Speed kills . . . and sells

[Corn]

Man oh man that thing was fast...

That's the thing about the old GTO's, they were fast, too bad they couldn't stop.
A buddy of mine had a 66 GTO: 4 wheel drum brakes + water = hope you aren't planning on stopping any time soon! I got prematurely grey because of a few close calls while riding in that car...........

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

If a conservative started this thread would you have praised them?

Only if they would have rightly chastized Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for yet another bogus study that always comes to the same conclusion.

Notice this "study" doesn't encompass the entire country.......wonder why that is.....

Did this study compare miles driven/fatality before and after the 75mph increase, or was it simply "more have died since....."?

The New Zealand researchers studied death rates on rural intestates where the speed limits had been increased from 55 mph to 75 mph. Of those, the study finds a 38 percent increase, or about 780 more deaths.

I think the answer to my question is answered right there. They've come to the conclusion that it was simply the increase in the speed limit that has contributed to the increase in death, no mention of the increase in miles driven before and after. Imagine that, I would have thought that a "broad" study would footnote that interesting fact somewhere.

Agreed. The anti-speed crowd has a long history of fudging their numbers to dramatize their "speed kills" campaign. Yes, all things being equal, as speed limits increase, so will fatality rates. However, the IIHS has consistently exaggerated the relationship.

Counting highway fatalities by itself isn't enough. As Corn hints, you must also consider the number of miles driven. If there are more people driving more miles, there will be more accidents. The standard metric for this is fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled (VMT). This normalizes the fatality rate.

The 2002 fatality rate per 100 million VMT was 1.51 according to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. In this article, the IIHS trumpets the great drop in fatalities in 1974, when the U.S. adopted the 55 mph speed limit. They do not mention that the 1974 fatality rate was 3.59 deaths/100M VMT, over twice as high as 2002! They also do not mention that the average fatality rate has dropped steadily for decades, regardless of whether speed limits went up or down. The 2002 fatality rate of 1.51 is about one-fourth the 1957 rate of 5.98.

Why the continual drop? Because roads and cars are both safer. More and more vehicle miles are on safer, multi-lane divided highways instead of old two-lanes. Seat belt use saves thousands of lives per year (and air bags save the lives of morons who won't use their seat belts). Cars are engineered to survive collisions. Tires are vastly better. Drunk driving is less common. I know many people here love to criticize all government regulations, but all in all, our auto safety mandates are saving a lot of lives.

So, did the IIHS lie when they said fatalities dropped in 1974? Technically no, there were 9,000 fewer deaths in '74. What the IIHS doesn't mention is the unprecedented drop in travel in 1974. Remember the energy crisis? Remember skyrocketing gas prices and gas lines? People stayed home in 1974. Total VMT dropped by over 33 billion miles. Gas was too expensive, and people were concerned they'd get stranded.

There are other causes for concern, however. According to the DOT, 2002 fatalities were as high as they were thanks to an increase in SUV rollover deaths (up by almost 500) and alcohol-related deaths (up by just over 500). On the bright side, there was a significant drop in deaths for children seven and under.

 

[LunarRay]

Zebo,

You're joking right? ( ihope) I never imagined you to be an authortarian liberal. While your at it lets puy video cameras in homes and cars, monitored by the feds for any subversion or wrong-doing. Make every home owner hire a licenced life-gaurd of they own a pool. Make bars test thier patrons before each drink so thier not drunk in public....etc etc etc?
This is a free country..or used to be.

I was sorta paraphrasing a Cal Trans official speaking 'off the cuff' regarding where we could improve the highways and bi-ways in a cost effective manner. Instead of spending $ on roads and stuff he advocated slowing cars down. He was in part addressing the speed differential of light weight electric and alternative fuel vehicles versus the massive weight of gas powered ones. He said 'statistics' show that if you introduce slow into fast you end up with accidents. Traffic congestion is caused by cars racing toward the stack and if everyone just went 35 on the freeway you'd eliminate stop and go conditions and associated pollution not to mention high blood pressure.

I advocate freedom to do as one pleases as long as it don't run into me.. at 90 mph.. I've never seen anyone going under 70 mph on the roads around here. It's mad trying to merge. Some day the oil will be gone and then what.. I loved driving about in my ford back when a 427 SOHC made about 550 horsepower.. and tires lasted about six stop lights.. I wouldn't deny that to the youth of today.. Some are trying though!

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Econoboxes don't kill . . . well Honda/Toyota econoboxes don't kill . . . hitting them with 3-ton, pollution spewing, subsidize oppressive regime behemoths kills.

ROFL!

of course the skill or lack of it does not have anything to do with it, it is all the fault of those "pollution spewing, subsidize oppressive regime behemoths"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

While there a myriad of contributing factors to highway fatalities . . . let's observe some simple (yet direct correlations):

1) Increasing per capita (driving age) consumption of alcohol will increase alcohol-related accidents.
2) momentum=mass*velocity . . . ie accident avoidance becomes more difficult as a function of increasing mass AND speed (caveat: Porsche Cayenne vs Chevy Cavalier)
3) kinetic energy=1/2 mass*velocity^2 . . . ie big arse vehicle (bad), big arse vehicle going fast (carnage).

Drunk, inattentive, or otherwise "bad" drivers are the primary threats on the highway. If everyone drove Chevy Tahoes, accidents would be more destructive/lethal in single and multi-vehicle crashes compared to everyone driving Audi S4s - the new one not the fossil Corn tools around in. Of course, intelligent/experienced drivers are fully aware that you CANNOT drive a Tahoe in the same manner as an S4. Unfortunately, neither intelligence nor experience are pre-requisites for getting behind the wheel of a battle cruiser like the 2400kg Tahoe or the highly maneuverable, yet almost portly 1750kg S4.

My title and the IIHS (and auto industry) perspective remains not only valid but unchallenged by the peanut gallery. Speed kills (albeit it's the lack of control of the speed not the speed itself) and almost every automaker with a significant presence in America is selling consumers on powerful engines and the speed that evolves from said powerplants.

My car makes 185hp and weighs 1300kg. My wife's car makes 280hp and weighs 1800kg. And yes, I purchased her car. I drive my car hard . . . she rides in her car to school (and back). Neither of us qualify as bad drivers. But my profession is allegedly trails only students for number of accidents per 1000 insured drivers per year.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While there a myriad of contributing factors to highway fatalities . . . let's observe some simple (yet direct correlations):

1) Increasing per capita (driving age) consumption of alcohol will increase alcohol-related accidents.
2) momentum=mass*velocity . . . ie accident avoidance becomes more difficult as a function of increasing mass AND speed (caveat: Porsche Cayenne vs Chevy Cavalier)
3) kinetic energy=1/2 mass*velocity^2 . . . ie big arse vehicle (bad), big arse vehicle going fast (carnage).

put simply, i would be safer if i was driving a big car getting hit by a little one than in a little car getting hit by a big one...it seems a great incentive to buy a bigger car.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Drunk, inattentive, or otherwise "bad" drivers are the primary threats on the highway. If everyone drove Chevy Tahoes, accidents would be more destructive/lethal in single and multi-vehicle crashes compared to everyone driving Audi S4s - the new one not the fossil Corn tools around in. Of course, intelligent/experienced drivers are fully aware that you CANNOT drive a Tahoe in the same manner as an S4. Unfortunately, neither intelligence nor experience are pre-requisites for getting behind the wheel of a battle cruiser like the 2400kg Tahoe or the highly maneuverable, yet almost portly 1750kg S4.

so then the primary factor would still be the driver's skill.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
My title and the IIHS (and auto industry) perspective remains not only valid but unchallenged by the peanut gallery. Speed kills (albeit it's the lack of control of the speed not the speed itself) and almost every automaker with a significant presence in America is selling consumers on powerful engines and the speed that evolves from said powerplants.

so the point of driver skill is re-iterated, i agree.

 

[ReiAyanami]

i'm safer driving a tank down the highway. that's doesn't mean i should

this SUV was made for you:
http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It is impractical to provide Skip Barber training for every American but we can certainly produce lighter and safer vehicles (Honda initiative). Such vehicles are not only safer for occupants but also reduce the risk from collisions with other vehicles.

I am well aware the world is filled with rectums that have no concern except for themselves. Accordingly, they 1) drive beyond their abilities, 2) purchase or otherwise wastefully utilize their vehicles, 3) perceive all forms of regulation as a threat to their marginal manhood (although Hummer is working the ChicPower angle these days).

so the point of driver skill is re-iterated, i agree.

Only the ignorant would overlook this factor. But even basic driver's ed has gone from piss poor to nonexistent. Even if driver's ed was available it cannot compete with horsepower wars and expanding size of our vehicles. Driving skill can be modified but the physics of collisions is fixed. Unfortunately, driving skills are not improving while the physics are making collisions more likely and more dangerous. There are multiple reasons for lower 21st century fatality rates compared to the early 80s. IMO, better designed vehicles (AND mandatory safety features) are primarily responsible.

put simply, i would be safer if i was driving a big car getting hit by a little one than in a little car getting hit by a big one...it seems a great incentive to buy a bigger car

It's a ridiculous example that's far from simple. A more maneuverable car (smaller than big, typically) may avoid being hit. A more maneuverable car (smaller) is more likely to avoid hitting another vehicle. Put simply, the first lesson of surviving an accident . . . is accident avoidance . . . it seems a great incentive not to buy a bigger car.:Q If I've got to take a hit it makes more sense to have side impact beams (T-bone) or crumple zone/drop-out chassis (offset) than worry about the size the poorly driven vehicle that's about to hit me . . . granted, I'm still going to hope that he/she thinks a lot more like me than you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
[...]
My title and the IIHS (and auto industry) perspective remains not only valid but unchallenged by the peanut gallery. Speed kills (albeit it's the lack of control of the speed not the speed itself) and almost every automaker with a significant presence in America is selling consumers on powerful engines and the speed that evolves from said powerplants.
[...]

(We need a "raised eyebrows" emoticon)

As one of the peanuts, let me suggest you are missing the point. As I said, "Yes, all things being equal, as speed limits increase, so will fatality rates. However, the IIHS has consistently exaggerated the relationship."

The IIHS perspective is demonstrably deceptive. I showed you the statistics for fatalities per 100M VMT. If you dispute them, you are welcome to look them up yourself. They clearly show that the fatality rate continues to drop even as speed limits have increased. The IIHS ignores this, at least in part because their members benefit from setting speed limits artificially low. Drivers ignore speed limits that are too low. When those drivers get speeding tickets, the insurance companies behind IIHS get to charge these drivers higher rates. By exaggerating the correlation between speed and accidents, the IIHS members can charge disproportionately higher -- i.e., more profitable -- rates.

It is not enough to say faster is more dangerous. It is a trite and irrelevant observation. If we set the speed limit to zero (0), the only fatalities will be people who die of CO poisoning while listening to their radios. Of course, no one will ever get anywhere in their cars, but they'll be really safe.

The question is where do we set the speed limit to provide the best compromise between efficient travel and danger? Today's speed limits are still no more than the limits before 1974, and in many states they are still slower. This is in spite of the fact that today's highways and today's cars are designed to be much safer at much higher speeds than their early 70's counterparts. It should be an engineering decision, not political.

I do agree that powerful cars can be more dangerous in unskilled hands. They can also save lives, especially since the automakers usually couple more horsepower with better handling packages. In my opinion, it's the other extreme that is really dangerous, the little econoboxes that can't get out of their own way, obstruct traffic, and crumble like tin foil if they hit a hard bump. Cars like that should be restricted to local commuting only; keep them off the freeways and interstates.

 

[DealMonkey]

I still believe big SUVs/trucks are more dangerous to everyone around them. I still believe they burn more gas than other vehicles. I still think its wrong for the government to provide tax incentives to buy these vehicles. I defy anyone to prove any of those statements wrong.

 

[djNickb]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I still believe big SUVs/trucks are more dangerous to everyone around them. I still believe they burn more gas than other vehicles. I still think its wrong for the government to provide tax incentives to buy these vehicles. I defy anyone to prove any of those statements wrong.

It's not the Tahoe I'm worried about its the cell-phone toting, fast food eating, too busy looking in the vanity mirror to look in the rear view mirrow soccer mom driving the Tahoe that I'm worried about!

 

[maluckey]

Last time I checked, a car couldn't drive itself. Therefore, a driver is the fault for the crash in the overwhelming majority of theses fatalities, and barring, random weather anomalies, large wild animals jumping in front of you, or meteorites falling from the sky, the driver has sole responsibility for the speed, safety, and direction of travel.

Another idiotic atttempt to remove responsibility from the general populace, save us from ourselves, and make us slaves to the Government. Bicycles kill too! We should mandate that all bicycles use training wheels, and have speed governed to 10 MPH. The should save lives.

Drunks on the road kill more people on the road, than any other factor. Fight the lax law enforcement attitude for prosecution and punishment of these irresponsible drivers, and you'll save more than you would by lowering the speed limit by a few MPH on the freeway.

 

[Ime]

Where I live, everyone drives big trucks and SUV's. I bought myself an SUV more out of self-defense than anything else.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ime
Where I live, everyone drives big trucks and SUV's. I bought myself an SUV more out of self-defense than anything else.

Nothing like progress in efficiency

We just keep making the smiles on our desert friends faces bigger don't we...

 

[Corn]

Even if driver's ed was available it cannot compete with horsepower wars.........

Horsepower smorshpower. I thought we were talking about highway fatalities, not drag racing fatalities here. What does the "horsepower wars" have to do with highway fatalities? Has there ever been a passenger vehicle manufactured that could not attain 85+MPH on our highways, even before these so-called "horsepower wars"? I'm thinking not.......

A more maneuverable car (smaller than big, typically) may avoid being hit. A more maneuverable car (smaller) is more likely to avoid hitting another vehicle. Put simply, the first lesson of surviving an accident . . . is accident avoidance . . .

How many accidents have you avoided? I can tell you how many I've avoided: 0

Our survival instinct forces us to swerve and brake, all without giving us the time to see if we're swerving into someone else or braking into the front end of the car behind us.......

Anti-lock brakes were hearlded as the answer to highway fatalities--allowing the least skilled amongst us to "avoid" accidents by remaining in control of our vehicles in panic situations. Yet appears they don't actually help. Accident avoidance is a myth perpetuated by the lucky.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Corn

Accident avoidance is a myth perpetuated by the lucky.

I've personally avoided one accident. I sped up and swerved in my SVT Contour when I saw someone running a red light. The guy missed me by about 10 feet.

The accident that finished my Contour was a little different. I attempted to avoid the spining, out of control SUV, but with the ice on the road, my car didn't make it to the next lane.

 

[kage69]

I would argue that ABS does make a difference in highway safety - but only if you know how to use it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Corn

Accident avoidance is a myth perpetuated by the lucky.

I've personally avoided one accident. I sped up and swerved in my SVT Contour when I saw someone running a red light. The guy missed me by about 10 feet.

The accident that finished my Contour was a little different. I attempted to avoid the spining, out of control SUV, but with the ice on the road, my car didn't make it to the next lane.

Glad you survived. Did you go out and buy an SUV too?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I do agree that powerful cars can be more dangerous in unskilled hands. They can also save lives, especially since the automakers usually couple more horsepower with better handling packages. In my opinion, it's the other extreme that is really dangerous, the little econoboxes that can't get out of their own way, obstruct traffic, and crumble like tin foil if they hit a hard bump. Cars like that should be restricted to local commuting only; keep them off the freeways and interstates.

My first car was a 320i. It handled like a dream . . . when it wasn't in the shop. But the notion that powerful cars may save lives has negligible merit compared to better designed cars (collision safety equipment and handling WITHOUT increased whp). My first new car was an Acura Integra GSR. It can be driven like an econobox (low emissions/good gas mileage) yet the 8000rpm redline is for more than show. The majority of pony cars from American automakers were good for nothing but going real fast in a straight line. Those vehicles are not safe. Fortunately, domestic automakers are producing safer small cars . . . prodded of course by the government AND the excellent small import vehicles.

You expose your bias in your statements. Anybody that knows $0.015 about autos knows there are plenty of small, highly maneuverable AND safe vehicles available. In typical (law abiding traffic), the people that cannot get out of the way are Ford Excursion drivers trying to find somewhere to park their barge at the mall. No one should minimize the responsibility people have to drive their vehicles appropriately but in much the same manner that we've admonished liquor and cigarette manufacturers for glorifying dangerous behavior . . .

Pontiac (is selling speed although the Aztek achievement is noteworthy . . . for what it says about the competition).
2004 Pontiac GTO Boosts Output To 350 Horsepower.
Click here to read the press release on GTO's 350 horsepower, high-output V8 engine.

Bonneville V-8 Engine Delivers 275 HP
With its clean, sleek lines, powerful form, and enhanced supercharger, the Pontiac Bonneville show car sets higher performance and appearance expectations for a full-sized sedan... (More)

Infiniti
click on any vehicle and see what the manufacturer considers the most important attribute of their vehicles

Dodge Ram SRT-10

It's the biggest, baddest, boldest, fastest full-size pickup ever - the Viper-powered 2004 Dodge Ram SRT-10.

No truck comes close to this in terms of ultimate performance. How could they? No one else sports a class-obliterating 500 horsepower and 525 lb.-ft. of torque. And none of those "toy" trucks can even think about topping 150 mph or reaching 60 mph in approximately five seconds.

This is proof that you can never go too far. Or too fast.

Do I want to deny HEMI-power to Americans . . . of course not. Would I like to see draconian penalties for anyone that violates the posted speed limit by more than 10mph . . . absolutely! Considering I would be in line for one of those penalties it would certainly change my rate of travel. Despite a spotless driving record my behavior must be regulated b/c it's the only way to regulate the behavior of the idiots as well. As a generalization, speed thrills and kills . . . it sells due to the former and sux due to the latter. In any case, irresponsible speed must be regulated by hook (law) or crook (IIHS).

 

[DealMonkey]

The Toyota Prius never killed anyone. Bwaa ha ha hahahahahaha... Ahem.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Our survival instinct forces us to swerve and brake, all without giving us the time to see if we're swerving into someone else or braking into the front end of the car behind us.......

You, my friend, are a bad driver. You should always be aware of what's in the next lane, who you are trailing, and who's following. Survival instincts don't belong at the wheel of a car unless those instincts tell you to drive at a reasonable speed and be aware of your surroundings.

Maybe you are dating yourself but most people in my generation should be scarcely aware of "pumping" a break. IMO, the early adopters to ABS were likely luxury makes (since it was optional). Most of those buyers were likely older and naturally "pumped" their brakes during an emergency. If they panicked and slammed on the breaks . . . ABS may have saved them from more severe morbidity (or mortality).

Let's be practical, the best handling make is arguably BMW. You can buy faster vehicles at a given pricepoint but in general few question the handling attributes of the typical BMW sedan or coupe. But if you lack the driving acumen to fully exploit a 325i or 530i . . . putting you behind the wheel of a M3 or M5 is crazy. I'm not the least bothered by the IIHS raising the rates on unsafe classes of drivers (male, young male, young unmarried male, young unmarried male with bad credit . . .) It's also quite reasonable to charge higher rates for larger displacement engines/# cylinders . . . considering powerful engines will get the typical driver into more trouble not less.

 

[Corn]

You, my friend, are a bad driver. You should always be aware of what's in the next lane, who you are trailing, and who's following.

Give me a break. Evidently you've never traversed a multi-lane freeway before. I don't know about you, but I keep my eyes in front with glances to the rear a couple times a minute. Anyone who knows whose behind and side to side every second isn't keeping his eyes on the road. The guy next to you is gone in 4 seconds, maybe replaced by another, maybe not, but I could care less about what is going on at 4 and 8 o'clock unless I plan on entering those lanes. I'm much more concerned about the tailgater in front who slams on his brakes because he's following too close.........

 

[Jmman]

18 wheelers kill more people than SUVs, lets get rid of them. Maybe trains too. Just too dangerous. While we are at it, let's get rid of bathtubs also. 1000's of people die every year by slipping in those death traps.........

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Corn

Accident avoidance is a myth perpetuated by the lucky.

I've personally avoided one accident. I sped up and swerved in my SVT Contour when I saw someone running a red light. The guy missed me by about 10 feet.

The accident that finished my Contour was a little different. I attempted to avoid the spining, out of control SUV, but with the ice on the road, my car didn't make it to the next lane.

Glad you survived. Did you go out and buy an SUV too?

Nope, I bought a SAAB.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Jmman
18 wheelers kill more people than SUVs, lets get rid of them. Maybe trains too. Just too dangerous. While we are at it, let's get rid of bathtubs also. 1000's of people die every year by slipping in those death traps.........

Do you have stats to back this up?

Assuming it's true, 18 wheelers are filling their designed purpose. They're a necessary evil. Sure they pollute and are massive, but society wouldn't function the same without them. Their drivers are also higher skilled, trained, and tested than the average driver.