But...most people who drive aren't the sports and music star equivalents. You're talking about Mario Andretti and Michael Shumacher. The average driver is the person playing softball with their friends a couple times a year, or playing Rock Band.
Also, those little kids training to be tennis prodigies are actually playing tennis, not whacking one of those ball on a string toys in their backyard every other saturday...
No they aren't. They start by learning to hold the racket. Then how to hit the ball. Eventually they learn to control where the ball is going. Then, maybe, they start playing tennis.
And out of 1,000 kids who do that, 1 becomes a star.
EDIT: And their parents ponied up for proper training right away, not playing grabass in the backyard until they were 17.
The only sport I follow is hockey. I have yet to see an NHL player who wasn't playing in official leagues since they were 5. The players who get together with friends on the pond until they graduate high school never become professionals.
This also plays to my love of driving point. They are out there playing because they want to be. A lot of people who drive and who are bad at it drive because it's convenient or they have to.
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
But...most people who drive aren't the sports and music star equivalents. You're talking about Mario Andretti and Michael Shumacher. The average driver is the person playing softball with their friends a couple times a year, or playing Rock Band.
Also, those little kids training to be tennis prodigies are actually playing tennis, not whacking one of those ball on a string toys in their backyard every other saturday...
No they aren't. They start by learning to hold the racket. Then how to hit the ball. Eventually they learn to control where the ball is going. Then, maybe, they start playing tennis. (after learning the rules of the game, of course)
Ok, now you're just being silly. I had a couple of tennis lessons in the fifth grade (before breaking my arm and missing the rest, booooo), and we covered that shit in the very beginning.
Anyway the point is that you're trying to draw equivalency between professional junior sports and professional adult sports in order to draw a similar equivalency between bushbashing on a farm or dicking about in a driveway as a child with driving as an adult in traffic - or even driving professionally, it seems. That doesn't work.
Anyway the point is that you're trying to draw equivalency between professional junior sports and professional adult sports in order to draw a similar equivalency between bushbashing on a farm or dicking about in a driveway as a child with driving as an adult in traffic - or even driving professionally, it seems. That doesn't work.
The point was that people who learn to do things early on in life are generally better at those things than people who learn to do to them later on. Almost every single thing I can think of follows this rule. Sports, music, swimming, mathematics, video games, computer literacy, ordinary literacy, etc. I don't see how driving is any different.
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
I think the idea's been kicked around in Ontario (Canada) already. I'm not opposed to it, except that I think that a good driving test is a bit much to ask for, and it would probably end up just being a cash grab by the government.
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
I think the idea's been kicked around in Ontario (Canada) already. I'm not opposed to it, except that I think that a good driving test is a bit much to ask for, and it would probably end up just being a cash grab by the government.
Yeah, it would depend on the quality of the testing staff already present. I think any new licensing requirement is open to being accused of a cash grab, though. I could live with it if the cost of the tests went straight back into retraining the fail-drivers rather than into the state's consolidated revenue stream.
Anyway the point is that you're trying to draw equivalency between professional junior sports and professional adult sports in order to draw a similar equivalency between bushbashing on a farm or dicking about in a driveway as a child with driving as an adult in traffic - or even driving professionally, it seems. That doesn't work.
The point was that people who learn to do things early on in life are generally better at those things than people who learn to do to them later on. Almost every single thing I can think of follows this rule. Sports, music, swimming, mathematics, video games, computer literacy, ordinary literacy, etc. I don't see how driving is any different.
See, the problem is you are focusing on age, when the relevant part is the activity itself.
Driving around your farm is not the equivalent of an 8 year old figure skater getting professional lessons. It's the equivalent of said 8 year old on the pond out back with their dad yelling "Ok, now jump and spin!".
Doesn't matter how young you started driving out on your farm in the sticks, it doesn't teach you 90% of the important shit involved in driving.
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
I think the idea's been kicked around in Ontario (Canada) already. I'm not opposed to it, except that I think that a good driving test is a bit much to ask for, and it would probably end up just being a cash grab by the government.
Yeah, it would depend on the quality of the testing staff already present. I think any new licensing requirement is open to being accused of a cash grab, though. I could live with it if the cost of the tests went straight back into retraining the fail-drivers rather than into the state's consolidated revenue stream.
I think anyone with an accident (that was their fault) on their record or any sort of moving violation should have to re-test when they renew their license the next time. And the elderly should have to renew their licenses much more frequently as opposed to the current system where the older you are, the longer your license is valid for. I'd be fine with a system where the cost of renewals for people over 65 gradually decrease, so you're not hitting them up for the same amount every year or two as a younger person has to pay every 4-6 years.
But...most people who drive aren't the sports and music star equivalents. You're talking about Mario Andretti and Michael Shumacher. The average driver is the person playing softball with their friends a couple times a year, or playing Rock Band.
Also, those little kids training to be tennis prodigies are actually playing tennis, not whacking one of those ball on a string toys in their backyard every other saturday...
No they aren't. They start by learning to hold the racket. Then how to hit the ball. Eventually they learn to control where the ball is going. Then, maybe, they start playing tennis. (after learning the rules of the game, of course)
Learning how to steer your way around the farm is basically the driving equivalent of learning to hold the racket. If you can't figure either out after five minutes on your own, you should only be doing it in a "special" capacity.
But...most people who drive aren't the sports and music star equivalents. You're talking about Mario Andretti and Michael Shumacher. The average driver is the person playing softball with their friends a couple times a year, or playing Rock Band.
Also, those little kids training to be tennis prodigies are actually playing tennis, not whacking one of those ball on a string toys in their backyard every other saturday...
No they aren't. They start by learning to hold the racket. Then how to hit the ball. Eventually they learn to control where the ball is going. Then, maybe, they start playing tennis. (after learning the rules of the game, of course)
Learning how to steer your way around the farm is basically the driving equivalent of learning to hold the racket. If you can't figure either out after five minutes on your own, you should only be doing it in a "special" capacity.
Not that it matters in the greater context of the point I was making (which I have no interest in continuing to argue) but unless you're a serious tennis player, there might just be more to holding the racket properly than you realize.
Why do we still use gears, anyway? By this point, I'd have expected my jetpack to only use one gear that changes diameter across a continuum, like an inside-out version of the iris from Stargate SG1. Of course, it looks like some cars already have lower tech versions of this.
Also, does anybody know of any advantages manuals have over semi-automatics?
A properly made semi-automatic? Other than raw emotion, none at all. A good example of this is the DC-SST in the new Evo - it changes gears far faster and far more smoothly than any human ever could, and in manual mode functions exactly like a manual transmission with an automated clutch. These things are pretty amazing. Ive driven a manual for years (both my vehicles are manuals), but I would love to see these things become prevalent since they are more efficient than regular automatics
And why a 100 km/h speed limiter? Thats just horrible. The most dangerous actions on any road are:
1) Not keeping with the flow of traffic.
2) Being distracted and not observing the situation constantly.
3) "Herding" - What I refer to as the tendency of a group of drivers to compress when a significant reduction in speed is introduced (reduced speed limit, stop light, etc.). This causes the distances between drivers to reduce, and severely limits maneuvering options during panic situations.
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
Soggybiscuit on
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
As far as speed limits go, a highway leading out of town has been 70mph for years (which means everyone goes 74/75 or sometimes even 78/79) suddenly changed to 65mph. The highway patrol is just lined up on that bitch in every nook and cranny hiding and nailing people.
Haha stupid fucks, you're supposed to read the signs along the side of the road, not ignore them.
There is also this very odd spot in town, going down one road.. it randomly and for no apparent reason changes speed, to 5mph faster, then slows down again. I think I'm one of the very few people that notice it because I'm usually the only one going 35 on this section of road, instead of 30, and often end up catching up to people along that stretch, its like:
there's about a 5 block stretch of 35mph, on a road that is otherwise 30mph all along it, except for when it gets to a very heavy residential area near the end of the road it slows down to 25.
Also I've been seeing digital speed signs popping up around lately, ones that say the speed limit at the top, then below them they show your speed. And flashes at you to slow down if you are going the speed limit or higher. If only it would also tell people to speed up... I hate going behind someone doing 20 in a 35.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
We did this recently. Seems to have gone pretty well so far, but it'll be interesting to see if there's a real impact on the death toll.
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
We did this recently. Seems to have gone pretty well so far, but it'll be interesting to see if there's a real impact on the death toll.
It really should apply to doing anything comparably distracting with your hands - eating, smoking, etc. while handbrake's off. Ive seen people shaving and doing makeup before
re: herding, some king of inter-car tag system enforcing minimum following distances could be useful, but it'd be hard to handle the issue of merging and lane changes.
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
We did this recently. Seems to have gone pretty well so far, but it'll be interesting to see if there's a real impact on the death toll.
It really should apply to doing anything comparably distracting with your hands - eating, smoking, etc. while handbrake's off. Ive seen people shaving and doing makeup before
what your hands are doing has nothing to do with why cell phones and driving are dangerous
its the act of talking that is distracting, whether it be hands free or not
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
We did this recently. Seems to have gone pretty well so far, but it'll be interesting to see if there's a real impact on the death toll.
It really should apply to doing anything comparably distracting with your hands - eating, smoking, etc. while handbrake's off. Ive seen people shaving and doing makeup before
what your hands are doing has nothing to do with why cell phones and driving are dangerous
its the act of talking that is distracting, whether it be hands free or not
impractical, you'd have to be able to book people for talking to other people in the car. I think taking your eyes off the road (and even people who claim to be able to text blind still do this more than if they weren't texting) and a hand or hands off the wheel in order to do something else is a big enough deal to justify a police response. Talking to another passenger or talking handsfree doesn't quite make the cut, I think.
And I can't help but feel that manual cars have fewer opportunities where your hands and brain are idle, which may feed in to the safety angle. That said, fuck the auto v manual tangent.
The Cat on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
Herding is more of an infrastructure problem than a driving problem. During the times which it is most in effect (such as rush hours) it's impossible to impractical to prevent such things on an individual level.
It's a sad fact that there are almost no cities which have the infrastructure to support their population's transport needs.
Public transport is usually the answer to everything. Ubiquitous, free public transport.
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
We did this recently. Seems to have gone pretty well so far, but it'll be interesting to see if there's a real impact on the death toll.
It really should apply to doing anything comparably distracting with your hands - eating, smoking, etc. while handbrake's off. Ive seen people shaving and doing makeup before
what your hands are doing has nothing to do with why cell phones and driving are dangerous
its the act of talking that is distracting, whether it be hands free or not
impractical, you'd have to be able to book people for talking to other people in the car. I think taking your eyes off the road (and even people who claim to be able to text blind still do this more than if they weren't texting) and a hand or hands off the wheel in order to do something else is a big enough deal to justify a police response. Talking to another passenger or talking handsfree doesn't quite make the cut, I think.
You're wrong. A number of studies have been done that show talking a phone, whether it's in your hand or hands-free is a much larger distraction than a passenger. It's mostly because a cell phone convo is a completely separate event from driving the car, and requires an attention split for the driver to maintain both. With a passenger, most people work the convo into the act of driving, reducing the split attention thing, Furthermore, when you have a convo with a passenger in the car, the talking reacts to whats happening on the road. Since both parties can see the conditions, the conversation will ebb and flow as more of the drivers attention is needed to drive.
We suggest that during normal in-car conversation, both the driver and passenger will suppress con- versation when the demands of the road become too great. However, a remote speaker on a mobile telephonehasnoaccesstothesamevisualinputasthedriver,andwillbelesslikelytopacetheconversa- tionaccordingtoroadwaydemands.Totestthis hypothesispairsofna ̈ıveparticipantsdroveacircuit of roads including dual carriageways, rural, urban and suburban roads in Nottinghamshire, UK. One of the participants in each pair was the driver, while the other was the conversational partner. Across three laps of the circuit the partner engaged in a verbal task with the driver while sat in the same car (with or without a blindfold), or via a hands-free mobile (cellular) telephone. The number of utterances, words, and questions were analysed for both drivers and passengers across the different types of road. The results demonstrated that the normal in-car conversations were suppressed during the most demanding urban roads. The mobile telephone condition prevented suppression from taking place in the passengersÕ conver- sations,andevenencourageddriverstomakemoreutterancesthattheywouldnormallydowithanormal in-car conversation. The results demonstrate a potential problem when using hands-free mobile telephones while driving.
Also just a quick glance at wikipedia would show you that your viewpoint is mistaken, with references to studies performed
Here's another study which directly finds that "dual-tasks" such as talking and hold the cell phone don't increase impairment over just talking on the cellphone.
Dual-task studies assessed the effects of cellular-phone conversations on performance of a simulated driving task. Performance was not disrupted by listening to radio broadcasts or listening to a book on tape. Nor was it disrupted by a continuous shadowing task using a handheld phone, ruling out, in this case, dual-task interpretations associated with holding the phone, listening, or speaking. However, significant interference was observed in a word-generation variant of the shadowing task, and this deficit increased with the difficulty of driving. Moreover, unconstrained conversations using either a handheld or a hands-free cell phone resulted in a twofold increase in the failure to detect simulated traffic signals and slower reactions to those signals that were detected. We suggest that cellular-phone use disrupts performance by diverting attention to an engaging cognitive context other than the one immediately associated with driving.
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
I'd be all for this if they'd actually let you schedule it on a weekend rather than making you take a half-day off of work. Seriously, why does every DMV (or most government services, for that matter) keep hours where you can only see them at times when the average person is at work? Have it closed every Tuesday and Wednesday and open on the weekends, instead.
edit: Also, the problem with electronically enforced speed limits is that most speed limits are set without any actual bearing on reality.
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
I'd be all for this if they'd actually let you schedule it on a weekend rather than making you take a half-day off of work. Seriously, why does every DMV (or most government services, for that matter) keep hours where you can only see them at times when the average person is at work? Have it closed every Tuesday and Wednesday and open on the weekends, instead.
edit: Also, the problem with electronically enforced speed limits is that most speed limits are set without any actual bearing on reality.
while i think increased testing is a brilliant idea (fucking old florida driver, the things I've seen) the current reality is that unless you massively fund the new testing, most DMV's in the US won't be able to handle the load. Hell, most of them can't take the workload they have right now, at least from what i've seen on the space coast, orlando and tampa.
Equating smoking with cell phone use in a car strikes me as pretty silly. A cigarette requires no additional attention and I suspect driving with one hand one the wheel is the norm rather than the exception.
But then I've texted behind the wheel. Granted only at stop lights I know are going to be a 1-2 minute wait but even then it makes me uneasy. I will never understand how people are cool with driving down the interstate clicking away. It'd probably give me a panic attack :P
So, since y'all are so danged confident, how do you feel about people having to resit their driving test (a good driving test, not that "show me where the horn is and then drive around the block" foolery) every 10 or 15 years? Its a system already in place for some very elderly drivers, but I think adults could stand to do it too.
I'd be all for this if they'd actually let you schedule it on a weekend rather than making you take a half-day off of work. Seriously, why does every DMV (or most government services, for that matter) keep hours where you can only see them at times when the average person is at work? Have it closed every Tuesday and Wednesday and open on the weekends, instead.
edit: Also, the problem with electronically enforced speed limits is that most speed limits are set without any actual bearing on reality.
while i think increased testing is a brilliant idea (fucking old florida driver, the things I've seen) the current reality is that unless you massively fund the new testing, most DMV's in the US won't be able to handle the load. Hell, most of them can't take the workload they have right now, at least from what i've seen on the space coast, orlando and tampa.
Oh, you don't need to tell me. I had to wait through a three-hour line just to get my goddamn registration changed from one state to another. I should have just drove on expired out-of-state plates for years and years like some of my co-workers do.
Equating smoking with cell phone use in a car strikes me as pretty silly. A cigarette requires no additional attention and I suspect driving with one hand one the wheel is the norm rather than the exception.
But then I've texted behind the wheel. Granted only at stop lights I know are going to be a 1-2 minute wait but even then it makes me uneasy. I will never understand how people are cool with driving down the interstate clicking away. It'd probably give me a panic attack :P
In my experience, it's stupid fucking kids texting while driving. But those fucker's text everywhere.
I've never understood it. It can be tough enough just like dialing a number, let alone typing in a fucking text.
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
1. Private Roads
2. Avoid Accidents (Accelerating past 80 has probably saved my life)
3. Future proofing (the Germans prove you can safely drive more than 75 mph)
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
That's because you haven't thought it through very hard.
To add to programjunkie, people also do legitimate street/drag racing. But the second reason he listed is probably the most important from a "helpful to society" standpoint. I was driving back to town this morning and was behind a guy who passed 2 cars going just barely faster than them. After watching him pass two cars, a process that invovled him driving side by side with another vehicle for minutes at a time at 77mph, he then did the same thing with a semi.
That's incredibly dangerous.
So as I got past the semi I accelerated up to about 85 to get around him quickly and then went back to cruising speed.
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
That's because you haven't thought it through very hard.
To add to programjunkie, people also do legitimate street/drag racing. But the second reason he listed is probably the most important from a "helpful to society" standpoint. I was driving back to town this morning and was behind a guy who passed 2 cars going just barely faster than them. After watching him pass two cars, a process that invovled him driving side by side with another vehicle for minutes at a time at 77mph, he then did the same thing with a semi.
That's incredibly dangerous.
So as I got past the semi I accelerated up to about 85 to get around him quickly and then went back to cruising speed.
I really can't imagine needing to pass someone going 77 mph. Are you trying to get away from an event horizon or something?
I have to say, people who claim to have mad driving skills because they learnt on a farm (especially as little kids) really bother me
I mean you've probably got some valuable off-roading skills there, but driving in a paddock is easy. No traffic signals, no other cars, low speeds, minimal visual distractions...even the road into town is a cakewalk. I have quite a few friends who learnt to drive out in the sticks, and when they moved to a real city that had more than one set of traffic lights and multilane roads, they were absolutely terrifying to be in a car with. Couldn't merge properly, changed lanes like they were trying get themselves killed, bewildered and enraged by dedicated turning lanes and roundabouts... gah. They improved after a while, but the fact remains that it requires a lot more skill to drive well in a busy city than anywhere else.
People around here go out to rural areas to take their driving test if they want an easy ride of it *shrug*
Well if you are in part referring to my post where I mentioned I'd learned to drive on the farm I would say that I never claimed to have 'mad skills' or anything of the sort. My point was that I'd already learned to drive well before any formal testing or road use was required, whereas most of my urban friends (small town or large city) appeared to have never driven a vehicle at all prior to starting the licence process in their 20s. Your experiences with rural drivers is one thing, but to counter, I've found my urban trained friends to be generally rather poor drivers in town or inter city, mainly on the basis that they lack confidence, which may be attributed to their often later in life and hesitant learning process.
Anyway, I'm pretty happy with my 15 year record of no accidents or infringements in the three countries I've driven in more than incidentally. I don't think this means I'm a great driver, on the contrary I'm pretty average
You don't have to have claimed to have mad skills, my central point is that there's nothing particularly advantageous about learning to drive in a paddock or learning while you're still barely able to see over the steering wheel. It doesn't give you any more than a bit of a feel for being in a vehicle (at low speeds, and not on a normal driving surface!), which is not a major learning hurdle. And given the rather high rate of youth-vs-vehicle farm deaths and injuries (exaggerated by the existence of quad bikes, but still), I consider it a pretty risky idea to let under-15's behind the wheel of anything that isn't a pushbike. Cherry-picking anecdotes about your city-slicker friends and then speculating wildly about their alleged underlying failures of personality isn't going to change that.
I made a general observation about my urban friends vs myself, rather than specific anecdotes about particular events or friends, in a manner alike to your own. Maybe my conclusions are wrong, but how am I going to ever test that? Besides, you are the one who started off by observing your rural/small town friends as having poor general driving skills, so I don't see that I have "cherry picked" anything, at least in comparison to your own comments to which I responded. So perhaps you can point out exactly how I've done that in comparison to your own personal testimony. You also use terminology like "city slicker", which sounds mildly disparaging and I for one have never heard anyone say that in real life (iirc we used to say "townies" if we wanted to be dicks about it). Perhaps this is a Queensland thing?
To go to your substantive comments, yes, it is certainly possible that on balance the risk at letting a youth drive on a farm is greater than the net benefits to their later driving skills. It is also quite possible that the actual techniques they learn could be quickly picked up by a mature adult learner in a far less risky manner. I'm not so sure about your comments about youth vs say general farm related accidents but I do concede the later are usually rather high (so far as I've seen in NZ, Australia's figures are unknown to me) and it could well be that the former are too. It really scares the crap out of me sometimes to think of the risks that a farmer and his helpers put themselves to sometimes, but I don't really see how a lot of that can be mitigated, but that is a question for a different thread.
However, the fact is that a lot of farmers need the help their children can give, whether it be rather light work (say driving a motorbike to a particular paddock to open the gates), or heavier, more involved work (say more than paddock driving - heavy trucks, tractors etc). Most farms that I knew growing up tended to be run by single adults, with assistance from their partners who usually work elsewhere full time and by their children and seasonal workers. So long as that is the economic model there is going to be a huge amount of health and safety risk to all parties involved. Further, farmer's children need to get to school, after school activities and to socialise generally, which can be rather difficult given the added distance and given their parents are usually very busy (just like any other parents I guess).
To tie that back into driving - most farming family children are going to have a basic need to drive very early on, whether it is safe or not, so they are going to develop basic driving skills. Whether these driving skills are just driving on a paddock or not will depend on the individual circumstance. For you to assume that these skills are at best barely useful is a generalisation on your part, based on your own personal experience. From my personal experience I can only recall country friends being injured by drunk driving, rather than say accidents due to carelessness. The former of which is a very serious but unrelated to your OP problem.
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
That's because you haven't thought it through very hard.
To add to programjunkie, people also do legitimate street/drag racing. But the second reason he listed is probably the most important from a "helpful to society" standpoint. I was driving back to town this morning and was behind a guy who passed 2 cars going just barely faster than them. After watching him pass two cars, a process that invovled him driving side by side with another vehicle for minutes at a time at 77mph, he then did the same thing with a semi.
That's incredibly dangerous.
So as I got past the semi I accelerated up to about 85 to get around him quickly and then went back to cruising speed.
lol, street racing? Really?
It's his fault for passing them when they were going plenty fast enough. You shouldn't have passed them either.
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
That's because you haven't thought it through very hard.
To add to programjunkie, people also do legitimate street/drag racing. But the second reason he listed is probably the most important from a "helpful to society" standpoint. I was driving back to town this morning and was behind a guy who passed 2 cars going just barely faster than them. After watching him pass two cars, a process that invovled him driving side by side with another vehicle for minutes at a time at 77mph, he then did the same thing with a semi.
That's incredibly dangerous.
So as I got past the semi I accelerated up to about 85 to get around him quickly and then went back to cruising speed.
lol, street racing? Really?
It's his fault for passing them when they were going plenty fast enough. You shouldn't have passed them either.
I don't understand why cars should be able to go faster than 5mph above the highest possible speed limit(75mph in the US, lower in most states). There is no legitimate reason to ever be going faster than 80, all it does is enable dumb kids to go on joyrides.
That's because you haven't thought it through very hard.
To add to programjunkie, people also do legitimate street/drag racing. But the second reason he listed is probably the most important from a "helpful to society" standpoint. I was driving back to town this morning and was behind a guy who passed 2 cars going just barely faster than them. After watching him pass two cars, a process that invovled him driving side by side with another vehicle for minutes at a time at 77mph, he then did the same thing with a semi.
That's incredibly dangerous.
So as I got past the semi I accelerated up to about 85 to get around him quickly and then went back to cruising speed.
lol, street racing? Really?
It's his fault for passing them when they were going plenty fast enough. You shouldn't have passed them either.
Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.
Mind blowing, I know.
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
Yep.
However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.
However, it is not a very good argument.
I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
Yep.
However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.
However, it is not a very good argument.
I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.
From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:
Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.
Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
Interestingly, inhalation of gastric contents causes a significant number of deaths each year, perhaps it's from closed-minded people choking to death on their own bile?
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
Yep.
However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.
However, it is not a very good argument.
I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.
From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:
Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.
Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.
We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.
Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
Yep.
However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.
However, it is not a very good argument.
I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.
From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:
Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.
Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.
We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.
Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.
Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
Yep.
However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.
However, it is not a very good argument.
I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.
From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:
Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.
Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.
We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.
Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.
Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.
We were talking about street racing. Besides, wouldn't speed limiters be good because it would allow skill to take precedent over being able to afford the most engine enhancements?
Posts
And out of 1,000 kids who do that, 1 becomes a star.
EDIT: And their parents ponied up for proper training right away, not playing grabass in the backyard until they were 17.
The only sport I follow is hockey. I have yet to see an NHL player who wasn't playing in official leagues since they were 5. The players who get together with friends on the pond until they graduate high school never become professionals.
This also plays to my love of driving point. They are out there playing because they want to be. A lot of people who drive and who are bad at it drive because it's convenient or they have to.
Ok, now you're just being silly. I had a couple of tennis lessons in the fifth grade (before breaking my arm and missing the rest, booooo), and we covered that shit in the very beginning.
Anyway the point is that you're trying to draw equivalency between professional junior sports and professional adult sports in order to draw a similar equivalency between bushbashing on a farm or dicking about in a driveway as a child with driving as an adult in traffic - or even driving professionally, it seems. That doesn't work.
The point was that people who learn to do things early on in life are generally better at those things than people who learn to do to them later on. Almost every single thing I can think of follows this rule. Sports, music, swimming, mathematics, video games, computer literacy, ordinary literacy, etc. I don't see how driving is any different.
I think the idea's been kicked around in Ontario (Canada) already. I'm not opposed to it, except that I think that a good driving test is a bit much to ask for, and it would probably end up just being a cash grab by the government.
Yeah, it would depend on the quality of the testing staff already present. I think any new licensing requirement is open to being accused of a cash grab, though. I could live with it if the cost of the tests went straight back into retraining the fail-drivers rather than into the state's consolidated revenue stream.
See, the problem is you are focusing on age, when the relevant part is the activity itself.
Driving around your farm is not the equivalent of an 8 year old figure skater getting professional lessons. It's the equivalent of said 8 year old on the pond out back with their dad yelling "Ok, now jump and spin!".
Doesn't matter how young you started driving out on your farm in the sticks, it doesn't teach you 90% of the important shit involved in driving.
Learning how to steer your way around the farm is basically the driving equivalent of learning to hold the racket. If you can't figure either out after five minutes on your own, you should only be doing it in a "special" capacity.
Not that it matters in the greater context of the point I was making (which I have no interest in continuing to argue) but unless you're a serious tennis player, there might just be more to holding the racket properly than you realize.
A properly made semi-automatic? Other than raw emotion, none at all. A good example of this is the DC-SST in the new Evo - it changes gears far faster and far more smoothly than any human ever could, and in manual mode functions exactly like a manual transmission with an automated clutch. These things are pretty amazing. Ive driven a manual for years (both my vehicles are manuals), but I would love to see these things become prevalent since they are more efficient than regular automatics
And why a 100 km/h speed limiter? Thats just horrible. The most dangerous actions on any road are:
1) Not keeping with the flow of traffic.
2) Being distracted and not observing the situation constantly.
3) "Herding" - What I refer to as the tendency of a group of drivers to compress when a significant reduction in speed is introduced (reduced speed limit, stop light, etc.). This causes the distances between drivers to reduce, and severely limits maneuvering options during panic situations.
If we could just ban cellphone use while driving, you could reduce the amount of road deaths significantly. I personally feel that texting while driving should be equivalent to a DUI.
Haha stupid fucks, you're supposed to read the signs along the side of the road, not ignore them.
There is also this very odd spot in town, going down one road.. it randomly and for no apparent reason changes speed, to 5mph faster, then slows down again. I think I'm one of the very few people that notice it because I'm usually the only one going 35 on this section of road, instead of 30, and often end up catching up to people along that stretch, its like:
30mph..................................35mph<
>30mph................................
================================================================
there's about a 5 block stretch of 35mph, on a road that is otherwise 30mph all along it, except for when it gets to a very heavy residential area near the end of the road it slows down to 25.
Also I've been seeing digital speed signs popping up around lately, ones that say the speed limit at the top, then below them they show your speed. And flashes at you to slow down if you are going the speed limit or higher. If only it would also tell people to speed up... I hate going behind someone doing 20 in a 35.
We did this recently. Seems to have gone pretty well so far, but it'll be interesting to see if there's a real impact on the death toll.
It really should apply to doing anything comparably distracting with your hands - eating, smoking, etc. while handbrake's off. Ive seen people shaving and doing makeup before
re: herding, some king of inter-car tag system enforcing minimum following distances could be useful, but it'd be hard to handle the issue of merging and lane changes.
what your hands are doing has nothing to do with why cell phones and driving are dangerous
its the act of talking that is distracting, whether it be hands free or not
impractical, you'd have to be able to book people for talking to other people in the car. I think taking your eyes off the road (and even people who claim to be able to text blind still do this more than if they weren't texting) and a hand or hands off the wheel in order to do something else is a big enough deal to justify a police response. Talking to another passenger or talking handsfree doesn't quite make the cut, I think.
And I can't help but feel that manual cars have fewer opportunities where your hands and brain are idle, which may feed in to the safety angle. That said, fuck the auto v manual tangent.
It's a sad fact that there are almost no cities which have the infrastructure to support their population's transport needs.
Public transport is usually the answer to everything. Ubiquitous, free public transport.
You're wrong. A number of studies have been done that show talking a phone, whether it's in your hand or hands-free is a much larger distraction than a passenger. It's mostly because a cell phone convo is a completely separate event from driving the car, and requires an attention split for the driver to maintain both. With a passenger, most people work the convo into the act of driving, reducing the split attention thing, Furthermore, when you have a convo with a passenger in the car, the talking reacts to whats happening on the road. Since both parties can see the conditions, the conversation will ebb and flow as more of the drivers attention is needed to drive.
http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/dec/references/inpress.pdf
Also just a quick glance at wikipedia would show you that your viewpoint is mistaken, with references to studies performed
Here's another study which directly finds that "dual-tasks" such as talking and hold the cell phone don't increase impairment over just talking on the cellphone.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/12/6/462
It's the conversation thats dangerous, not whether or not you are holding the phone in your hand.
I'd be all for this if they'd actually let you schedule it on a weekend rather than making you take a half-day off of work. Seriously, why does every DMV (or most government services, for that matter) keep hours where you can only see them at times when the average person is at work? Have it closed every Tuesday and Wednesday and open on the weekends, instead.
edit: Also, the problem with electronically enforced speed limits is that most speed limits are set without any actual bearing on reality.
while i think increased testing is a brilliant idea (fucking old florida driver, the things I've seen) the current reality is that unless you massively fund the new testing, most DMV's in the US won't be able to handle the load. Hell, most of them can't take the workload they have right now, at least from what i've seen on the space coast, orlando and tampa.
But then I've texted behind the wheel. Granted only at stop lights I know are going to be a 1-2 minute wait but even then it makes me uneasy. I will never understand how people are cool with driving down the interstate clicking away. It'd probably give me a panic attack :P
Oh, you don't need to tell me. I had to wait through a three-hour line just to get my goddamn registration changed from one state to another. I should have just drove on expired out-of-state plates for years and years like some of my co-workers do.
In my experience, it's stupid fucking kids texting while driving. But those fucker's text everywhere.
I've never understood it. It can be tough enough just like dialing a number, let alone typing in a fucking text.
1. Private Roads
2. Avoid Accidents (Accelerating past 80 has probably saved my life)
3. Future proofing (the Germans prove you can safely drive more than 75 mph)
4. Principal
That's because you haven't thought it through very hard.
To add to programjunkie, people also do legitimate street/drag racing. But the second reason he listed is probably the most important from a "helpful to society" standpoint. I was driving back to town this morning and was behind a guy who passed 2 cars going just barely faster than them. After watching him pass two cars, a process that invovled him driving side by side with another vehicle for minutes at a time at 77mph, he then did the same thing with a semi.
That's incredibly dangerous.
So as I got past the semi I accelerated up to about 85 to get around him quickly and then went back to cruising speed.
I really can't imagine needing to pass someone going 77 mph. Are you trying to get away from an event horizon or something?
I made a general observation about my urban friends vs myself, rather than specific anecdotes about particular events or friends, in a manner alike to your own. Maybe my conclusions are wrong, but how am I going to ever test that? Besides, you are the one who started off by observing your rural/small town friends as having poor general driving skills, so I don't see that I have "cherry picked" anything, at least in comparison to your own comments to which I responded. So perhaps you can point out exactly how I've done that in comparison to your own personal testimony. You also use terminology like "city slicker", which sounds mildly disparaging and I for one have never heard anyone say that in real life (iirc we used to say "townies" if we wanted to be dicks about it). Perhaps this is a Queensland thing?
To go to your substantive comments, yes, it is certainly possible that on balance the risk at letting a youth drive on a farm is greater than the net benefits to their later driving skills. It is also quite possible that the actual techniques they learn could be quickly picked up by a mature adult learner in a far less risky manner. I'm not so sure about your comments about youth vs say general farm related accidents but I do concede the later are usually rather high (so far as I've seen in NZ, Australia's figures are unknown to me) and it could well be that the former are too. It really scares the crap out of me sometimes to think of the risks that a farmer and his helpers put themselves to sometimes, but I don't really see how a lot of that can be mitigated, but that is a question for a different thread.
However, the fact is that a lot of farmers need the help their children can give, whether it be rather light work (say driving a motorbike to a particular paddock to open the gates), or heavier, more involved work (say more than paddock driving - heavy trucks, tractors etc). Most farms that I knew growing up tended to be run by single adults, with assistance from their partners who usually work elsewhere full time and by their children and seasonal workers. So long as that is the economic model there is going to be a huge amount of health and safety risk to all parties involved. Further, farmer's children need to get to school, after school activities and to socialise generally, which can be rather difficult given the added distance and given their parents are usually very busy (just like any other parents I guess).
To tie that back into driving - most farming family children are going to have a basic need to drive very early on, whether it is safe or not, so they are going to develop basic driving skills. Whether these driving skills are just driving on a paddock or not will depend on the individual circumstance. For you to assume that these skills are at best barely useful is a generalisation on your part, based on your own personal experience. From my personal experience I can only recall country friends being injured by drunk driving, rather than say accidents due to carelessness. The former of which is a very serious but unrelated to your OP problem.
You realize there are places in the US where the speed limit is 80?
lol, street racing? Really?
It's his fault for passing them when they were going plenty fast enough. You shouldn't have passed them either.
Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.
Mind blowing, I know.
And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.
Yep.
However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.
Because then people won't be able to race down city streets?
edit: and if cars were limited to a highway speed of ~80mph... they would still be able to race fast down city streets....
It wouldn't solve the problem of speeding on city or residential streets. Only on the highway.
However, it is not a very good argument.
I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.
From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:
Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.
Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.
Edit: Link so you can check the stats yourself: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/BBE22D7978806FDBCA2576F600124132?opendocument
Interestingly, inhalation of gastric contents causes a significant number of deaths each year, perhaps it's from closed-minded people choking to death on their own bile?
Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.
We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.
Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.
Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.
We were talking about street racing. Besides, wouldn't speed limiters be good because it would allow skill to take precedent over being able to afford the most engine enhancements?