Speed kills . . . and sells

[Corn]

Isn't the SVT Focus a hatchback?

Yep, not a sport sedan, I'll give you that.......barely.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider either of those cars, or a WRX or Evo to be in the same class as a 5 series BMW or my SAAB.

Same class? Of course not, but then again, your Saab (assuming it's a 9-3) isn't in the same class as a 5 series bimmer either........and neither is my S4.

My SVT Contour felt like it had more room than a 3 series BMW.

It probably did.

IMHO a sedan = 4 doors + trunk. "sports" is merely a subjective term that implies neither luxury nor girth, instead it implies a certain aura of performance.

Hey, I used to hold the opinion that if it weren't RWD or AWD a car didn't deserve the moniker of "sports sedan" either, but I'm not so snobbish as I once was......

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Corn

Isn't the SVT Focus a hatchback?

Yep, not a sport sedan, I'll give you that.......barely.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider either of those cars, or a WRX or Evo to be in the same class as a 5 series BMW or my SAAB.

Same class? Of course not, but then again, your Saab (assuming it's a 9-3) isn't in the same class as a 5 series bimmer either........and neither is my S4.

Mine is a 9-5. I love the new 9-3 vectors though. Sometimes I wish I'd bought a Viggen instead of a 9-5.

My SVT Contour felt like it had more room than a 3 series BMW.

It probably did.

IMHO a sedan = 4 doors + trunk. "sports" is merely a subjective term that implies neither luxury nor girth, instead it implies a certain aura of performance.

Hey, I used to hold the opinion that if it weren't RWD or AWD a car didn't deserve the moniker of "sports sedan" either, but I'm not so snobbish as I once was......

I suppose I just see a level of refinement in what I consider a sports sedan. BMW is the classic example, so that's what everything is compared to.

The only problem I have with my SAAB is that it's FWD. I love everything about the car other than not being RWD. I suppose considering where it's built, there's a reason for the FWD. Hopefully, the next gen will be AWD.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If you check some of my previous posts . . . I reference sedans and sport coupes as well.

Its those idiots that get caught in more accidents around here then the guys that drive the Lightning [its not that fast anyway, and its only like 4000 pounds, which isnt much heavier than a Honda Civic] and the HEMI Ram, and the Silverado SS.

Irresponsible drivers occupy every kind of vehicle available. Of course due to the physics . . . an irresponsible Chevy Cavalier coupe driver will kill himself (and his passengers) while an irresponsible Ford Explorer driver will kill himself, his passengers, and likely the occupants in other vehicles.

Lightning 4670lbs (which I guess is only like 4000lbs . . . in government budget-speak). But if I put in kilos (2100) doesn't sound bad.

Hmm I'm not very good with this metric thing so if I stick with the Queen's standards the heaviest Civic (hybrid of course) weighs in at 2736lbs . . . I guess you are right . . . scarcely any difference in the weights of these vehicles.

There's no way to overemphasize the responsibility of drivers to operate their vehicles appropriately. I do not drive my wife's LS in the same manner that I operate my GSR. Despite the Sport package, RWD, and 53/47 balance . . . the extra half-ton it has over my lowered, sport springed, FWD GSR makes a big difference.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you check some of my previous posts . . . I reference sedans and sport coupes as well.

Its those idiots that get caught in more accidents around here then the guys that drive the Lightning [its not that fast anyway, and its only like 4000 pounds, which isnt much heavier than a Honda Civic] and the HEMI Ram, and the Silverado SS.

Irresponsible drivers occupy every kind of vehicle available. Of course due to the physics . . . an irresponsible Chevy Cavalier coupe driver will kill himself (and his passengers) while an irresponsible Ford Explorer driver will kill himself, his passengers, and likely the occupants in other vehicles.

Lightning 4670lbs (which I guess is only like 4000lbs . . . in government budget-speak). But if I put in kilos (2100) doesn't sound bad.

Hmm I'm not very good with this metric thing so if I stick with the Queen's standards the heaviest Civic (hybrid of course) weighs in at 2736lbs . . . I guess you are right . . . scarcely any difference in the weights of these vehicles.

There's no way to overemphasize the responsibility of drivers to operate their vehicles appropriately. I do not drive my wife's LS in the same manner that I operate my GSR. Despite the Sport package, RWD, and 53/47 balance . . . the extra half-ton it has over my lowered, sport springed, FWD GSR makes a big difference.

thats only a ~1900 lb difference, thats not that much comparatively speaking. Try a Ram 2500 HD or a HD Silverado 2500 those are 5000+ lbs. Hopw about a Viper, thats 3000+ lbs!! thats almost as heavy as the damn truck! try older cars that are made out of steel instead of fiberglass and plastic, those are really heavy!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
lies, damn lies, and statistics with regards to speed limit changes and rural highway fatalities
Someone endorsed broad research to ascertain the effect of speed limits (or speeding) on highway fatalities. Of course, such research invariably sux b/c there are a myriad of factors that affect highway fatality rates. Accordingly, you NEVER average across various domains . . . it's basically worthless research if you do not control for confounders (local laws, changes in safety regs, demographics, etc).
Local conditions can change dramatically in relatively short periods of time (and have dramatic effects on highway fatalities) . . . the physics never change (p;KE).

I'm not sure what your intention was when you posted this link. Do you realize it supports my point?

According to these statistics, it is actually safer to raise speed limits than to leave them unchanged. The table has data for 48 of 50 states. This data shows that 42% (5 of 12) of states raising the speed limit saw a higher fatality rate. A full 58% saw fatality rates drop after increasing their speed limits. In other words, more than half of the states raising their speed limits seem to have become safer!

On the other hand, 58% (21 of 36) of the states that did NOT raise speed limits saw higher fatality rates. Only 39% saw the fatality rate drop. One state had no change. It appears raising speed limits is less dangerous than leaving limits unchanged!

Even more interesting is the magnitude of the changes. None of the five states with the highest increase in fatality rates raised their speed limits. Maryland was the worst. It did NOT raise limits but still saw a 199% increase in its fatality rate. Nebraska and Georgia are next with 99% and 95% increases respectively. They did NOT raise speed limits. You have to go down to number six, Missouri, to find the first state with raised limits and a high fatality rate increase (51%).

What does this prove? It's really simple. The numbers are there for everyone to see. We must raise speed limts to save lives.

OK, maybe not. What the numbers really show is there are a host of factors that affect highway fatalies, just as BBD says. But this cuts both ways. Contrary to the IIHS press release, we don't see a consistent correlation between speed limits and fatalities. They pick and choose the numbers they use to support their agenda. They don't mention the seven states that raised speed limits and lowered the fatality rate or the 21 states with increased fatality rates in spite of NOT increasing speed limits. Instead, they focus on the five states that raised limits and saw increased fatality rates. Bottom line, IIHS is dishonest ... which is my point.

Finally, there is sound logic supporting the concept of selectively raising speed limits to save lives. Old two-lane roads are quite dangerous compared to modern multi-lane, limited-access divided highways. If you leave the speed limits the same on both types of roads, people tend to use whatever is shorter. This puts more people on the older, dangerous roads, increasing fatalities. If you raise speed limits on divided highways while leaving limits lower on the old roads, traffic will shift to the safer divided highways. This can reduce overall fatalities. The key is raising limits enough to encourage people to use divided highways, even if they have to drive a few miles out of their way.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
lies, damn lies, and statistics with regards to speed limit changes and rural highway fatalities
Someone endorsed broad research to ascertain the effect of speed limits (or speeding) on highway fatalities. Of course, such research invariably sux b/c there are a myriad of factors that affect highway fatality rates. Accordingly, you NEVER average across various domains . . . it's basically worthless research if you do not control for confounders (local laws, changes in safety regs, demographics, etc).
Local conditions can change dramatically in relatively short periods of time (and have dramatic effects on highway fatalities) . . . the physics never change (p;KE).

I'm not sure what your intention was when you posted this link. Do you realize it supports my point?

According to these statistics, it is actually safer to raise speed limits than to leave them unchanged. The table has data for 48 of 50 states. This data shows that 42% (5 of 12) of states raising the speed limit saw a higher fatality rate. A full 58% saw fatality rates drop after increasing their speed limits. In other words, more than half of the states raising their speed limits seem to have become safer!

On the other hand, 58% (21 of 36) of the states that did NOT raise speed limits saw higher fatality rates. Only 39% saw the fatality rate drop. One state had no change. It appears raising speed limits is less dangerous than leaving limits unchanged!

Even more interesting is the magnitude of the changes. None of the five states with the highest increase in fatality rates raised their speed limits. Maryland was the worst. It did NOT raise limits but still saw a 199% increase in its fatality rate. Nebraska and Georgia are next with 99% and 95% increases respectively. They did NOT raise speed limits. You have to go down to number six, Missouri, to find the first state with raised limits and a high fatality rate increase (51%).

What does this prove? It's really simple. The numbers are there for everyone to see. We must raise speed limts to save lives.

OK, maybe not. What the numbers really show is there are a host of factors that affect highway fatalies, just as BBD says. But this cuts both ways. Contrary to the IIHS press release, we don't see a consistent correlation between speed limits and fatalities. They pick and choose the numbers they use to support their agenda. They don't mention the seven states that raised speed limits and lowered the fatality rate or the 21 states with increased fatality rates in spite of NOT increasing speed limits. Instead, they focus on the five states that raised limits and saw increased fatality rates. Bottom line, IIHS is dishonest ... which is my point.

Finally, there is sound logic supporting the concept of selectively raising speed limits to save lives. Old two-lane roads are quite dangerous compared to modern multi-lane, limited-access divided highways. If you leave the speed limits the same on both types of roads, people tend to use whatever is shorter. This puts more people on the older, dangerous roads, increasing fatalities. If you raise speed limits on divided highways while leaving limits lower on the old roads, traffic will shift to the safer divided highways. This can reduce overall fatalities. The key is raising limits enough to encourage people to use divided highways, even if they have to drive a few miles out of their way.

Excellent post again Bow.

From what I have been seeing supports this exactly. The speed postings make no sense and are a big part of the problem.


On the multi-lane Interstates here, the sections that are wide open and can support 70 mph speeds they have 55 mph posted. On the sections that are not as wide open with multiple exits etc they have 70mph posted.

Since they have lowered the speed limit on the areas that can support 70 mph I have personally seen a lot more wrecks and very bad ones because of "mixing" occuring that was not happening before the lowering. You have people doing 70mph coming up on people doing 50 or even 45 mph.

Off the Interstate, we mainly have 2 lane country roads here and cannot figure out how they come up with the speed posts worth a flip.

The have 55mph posted on curvy dangerous roads while 45 on the straight and safer ones. Inactuality they should make the speed limit 30 mph on all of them because a majority of the drivers are extremely SLOW especially those in pick up trucks (I don't know what it is with these things, they put 500 HP in them now and yet they only drive 30 mph in them) and then you get people trying to do 55 get behind them and very impatient. Massive Conger lines.

 

[OS]

I saw that study earlier and it was paid for by insurance companies, who aren't exactly an objective party.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

OK, maybe not. What the numbers really show is there are a host of factors that affect highway fatalies, just as BBD says. But this cuts both ways.

Absolutely, but if all things being equal you increase the competency of the typical driver . . . fatalities will fall. Why? Well that's obvious.

But if alll things being equal you increase the rate of speed on the typical poorly maintained thoroughfare in America . . . fatalities will rise. Just plain physics . . . it's the law.

I posted those links b/c it confirms part of your argument (increasing speed limits doesn't have to kill . . . in fact it may decrease fatalities) . . . and confirms mine (increasing speed typically increases kills). Those with an ideology to sell will latch onto confirmatory evidence while ignoring contradictory data.

IIHS obviously is biased. But using the term dishonest would require we label everyone that selectively reports as so . . . accordingly, every government entity/administration and every corporation would be dishonest by definition. Personally, I have no problem with such an approach. But the IIHS bias has benefits to the typical consumer. There most recent report noted that SUVs as a class sustain the highest amount of damage in their 5mph collision test. Furthermore, not a single SUV received their highest rating. It's valuable information to know the 29K Honda Pilot will sustain $400 worth of damage while the 20K Kia Sorento will sustain $1600 worth of damage. The insurance will be cheaper on the Pilot which means total cost of ownership may be comprable despite the 45% premium in purchase price.

Better designed highways, better vehicles, and better drivers can easily sustain . . . if not require higher speeds. But considering the backlog in highway repair, congestion generated by new highway construction, and quality of the typical driver . . . advertising for faster vehicles seems foolish . . . if not reckless.

Finally, there is sound logic supporting the concept of selectively raising speed limits to save lives.

Gospel according to Bowfinger . . . unfortunately, sound logic is sorely missing in public policy when it comes to road design and speed limits.

If you raise speed limits on divided highways while leaving limits lower on the old roads, traffic will shift to the safer divided highways. This can reduce overall fatalities. The key is raising limits enough to encourage people to use divided highways, even if they have to drive a few miles out of their way.

Brilliant . . . unfortunately many of the divided highways (at least in my state which is 2nd in the nation in paved roadways) have 70mph speed limits and at least one corridor I-95 is terribly maintained . . . not surprisingly it is also the most dangerous in the state.

 

[Bowfinger]

BBD, I think we're more in agreement than not. We're just focusing on different facets of the issue. Just a few thoughts & clarifications about select parts of your post:

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
... but if all things being equal you increase the competency of the typical driver . . . fatalities will fall. Why? Well that's obvious.

I agree 100%. Most people are terrible drivers. They are inattentive, they don't remember even the most simple traffic rules, and they have little ability to control their vehicles in an emergency. It would be a pain in the butt, but I would support mandatory driver training refresher classes as well as driving tests every few years. Skip Barber for all is an idealistic dream, but it would save thousands of lives.

Just plain physics . . . it's the law.

Note, I am NOT disagreeing with the physics of higher speeds and accidents. I do think that there is only a loose correlation between posted speed limits and accidents, however. There are too many other factors at play. Speed limit laws aren't about physics as much as they're about politics and human behavior.

I posted those links b/c it . . . confirms mine (increasing speed typically increases kills).

But they didn't. Out of the 12 states raising speed limits, only 5 saw increased fatalities while 7 did not. Out of 36 states NOT raising limits, 21 saw increased fatalities while 15 did not. In other words, fewer than half the states raising limits saw an increased fatailty rate while more than half of the states NOT raising limits saw increased fatalities.

. . . accordingly, every government entity/administration and every corporation would be dishonest by definition.

Works for me. It would save a lot of time.

But the IIHS bias has benefits to the typical consumer. . . .

Agreed. I don't think the IIHS is evil, just dishonest about the connection between speed limits and traffic fatality rates.

Finally, there is sound logic supporting the concept of selectively raising speed limits to save lives.

Gospel according to Bowfinger . . .

Was that necessary? Please note my use of the word "selectively".

unfortunately, sound logic is sorely missing in public policy when it comes to road design and speed limits.

My point exactly. We diverge on what to do about it. I favor taking the politics out of it and selectively raising speed limits on appropriate roads according to sound traffic engineering principles. You seem to favor leaving all speed limits low, assuming that politicians will inevitably muck it up otherwise. While that's not an unreasonable assumption, the concept of uniformly low speed limits carries its own baggage.

My father was a State Trooper all his life. He disagreed with the national 55 mph speed limit. He said because people ignored it and hated its enforcement, it taught people to ignore other laws and to see law enforcement as the enemy instead of the good guys. It encouraged people to drive evasively instead of safely. It drew people off to more dangerous secondary roads because they assumed these roads were less heavily patrolled. Perhaps worst of all, it shifted the Patrol's emphasis from traffic safety to traffic enforcement. The public responded by viewing traffic laws as being more about revenue than safety. By subordinating traffic engineering to politics, Congress made our roads more dangerous and fueled disrespect for law enforcement.


That's my long-winded $0.02. Interesting topic, BBD.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Nothing but love . . .

Gospel according to Bowfinger . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Was that necessary? Please note my use of the word "selectively".

I used to be a Bible-thumper so actually my Gospel comment was intended as a compliment . . . lost in translation.

I'm actually in favor of limiting vehicle speed (top) and vehicle weight . . . responsibly. Unfortunately, many corporations do not take a Volvo or Honda approach to designing safe (and not necessarily boring) vehicles.

The best public policy for transportation resources and regulation would certainly come from good research in city/regional planning. Alas, they don't have a lobby like road contractors and automakers.