Speed kills!

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually it does. When speed limits were lowered during WW2 to 35 mph, road fatalities plummeted.

How many male drivers in the 16-35 range did WW2 take off the road?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually it does. When speed limits were lowered during WW2 to 35 mph, road fatalities plummeted.

How many male drivers in the 16-35 range did WW2 take off the road?

interesting observation there, it makes total sense too. So if we started WW3 I bet road fatalities would plummet again.

it's obvious world wars are the real answer to lowering road fatalities.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually it does. When speed limits were lowered during WW2 to 35 mph, road fatalities plummeted.

How many male drivers in the 16-35 range did WW2 take off the road?

interesting observation there, it makes total sense too. So if we started WW3 I bet road fatalities would plummet again.

it's obvious world wars are the real answer to lowering road fatalities.

I think the fatalities on the roads in France, Germany, and Russia were way up in 1944.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually it does. When speed limits were lowered during WW2 to 35 mph, road fatalities plummeted.

How many male drivers in the 16-35 range did WW2 take off the road?

True. I'll pull out my book when I get home and see exactly what the statistic is.

 

[RU482]

do any of these figures take into account how much safer cars have become in the last 10-15 yrs?

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
i wonder what % women are responsible for

Men drive more recklessly and get into more fatal accidents than women.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Anubis
i wonder what % women are responsible for

Men drive more recklessly and get into more fatal accidents than women.

Are you sure about that since the population of women is higher then men I would think the math would have it the other way around.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: dullard
A car going 45 MPH in a 35 MPH zone must absorb almost double the destructive energy than that same car going 35 MPH even if speed had nothing to do with the crash.

I am not sure that is correct, and I am too lazy to do the math to see. But a car going 70 has 4 times the energy of a car going 35, so 4 times the energy is dissipated in a crash. Is the double point from 35 MPH actually 45 MPH? That seems like a coincidence.

Originally posted by: TallBill
True. I'll pull out my book when I get home and see exactly what the statistic is.

It needs to be based on crashes per mile, or deaths per mile traveled or something close. Otherwise, the numbers will be skewed because there was way less travel during WW2.

 

[GeneralDisarray]

I've always observed that failure to move with the flow of traffic and failure to use passing lanes properly was the root cause of many more accidents than minor speeding.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: dullard
High speed causes 5% of crashes. But, 100% of crashes involving high speed (this number fer exceeds the 5% of speed caused crashes) are far more severe than they otherwise would.

For example, if there were 100 crashes, five would be caused by high speed. But ~50 other crashes also involved speeding (but not caused by speeding) and were far more violent than if there were no speeding involved. A car going 45 MPH in a 35 MPH zone must absorb almost double the destructive energy than that same car going 35 MPH even if speed had nothing to do with the crash.

That sounds suspiciously like science!

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: TallBill
True. I'll pull out my book when I get home and see exactly what the statistic is.

It needs to be based on crashes per mile, or deaths per mile traveled or something close. Otherwise, the numbers will be skewed because there was way less travel during WW2.

Ok, pulled out my book "Understanding Police Traffic RADAR & LIDAR", it's a manual for teaching police radar/lidar, I'm actually a certified instructor.

Data is definitely not that amazing for WW2:
The national war speed limit of 35 mph was implemented in the fall of 1942 to conserve fuel and tires.

Format is Year, Fatalities, Million Vehicle miles
1941 - 38,142 - 333,612
1942 - 27,007 - 268,224
1943 - 22,727 - 208,192
1944 - 23,165 - 212,713

So the deaths per million miles before ('41-'42) was .108 and the deaths per million miles in ('43 - '44) were .109. Statistically the sample is obviously way to small but the rate is almost constant before and after the change. Perhaps people just traveled less because they didn't want to go slow. If you count that as saving lives, I guess it worked. I wouldn't though.


The book also has data for Vietnam when an oil shortage led to a national speed limit of 55 mph near the end of 1973


Format is Year, Fatalities, Billion Vehicle miles
1971 - 52,542 - 1,179
1972 - 54,589 - 1,260
1973 - 54,052 - 1,313
1974 - 45,196 - 1,281
1975 - 44,525 - 1,328

Deaths per million miles before the limit ('71-'73) was .043. Deaths per million miles in ('74 - '75) was .034. So there was a huge drop when speeds lowered from 60+ to 55, but once again we are from from statistical proof.

One interesting note is the overall huge drop 3 decades later in fatalities per miles traveled. Almost 60% less per mile traveled.

The real problem from increased speeds are obviously total stopping distance and kinetic energy. Using numbers from my book I'll post the total stopping distance of a car which includes recognition time of .9 seconds, reaction time of .75 seconds, and actual braking distance. I'll also post the kinetic energy that a 3,000 lb car has at the same speeds (as if it did not stop at all or was still slowing).

Format is Speed, total stopping distance(feet), Kinetic Energy (in foot pounds).

25 - 91 - 62,914
35 - 144 - 123,312
45 - 207 - 203,843
55 - 280 - 304,506
65 - 362 - 425,301
75 - 454 - 566,231
85 - 556 - 727,285

Draw whatever conclusions you want from this, but it does lead to yet another chart. This one has a scenario where there is a sudden obstruction to your lane that occurs 210 feet ahead of your car.

The format is your car's initial speed, reaction distance, braking distance, and speed at impact, since reaction and + braking distance can only equal 210. Coefficient of braking is .70 (dry roads)

55 - 60.5 - 147.0 - 0
60 - 66.0 - 144.0 - 24
65 - 71.5 - 138.5 - 36
70 - 77.0 - 133.0 - 46
75 - 82.5 - 127.5 - 54

This one is pretty obvious. 210 feet is probably even large for a following distance on a highway. Even 5mph difference makes a huge difference, especially when you look at the kinetic energy table.


Phew, this manual has a lot of info in it, the rest is mostly about the actual operation of equipment and procedures. At least worth looking at.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: dullard
High speed causes 5% of crashes. But, 100% of crashes involving high speed (this number fer exceeds the 5% of speed caused crashes) are far more severe than they otherwise would.

For example, if there were 100 crashes, five would be caused by high speed. But ~50 other crashes also involved speeding (but not caused by speeding) and were far more violent than if there were no speeding involved. A car going 45 MPH in a 35 MPH zone must absorb almost double the destructive energy than that same car going 35 MPH even if speed had nothing to do with the crash.

Your 35/45 mph info is backed up by my book. On a 3,000 pound car:

35 mph - 123,312 foot lbs
45 mph - 203,843 foot lbs

 

[TheWart]

That is very interesting info TallBill....makes me a little more wary about highway driving, as if the people careening around here in northern va/dc weren't scary enough.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Someone once said that if there was a 25MPH speed limit fatalities could be reduced by 94%. And just think, cars could be built so much lighter!

Only if you don't count speed motivated suicide which would be sharply on the rise. I start banging my head into the steering wheel when I'm stuck at 30mph. I can't imagine traveling state to state via highway on a 25mph speed limit.

Oh by the way, I'm a speeder and this "research" is no surprise to me. Speeding doesn't cause accidents unless it is combined with weather or inattentiveness. However, lack of attention and weather do not require any other conditions to cause accidents.

I do agree that speeding will worsen an accident, but do not consider that relevant. Unless we are talking about someone speeding through a construction zone or other special consideration area (school, etc).

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: rh71
I'm still amazed at how many people drive with cellphones attached firmly to their ear. I'm all for people being able to talk and drive at the same time (done with passengers all the time, though some suck at it more than others) but could they at least just use the damn speakerphone so their side vision isn't impaired? And if you have to do it, use your right ear, so you can still signal. Inconsiderate mother fuggers.

how big is your phone to block out side viewing? i tend to turn my head to look sideways, and my phone is fairly small. my maddogs block more than my phone does.

it's moreso the fact that your hand is there and you're less likely to turn and take a look either. From experience (hence my post)... not only does doing it impair peripheral vision, I really have no desire to turn my head moving my arm at the same time. Try it right now, it's not as simple as just moving your neck now is it? You're supposed to be aware of your surroundings 100% of the time... can't be that way holding something up against your ear.

Bottom line, hit an extra button and use the speakerphone. And vehicles equipped with bluetooth ftw.

 

[IronWing]

So if you're going to drive 55mph over the limit then hang up the phone, put down the Big Mac, and quit trying to dunk the fries in the ketchup packet in the cup holder.

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: rh71
I'm still amazed at how many people drive with cellphones attached firmly to their ear. I'm all for people being able to talk and drive at the same time (done with passengers all the time, though some suck at it more than others) but could they at least just use the damn speakerphone so their side vision isn't impaired? And if you have to do it, use your right ear, so you can still signal. Inconsiderate mother fuggers.

how big is your phone to block out side viewing? i tend to turn my head to look sideways, and my phone is fairly small. my maddogs block more than my phone does.

it's moreso the fact that your hand is there and you're less likely to turn and take a look either. From experience (hence my post)... not only does doing it impair peripheral vision, I really have no desire to turn my head moving my arm at the same time. Try it right now, it's not as simple as just moving your neck now is it? You're supposed to be aware of your surroundings 100% of the time... can't be that way holding something up against your ear.

Bottom line, hit an extra button and use the speakerphone.

I only use the speaker phone to prevent cops from seeing me having a cell phone, literally, on my face. So I'll use it like a walkie.

Even if you still manuever your head, that doesn't mean you're equally focused on what's in front of you. I'm an example of the stupid drivers out there, one time I drove into a one way... thank goodness no cops were around, that would of been the end of me.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: QueBert
all cars should be built with a body that has a ramp in the back and front with a totally flat top, that way if I run into you, all that will happen is my car will ride up your ramp, no damage done.

this solution seems so obvious, I don't know why car manufacturers haven't figured it out out.

Ramp cars = t3h saf3ty

so like... when 2 rap cars collide... which one goes over the other???
all you have now is 2 triangles with smashed in points.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: QueBert
all cars should be built with a body that has a ramp in the back and front with a totally flat top, that way if I run into you, all that will happen is my car will ride up your ramp, no damage done.

this solution seems so obvious, I don't know why car manufacturers haven't figured it out out.

Ramp cars = t3h saf3ty

so like... when 2 rap cars collide... which one goes over the other???
all you have now is 2 triangles with smashed in points.

They cancel each other out and form a better, bigger triangle obviously:

/ \ hitting / \= \ /

 

[Amused]

uppity

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: rh71
I'm still amazed at how many people drive with cellphones attached firmly to their ear. I'm all for people being able to talk and drive at the same time (done with passengers all the time, though some suck at it more than others) but could they at least just use the damn speakerphone so their side vision isn't impaired? And if you have to do it, use your right ear, so you can still signal. Inconsiderate mother fuggers.

how big is your phone to block out side viewing? i tend to turn my head to look sideways, and my phone is fairly small. my maddogs block more than my phone does.

[rant]Talking on cell phones is not dangerous because it blocks side vision or takes one hand off the wheel. It's because people get totally immersed in their conversations and don't pay attention to their driving. I've read studies that compared talking on headsets to talking with a phone on the ear, and they showed no noticeable difference in the likelihood of accidents between the two. I've seen people who are talking on cell phones drive right through a red light or rear-end someone at a complete stop without even noticing. They don't do that because of their impaired side vision or because they only have one hand on the wheel. They do it because 90% of their brain is wrapped up in a conversation and only 10% is driving. In the past I've read studies that equated the danger of driving while talking on a cell phone with driving under the influence; however, I recently read a study that showed cell-phone-talking drivers were even slower to react than drunk drivers.[/rant]

 

[amicold]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually it does. When speed limits were lowered during WW2 to 35 mph, road fatalities plummeted.

Which is irrelevant considering the airbag was introduced in 1967, the million safety features now standard on cars, as well as the fact that Saab was the first company to make seatbelts standard equipment in 1957.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: rh71
I'm still amazed at how many people drive with cellphones attached firmly to their ear. I'm all for people being able to talk and drive at the same time (done with passengers all the time, though some suck at it more than others) but could they at least just use the damn speakerphone so their side vision isn't impaired? And if you have to do it, use your right ear, so you can still signal. Inconsiderate mother fuggers.

how big is your phone to block out side viewing? i tend to turn my head to look sideways, and my phone is fairly small. my maddogs block more than my phone does.

[rant]Talking on cell phones is not dangerous because it blocks side vision or takes one hand off the wheel. It's because people get totally immersed in their conversations and don't pay attention to their driving. I've read studies that compared talking on headsets to talking with a phone on the ear, and they showed no noticeable difference in the likelihood of accidents between the two. I've seen people who are talking on cell phones drive right through a red light or rear-end someone at a complete stop without even noticing. They don't do that because of their impaired side vision or because they only have one hand on the wheel. They do it because 90% of their brain is wrapped up in a conversation and only 10% is driving. In the past I've read studies that equated the danger of driving while talking on a cell phone with driving under the influence; however, I recently read a study that showed cell-phone-talking drivers were even slower to react than drunk drivers.[/rant]

umm, how is that different than talking with a passenger?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is always some idiot out there looking for information to support his beliefs so he can justify his behavior. If the shoe fits wear it.

You mean like the NHTSA deeming any crash where a car was determined to be over the speed limit as "speed related," regardless of other factors?

Imagine a 4 year old toddler driver, blind, drunk, wearing headphones, texting with both hands, asleep, dead, quadriplegic, on pain-killers, just got his divorce papers, on the wrong side of the road, lights off at night, driving on ice with bald summer tires, and going 66 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. According to the NHTSA, his death was "speed related." If that's not fishing for information to support beliefs, I don't know what is.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Actually it does. When speed limits were lowered during WW2 to 35 mph, road fatalities plummeted.

That's because all the young reckless drivers were over there getting shot at.

I bet you $Texas that overall fatalities across the population increased when we factor the war into the equation.

Originally posted by: rh71
umm, how is that different than talking with a passenger?

It's massively different and the studies prove it.

For one, it takes a LOT more concentration to talk on a cellphone than in person, since you can't hear as well, can't read body language, can't get the message through both ears, and it's harder to judge proper volume over the phone.

Also, passengers will react to their surroundings. If you're going through lots of traffic, the light up ahead is turning red, or you're going fast, your passenger will tense up and shut up. Then you'll concentrate more on your surroundings. This cannot occur over the phone.