Conquer Club

Europe is madating all future cars be equipped with wireless speed regulators. All vehicles will be limited to the legal limit in that stretch of road.

I'm suprised AOC and all the Green supporters are asleep that the wheel on this. We have the technology. Saving gas (energy) and lives (speed is the major factor in auto related deaths) should be a natural fit and a double public victory. Drop the dreams of free, free, free and do something that is achievable.

I don't really understand why so many conservatives see AOC in their dreams and nightmares. Sure- she's a telegenic, bright, Latina woman, but... oh ok, yeah, just typing that explained it.

In all honesty, we have had a problem with speed ever since the gas crisis in the late 1970's. At that time the national speed limit of 55 MPH was imposed, with threats to remove the federal monies for the interstate highway system if states failed to limit speed limits to 55. Later it would be amended to allow for higher speeds on roads away from urban areas where there were few and distance exits but the unpopular law stuck. A series of judicial decisions on the accuracy of radar detectors made it even worse. People routinely started going 60 MPH, then 65 MPH, and now it is common for people to travel 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. It's not like it is in Europe where going 1 km/hour over the limit is worthy of a fine. In the US the speed "limit" is the speed "minimum."

There has been some exceptions such as the "Vision Zero" initiative in New York City making the speed limit on local roads 25 MPH, but they are rare. Frankly, I don't even think this even enters AOC's radar, which is a pity, actually. People violate the speed limit here all the time; it's a joke actually. But fatalities are no joke.

There is another problem in the US ... exceptionally wide highways. A lot of roadways were significantly widened because it was believed that they would be safer. That resulted in the illusion of the lack of speed. Vehicles that are higher above the ground also give an impression that they are going slower than they are. The combined effect is that people think they are standing still but are going at incredible speeds, often dangerously.

P.S. I find AOC fascinating. If you strip the conditioning of her liberal education a lot of things she says have a core of truth to them. The fact that her knowledge of history is so off base as to be comedy gold, only adds to the charm. The fact that people from the Bronx actually voted for her only saddens me to the notion that good things will never happen to NYC. Somewhere there is an ON switch to her brain. If only someone can press it.

tzor wrote:In all honesty, we have had a problem with speed ever since the gas crisis in the late 1970's. At that time the national speed limit of 55 MPH was imposed, with threats to remove the federal monies for the interstate highway system if states failed to limit speed limits to 55. Later it would be amended to allow for higher speeds on roads away from urban areas where there were few and distance exits but the unpopular law stuck. A series of judicial decisions on the accuracy of radar detectors made it even worse. People routinely started going 60 MPH, then 65 MPH, and now it is common for people to travel 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. It's not like it is in Europe where going 1 km/hour over the limit is worthy of a fine. In the US the speed "limit" is the speed "minimum."

There has been some exceptions such as the "Vision Zero" initiative in New York City making the speed limit on local roads 25 MPH, but they are rare. Frankly, I don't even think this even enters AOC's radar, which is a pity, actually. People violate the speed limit here all the time; it's a joke actually. But fatalities are no joke.

There is another problem in the US ... exceptionally wide highways. A lot of roadways were significantly widened because it was believed that they would be safer. That resulted in the illusion of the lack of speed. Vehicles that are higher above the ground also give an impression that they are going slower than they are. The combined effect is that people think they are standing still but are going at incredible speeds, often dangerously.

P.S. I find AOC fascinating. If you strip the conditioning of her liberal education a lot of things she says have a core of truth to them. The fact that her knowledge of history is so off base as to be comedy gold, only adds to the charm. The fact that people from the Bronx actually voted for her only saddens me to the notion that good things will never happen to NYC. Somewhere there is an ON switch to her brain. If only someone can press it.

Eww

American elected officials on both sides probably aren't making this an issue because it really isn't an issue at all. Vehicular death rates, especially per mile travelled have been dropping steadily since the early 1900's (in spite of people speeding). I think this is really just an 'old man's pet peeve' tzor. have you been finding your neighbors play their music too loud and don't keep up their lawns like they should?

mookiemcgee wrote:American elected officials on both sides probably aren't making this an issue because it really isn't an issue at all. Vehicular death rates, especially per mile travelled have been dropping steadily since the early 1900's (in spite of people speeding). I think this is really just an 'old man's pet peeve' tzor. have you been finding your neighbors play their music too loud and don't keep up their lawns like they should?

That's all nice and fine, until you make the benchmark.

Deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles: UK(5.1), Spain(5.3), Japan(6.5), Germany(6.8 ), France(7.6), USA(12.9)
Deaths per 100,000 inhabitants: UK(2.9), Spain(3.7), Germany(4.3), Japan(4.7), France(5.1), USA(10.9)

The US perform worse than even Greece, where nobody has any regard for traffic regulation.

source

waauw wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:American elected officials on both sides probably aren't making this an issue because it really isn't an issue at all. Vehicular death rates, especially per mile travelled have been dropping steadily since the early 1900's (in spite of people speeding). I think this is really just an 'old man's pet peeve' tzor. have you been finding your neighbors play their music too loud and don't keep up their lawns like they should?

That's all nice and fine, until you make the benchmark.

Deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles: UK(5.1), Spain(5.3), Japan(6.5), Germany(6.8 ), France(7.6), USA(12.9)
Deaths per 100,000 inhabitants: UK(2.9), Spain(3.7), Germany(4.3), Japan(4.7), France(5.1), USA(10.9)

The US perform worse than even Greece, where nobody has any regard for traffic regulation.

source

My two cents on this point- the US lets people drive earlier than most of the other countries, and also allows legal drinking much later. A third factor- the driving test for getting a licence in the US is absurdly simple. I know, because I've taken the NY version, and there's a wide variation in licencing. Just looking it up, you only need to be 14 in South Dakota, at least according to wiki.

My accountant was legally driving at 13. Loves to tell me that.

If a car can have a speed regulator then it would be within reason to have wrong way drunk drives engines shut down

mookiemcgee wrote:American elected officials on both sides probably aren't making this an issue because it really isn't an issue at all. Vehicular death rates, especially per mile travelled have been dropping steadily since the early 1900's (in spite of people speeding). I think this is really just an 'old man's pet peeve' tzor. have you been finding your neighbors play their music too loud and don't keep up their lawns like they should?

The vision zero initiatives haven't been based on driver and passenger fatalities but pedestrian fatalities. The data is pretty impressive that the mere adjustment of 5 MPH between 25 MPH (the new standard in New York City) and 30 MPH cab mean a major difference in the survivability of a pedestrian struck by a moving vehicle. Vision Zero

Traffic fatalities in New York have indeed fallen significantly, from 701 in 1990, to 381 in 2000, to an all-time low of 249 in 2011. The city has become nationally and internationally recognized as a leading innovator in safe street designs. At locations where the New York City Department of Transportation has made major engineering changes since 2005, fatalities have decreased by 34%, twice the rate of improvement at other locations.

And from a news blurb from the end of last year ...

Thus far in 2018, 196 people have been lost in traffic crashes; last year, as of December 27, New York City had experienced 221 traffic fatalities, and the year 2017 ended with 222 total fatalities. Among cyclists, fatalities have seen a dramatic decline: 10 so far this year compared to 24 in 2017 — from a four-year average of 19 deaths since 2014.

So I don't think this is just old men ... because they generally prefer muscle cars ...

I think a normalisation of laws regarding standards that need to be met before you can get a licence to drive would probably help.

I anecdotally think that texting and driving is the single biggest cause of accidents (mostly because roughly half of the many drivers I see on the road on a daily basis are texting or otherwise reading their phones). However, statistics don't back me up...

Symmetry wrote:I think a normalisation of laws regarding standards that need to be met before you can get a licence to drive would probably help.

I suspect that some states with lower licensing ages have reasons for them (e.g. North Dakota).

I would be in favor of mandatory driving tests every X years, increasing in frequency as the driver ages. Obviously there would be discrimination arguments against that.

can we stop calling her AOC? that's too close to my name

thegreekdog wrote:I anecdotally think that texting and driving is the single biggest cause of accidents (mostly because roughly half of the many drivers I see on the road on a daily basis are texting or otherwise reading their phones). However, statistics don't back me up...

Symmetry wrote:I think a normalisation of laws regarding standards that need to be met before you can get a licence to drive would probably help.

I suspect that some states with lower licensing ages have reasons for them (e.g. North Dakota).

I would be in favor of mandatory driving tests every X years, increasing in frequency as the driver ages. Obviously there would be discrimination arguments against that.

Aye, and I am sympathetic to that argument- the US has a broad range of needs. In a city you don't need to drive. In a rural area, driving might be necessary if you want to meet your nearest neigbour. This is a tough one for me. Americans are generally bad at driving in Europe from my experience. They've rarely had to develop the ability to drive at 70mph with tighter allowances for braking, smaller lanes, and things like merging and roundabouts.

You make a fair point, what would you see as a way forward?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I anecdotally think that texting and driving is the single biggest cause of accidents (mostly because roughly half of the many drivers I see on the road on a daily basis are texting or otherwise reading their phones). However, statistics don't back me up...

Symmetry wrote:I think a normalisation of laws regarding standards that need to be met before you can get a licence to drive would probably help.

I suspect that some states with lower licensing ages have reasons for them (e.g. North Dakota).

I would be in favor of mandatory driving tests every X years, increasing in frequency as the driver ages. Obviously there would be discrimination arguments against that.

Aye, and I am sympathetic to that argument- the US has a broad range of needs. In a city you don't need to drive. In a rural area, driving might be necessary if you want to meet your nearest neigbour. This is a tough one for me. Americans are generally bad at driving in Europe from my experience. They've rarely had to develop the ability to drive at 70mph with tighter allowances for braking, smaller lanes, and things like merging and roundabouts.

You make a fair point, what would you see as a way forward?

I think states should make their own laws relative to driving age related to what specific needs a specific driver has. And I think each state should implement mandatory periodic driving tests beginning at a certain age.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I anecdotally think that texting and driving is the single biggest cause of accidents (mostly because roughly half of the many drivers I see on the road on a daily basis are texting or otherwise reading their phones). However, statistics don't back me up...

Symmetry wrote:I think a normalisation of laws regarding standards that need to be met before you can get a licence to drive would probably help.

I suspect that some states with lower licensing ages have reasons for them (e.g. North Dakota).

I would be in favor of mandatory driving tests every X years, increasing in frequency as the driver ages. Obviously there would be discrimination arguments against that.

Aye, and I am sympathetic to that argument- the US has a broad range of needs. In a city you don't need to drive. In a rural area, driving might be necessary if you want to meet your nearest neigbour. This is a tough one for me. Americans are generally bad at driving in Europe from my experience. They've rarely had to develop the ability to drive at 70mph with tighter allowances for braking, smaller lanes, and things like merging and roundabouts.

You make a fair point, what would you see as a way forward?

I think states should make their own laws relative to driving age related to what specific needs a specific driver has. And I think each state should implement mandatory periodic driving tests beginning at a certain age.

But then you run in to the obvious problem- you can't just licence people to drive within one state. Or are you suggesting that? It might be interesting, although I don't see how it would work, to have a tiered licence system. Maybe as a system similar to international driving licences?

When I got my license in Pennsylvania, I was 16. I believe the New Jersey driving age was 17 at the time, but I don't recall ever driving in New Jersey so I can't anecdotally answer that question.

thegreekdog wrote:When I got my license in Pennsylvania, I was 16. I believe the New Jersey driving age was 17 at the time, but I don't recall ever driving in New Jersey so I can't anecdotally answer that question.

Fair enough, but you obviously see the problem.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:When I got my license in Pennsylvania, I was 16. I believe the New Jersey driving age was 17 at the time, but I don't recall ever driving in New Jersey so I can't anecdotally answer that question.

Fair enough, but you obviously see the problem.

The real problem is that many elderly lose the ability to drive before they lose the ability to take care of themselves, but thanks to our car-based no-mass transit transportation system, otherwise healthy folks have to move to assisted living centers while they're still perfectly capable of most daily activities. Plus, it does add to the the effect of people really wanting to hang onto their licenses longer than they really ought to.

spurgistan wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:When I got my license in Pennsylvania, I was 16. I believe the New Jersey driving age was 17 at the time, but I don't recall ever driving in New Jersey so I can't anecdotally answer that question.

Fair enough, but you obviously see the problem.

The real problem is that many elderly lose the ability to drive before they lose the ability to take care of themselves, but thanks to our car-based no-mass transit transportation system, otherwise healthy folks have to move to assisted living centers while they're still perfectly capable of most daily activities. Plus, it does add to the the effect of people really wanting to hang onto their licenses longer than they really ought to.

That's the real problem?

Yes.

Army of GOD wrote:can we stop calling her AOC? that's too close to my name

What a difference a "-" makes.
AOC / AOG

Symmetry wrote:They've rarely had to develop the ability to drive at 70mph with tighter allowances for braking, smaller lanes, and things like merging and roundabouts.

Wait a second. You Europeans drive at 70 MPH?
Around Long Island it's mostly 75 MPH.
Mind you we have ENORMOUS roads.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:They've rarely had to develop the ability to drive at 70mph with tighter allowances for braking, smaller lanes, and things like merging and roundabouts.

Wait a second. You Europeans drive at 70 MPH?
Around Long Island it's mostly 75 MPH.
Mind you we have ENORMOUS roads.

That's only in Germany. In the rest of europe they'll force you down to a snail's pace so they can fine you and fill the governments budget.They call 'm flashmarathons.

waauw wrote:That's only in Germany. In the rest of europe they'll force you down to a snail's pace so they can fine you and fill the governments budget.They call 'm flashmarathons.

Oh the Autobahn? Don't they have speed limits when the weather is bad? They do 70 MPH IN THE RAIN!

I remember an interesting argument a number of years ago. "Perceived speed" is based on reference points. As a result the higher you are from the road and the number of lanes in a highway have multiplicative effects in the perception of how fast you are going. A sports car on a narrow roadway seems like it is flying (honestly I almost freaked out in the passenger seat of a T-Bird on the tree covered road of the industrial park, only to notice that we were going 30 MPH) while an SUV or one of those American Trucks on a four lane (in one direction, not counting shoulders) expressway seems like you are almost standing still.

Don’t know anything at all about her politics, but she got my vote!