents caused by distracted driving has increased significantly in the past 15-20 years.
Going from CDC data, the number of people injured by distracted driving accidents increased by 10% from 2011 to 2013. Also in 2013, 18% of injury accidents were caused by distracted driving. Results from that year were similar to 2012, but the percentage of fatalities from DD accidents (~10% of total accident fatalities) specifically attributed to phone usage increased to 14%. I have seen stuff that suggests the real number could be much higher. Here is the 2013 NHSTA data (http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/Distracted_Driving_2013_Research_note.pdf). Regardless, it is going up and, given the increased attachment to technology, will likely go up further.
Quote from: cl94 on October 23, 2016, 08:59:59 PM
I have heard that the proportion of accidents caused by distracted driving has increased significantly in the past 15-20 years.
Going from CDC data, the number of people injured by distracted driving accidents increased by 10% from 2011 to 2013. Also in 2013, 18% of injury accidents were caused by distracted driving. Results from that year were similar to 2012, but the percentage of fatalities from DD accidents (~10% of total accident fatalities) specifically attributed to phone usage increased to 14%. I have seen stuff that suggests the real number could be much higher. Here is the 2013 NHSTA data (http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/Distracted_Driving_2013_Research_note.pdf). Regardless, it is going up and, given the increased attachment to technology, will likely go up further.
Very hard to take this numbers at face value. If administration didn't use that MS crash as a flagship case for distracted driving, their agenda would be mu-uch more believable. At this point I think
2013 study should be disregarded altogether.
2013 is the most recent data I can get easily
Quote from: cl94 on October 24, 2016, 11:06:30 AM
2013 is the most recent data I can get easily
If you will, this is the indication of political motivation behind the topic. Once previous FHWA boss stepped down (Le.. don't remember his name), topic seem to shift to a back burner.
As we know, glass can be half full or half empty, and policies can affect the choice...
Scratch that, 2014. 3,179 killed. And that comes from NHTSA. A 2 year lag is typical.
Quote from: cl94 on October 24, 2016, 12:01:35 PM
Scratch that, 2014. 3,179 killed. And that comes from NHTSA. A 2 year lag is typical.
My point is that pet issue is what is getting attention. Well, it is same as "speed kills".
THat high profile MS crash is written off as a distracted driving issue, and non-functional brakes on school buses are a relegated to be a minor contributing factor. Of course, if any accident where cell phone was within the reach is treated as distracted driving, getting high values is quite easy..
I don't know how to collect reliable data, though, as most accident reports are somewhat subjective. Alcohol detection is much more reliable, for example.
Quick note: NC classifies more than 15 mph over the limit OR more than 80 mph, whichever is lesser, as a misdemeanor charge, where as a normal "garden variety" speeding ticket is merely an infraction. So 66 in a 50, 71 in a 55, 76 in a 60, or 81 anywhere would be an actual crime. So yes, driving a mere 41 mph (in a 25 zone) "could" have you rooming with bubba in a jail cell for a few days if the judge wants to make an example out of someone.
It wouldn't be classified as reckless driving per se, but the potential penalties are just as severe as a Careless and Reckless charge. I meant to insert this farther up thread and forgot.