SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 'hit-the-road'-but-don't-take-it-literally dept.
ScienceNews reports on a report from the CDC (informative graph):
U.S. drivers love to hit the road. The problem is doing so safely.
In 2013, 32,894 people in the United States died in motor vehicle crashes. Although down since 2000, the overall death rate - 10.3 per 100,000 people - tops 19 other high-income countries, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported July 8. Belgium is a distant second with 6.5 deaths per 100,000. Researchers reviewed World Health Organization and other data on vehicle crash deaths, seat belt use and alcohol-impaired driving in 2000 and 2013.
Canada had the highest percentage of fatal crashes caused by drunk drivers: 33.6 percent. New Zealand and the United States tied for second at 31 percent. But Canada and 16 other countries outperformed the United States on seat belt use - even though, in 2013, 87 percent of people in the United States reported wearing safety belts while riding in the front seat.
Spain saw the biggest drop - 75 percent - in its crash death rate. That country improved nearly all aspects of road safety, including decreasing alcohol-impaired driving and increasing seat belt use, the researchers say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:06PM
Still #1!
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:08PM
I think I could have a lot more fun in Germany, could actually test out high speeds without going to jail :)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:28PM
Godwinned in the fourth post, that was quick.
Montana used to have no specific speed limit [hwysafety.com] and the highways were safer when they did, or so says this link I'm posting anonymously.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:10AM
Godwin's law does not automatically apply to any mention of Germany.
There's more than a few factors in this disparity.
America's highway enforcement is entirely about one thing: Speed. They do not care about bad drivers because pressure groups have made "fast" equal to "bad". Our statistics always use the state-set speed limit to determine "if speed was a factor" in a crash. This is true even in Massachusetts where the speed limit is a laughable 55 MPH, which is universally ignored by everyone except nervous drug runners. When was the last time anyone heard of a turn signal or lane change enforcement program?
America's highways cover more miles (or kilometers) than anywhere else, and many of us prefer to live suburbs in decent homes and large lots than live cramped in a city.
America does not invest in transport the way other places do, so our subway systems and trains do not provide good coverage, requiring park-and-ride stations. I would suggest there is a link between transportation investment and economic growth, but we lack the mandate to use eminent domain to buy the land needed. The one good thing is we have kept railroad rights-of-way for bike paths, where the UK sold off much of it.
America's leftists are uniformly against faster, newer roads, mindlessly repeating the mantra "We have to get cars off the road, man" while smoking skunkweed.
America's rightists are against taxes for even essential things, and lack the mandate to reform the bidding and police detail processes. "Everything costs too much."
America has a history of being pro-Liberty, and that means laws to stop drivers for seatbelt violations are unacceptable to many of us. That is not true in other countries, and especially untrue in places where compliance and conformity are national characteristics.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:56AM
The comment about driving fast in Germany made me think of the autobahns and that made me think of the Nazis. Too tenuous?
The biggest pressure group that frets about driving is MADD. They have made "drunk" equal to "bad" and now they're trying to do the same for "tipsy" or "buzzed."
Cops don't enforce turn signals enough but they're pretty thorough when it comes to burned out tail lights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:52AM
The comment about driving fast in Germany made me think of the autobahns and that made me think of the Nazis. Too tenuous?
Way too tenuous. Sorry. A lot of things come to mind about Germany, and that sad period in its history doesn't really influence my views of Germany. Is there something I don't know about autobahns?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @04:14AM
Eh, just that a lot of the construction of them happened when the Nazis were in power. Was trying for a laugh, it may be too soon.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:01AM
because pressure groups have made "fast" equal to "bad"
"Pressure groups"? What parry tele, are these groups? I would think they are something like "Concerned Motoring Citizens Who do not Want to be Killed by Idiots Incapable of Estimating Potential Risks of Excessive Vehicle Speed, and Teenagers", or CNCWWKIIEPREVST. Possibly linked with the local SJW coven, no doubt?
And Remember, Mr. Libertarian, it was Ronald Reagan that forced the 55mph speed limit on the States, by Executive Order!!! The man was such a tyrant!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday July 24 2016, @04:36AM
Wikipedia lists 31; the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, the American Traffic Safety Services Association, B.R.A.K.E.S., Impact Teen Drivers, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and Road Safe America seem to be based in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Road_safety_organizations [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 24 2016, @05:35AM
And these are pressure groups, because they are in favor of less death on American Roads? They have an "opinion" that they could have had differently? My recent exchange with khallow on Climate Change Denierism starts to make more sense. But it is no less wrong.
If you think that your fun trumps the safety of the rest of the public, you are not a libertarian, you are a socialist, trying to maximize your choice and forcing the rest of the driving public to take it down their throats when we have to absorb the cost of your over-estimated competence behind the wheel. There is a website, that is nothing but crashes of $100,000+ cars, proving once again that we should ask, if you are so rich, why can't you drive?
But mostly, actuarials are actual. You may think you are the one that beats the odds, you may think that having a firearm in your dwelling makes you safer. But statistics prove you wrong, dead wrong. So take that opinion, and have it pressure grouped up your nether regions, until you grow a brain.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday July 24 2016, @08:12AM
Having once ventured to answer in GungnirSniper's stead, I suppose I am obliged to continue.
What's good for the insurance industry is good for America.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:52PM
Not because they favor less death, as you put it, but because they are misguided in their efforts.
Speed doesn't kill. Sudden changes in inertia do kill. If speed killed, Chuck Yeager would be just another forgotten name in a long list of casualties.
The core reason that speed seems to be deadly to Americans is, most Americans refuse to pay attention to their driving. Fiddling with the phone, the stereo, a six course meal, watching a movie, getting head, or just sleeping at the wheel are all factors in many "accidents". We go about licensing drivers all wrong, and we make to many excuses when they do screw up.
Speed is, at worst, a contributing factor in highway deaths.
Motorcyclists have a name for people who think they know how to ride, but don't. Squid. Squids have no bones to speak of, after they've splattered themselves down a half mile of pavement.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday July 24 2016, @06:13AM
Pressure group is a British term for political advocacy groups, like our NRA or NARAL.
The idiotic speed limit was a Nixon thing, not a Reagan one.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday July 24 2016, @08:15AM
You may be thinking of the National Maximum Speed Law, which was a law approved by the U.S. Congress and President Nixon.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0CE1DC143CE63BBC4B53DFB766838F669EDE&legacy=true [nytimes.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law [wikipedia.org]
Reagan had signed a 55 mph limit into law in California, when he was governor of that state.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/REFLECTIONS-3053481.php [sfgate.com]
The national 55 mph limit was raised during Reagan's tenure as president, with his approval, to 65 mph. It wasn't by executive order, rather the National Maximum Speed Law was revised.
https://www.newsreview.com/reno/return-to-fast/content?oid=9546174 [newsreview.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 24 2016, @08:27AM
It is not so much the law, it is the Federal extortion that Reagan enacted!
From your Wikipedia cite:
On June 1, 1986, Nevada challenged the NMSL by posting a 70 mph (115 km/h) limit on 3 miles (5 km) of Interstate 80. The Nevada statute authorizing this speed limit included language that invalidated itself if the federal government suspended transportation funding. Indeed, the Federal Highway Administration immediately withheld highway funding, which automatically invalidated the statute by its own terms
Reagan's Federal Highway Administration.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday July 24 2016, @09:50AM
The law was enacted by the Congress and President Nixon in 1974. From the beginning it provided that federal funding be withheld from states that didn't have a 55 mph limit. Reagan's Federal Highway Administration, it would appear, was simply enforcing in 1986 what had been the will of Congress and President Nixon in 1974. I suppose Reagan could have ordered the FHA not to enforce the law; do you prefer that sort of government? I didn't find information about the supposed executive order by Reagan "that forced the 55mph speed limit on the States." They're available online at the link below; if you find it let me know. Really he should not have had to issue any such order for the funding to be withheld from Nevada.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/reagan.html [archives.gov]
(Score: 1) by ncc74656 on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:15AM
Unlike the present lawless regime, the FHWA under Reagan was enforcing the laws on the books, flawed as they were. Note that he had no problem signing into law the 65-mph speed limit a couple of years later, a step on the way to the eventual recission of federal speed limits in the mid-'90s.
Would you have preferred that he just ignored the law or used his pen and his phone to weasel out of doing the job he was elected to do? That way lies madness, as we are now seeing.
(Score: 4, Informative) by https on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:29AM
.
Today, if you're not white.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @05:46AM
Actually, 10 minutes ago.
And I'm not white
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday July 24 2016, @07:01AM
To all the thing you mention you have to add that the proper measure is NOT "10.3 deaths per 100,000 people" as TFA suggests. The proper measure is "Deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled". (World wide this statistic tends to be collected in deaths per billion KM traveled.)
It doesn't matter how many people you have, or how many cars you have or how many roads you have. All that matters is how many miles are wracked up each year.
For the US there are 1.08 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Converted to world numbers that comes out to 7.1 deaths per billion Km vehicle miles traveled. The US isn't in the best position when measured this way but we are far from the worst. 55.9 for Brazil. 18.2 for South Korea.
But the big problem is most contraries have no idea of how many miles are traveled per year. They just don't measure it. So they don't know how bad their death toll actual is.
Half of the world’s road traffic deaths occur among motorcyclists. HALF. And motorcyclists are a much higher percentage of vehicles in poorer countries.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday July 25 2016, @09:36AM
The _real_ reference behind TFA actually _does_ use deaths per distance traveled, if you look at the right column:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6526e1.htm#T1_down [cdc.gov]
What is most interesting to me is not the absolute numbers, since there are some purely situational / geographical factors that could account for that, it is that the US has shown least improvement (by a long way) over the 13 or so years compared. The US is doing something very different, question is what. It _may_ be bad driving, but it might be other things - the US has a completely different car market and car safety standards to everywhere else (except maybe Canada) for one thing, maybe the US penchant for bigger (well, f***king enormous) cars compared to elsewhere is actually reducing safety.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:09AM
US safety standards drive the standards for rest of the world. And larger is safer in almost every case.
So it isn't the equipment.
It might be the price of fuel.
But just look at those Vehicle miles traveled (billions) column in the link you posted. No country comes close. Look at Registered vehicles. No country comes close.
So sheer Traffic Density is my guess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:10PM
America's highways cover more miles (or kilometers) than anywhere else, and many of us prefer to live suburbs in decent homes and large lots than live cramped in a city.
When I read the article one of my first thoughts was what do these stats look like if we compared deaths per mile driven?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:22PM
Never mind, I found it at the bottom of the study. Per mile we end up in fifth, behind Spain which had one of the biggest drops in overall deaths. And I would say that an overall drop of 31% isn't all that bad considering just how many accidents we have per year given the population. There is room for improvement, but hardly a bleak picture when you consider the diversity of the country's roads and drivers.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:34PM
Anyone who has driven interstates in Illinois recently knows how pathetic the roads are in that state.
Another problem I feel with highway safety is the fact that there are truck speed limits on rural highways. Trucks should be allowed to cruise along as fast as everyone else. Nothing pisses me off more than a truck trying to pass another truck at 60 mph, the truck speed limit being 55 mph, while everyone else is trying to fly along at 80+ mph, while the auto speed limit is 70 mph.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:08PM
That might piss you off, but truck have different handling characteristics than cars do. It takes them a lot longer to stop and they can't corner as tightly as smaller vehicles do.
It's dangerous enough riding with large trucks, but do you really want to make them that much less safe by adding additional inertia they have to overcome whenever they brake? Even a 10mph difference in speed results in a huge difference in terms of reaction time, distance to stop and turning radius.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:41AM
Once you get away from California, Oregon, or Washington, there is no separate speed limit. It's 75 mph in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, and 80 mph on long stretches of interstate in Utah, Texas, and Wyoming. I-5 in the California central valley is straight as an arrow. Yes, trucks do have different handling characteristics (I have a CDL license I've just never used), and in some circumstances higher speed limits would be a problem, but not in the middle of nowhere. In anything, it would make the drive safer for everyone else by reducing the traffic congestion caused by slower trucks trying to pass even slower trucks.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:32PM
Yeah, the biggest problem with that is most major fleets speed limit their trucks to between 62 and 65 mph. So you end up with a 63 mph truck trying to pass a 62 mph truck in 70 mph traffic.
And then they come to a hill......
When I was a driver I tried to avoid the slow motion pass until the freeway was clear enough to pass with a minimum of inconvenience to other drivers. I also taught my students to do this. It's safer for me, it's safer for all. Unfortunately there are far too many drivers who pass irregardless of traffic. If you're an Owner Operator that has an unrestricted truck, it's not such a big deal. But where the difference in speed with corporate trucks may only be as little as a single mile per hour, and you don't give a fuck, well, it creates problems and safety hazards for all around you.
A majority of commercial drivers drive well, with courtesy and respect. The assholes are who we are remembered by....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:34PM
Nothing pisses me off more than a truck trying to pass another truck at 60 mph, the truck speed limit being 55 mph, while I'm trying to fly along at 80+ mph, while the auto speed limit is 70 mph, and my car's autopilot can't distinguish the two trucks from the sky because they're both painted white, and I die horribly.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:06PM
I don't much care about the "horribly" part - just please die quietly.
I actually think you were going for a "funny" mod, but someone has already taken you seriously with an "informative" mod.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:03PM
The state of Arizona was considering split speed limits, some years ago, in response to an increase in traffic fatalities near Phoenix. They commissioned the Arizona University to do a study, and let them know how many lives would be changed.
The University came back in due time, and flat out told the legislators that split speed limits COST LIVES - it doesn't save any lives. Those bunch of kids figured out that each and every passing maneuver involves a risk of collision. The idea is to reduce passing maneuvers, thereby decreasing risk. All traffic needs to flow within about ten mph of all other traffic on high speed highways.
But, the courts are far more interested in revenue than they are in safety, so they mindlessly lobby for split speed limits, then send the cops out to enforce those laws.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:15PM
> the overall death rate - 10.3 per 100,000 people - tops 19 other high-income countries,
That is not the right metric to use for comparisons. We should be talking about deaths per miles driven. Even better would be to compare deaths per miles driven inside and outside urban areas. That's because the amount of time spent on the road and the amount of time spent in different types of traffic can have a significant effect on the number of crashes.
I don't know what those numbers are for the US, or any other country, I just know that few other countries have so much distance within their own borders as the US does.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:37PM
Why would you expect the CDC to use a metric that is relevant to vehicle accidents? They are using the same metric that they use for diseases so they can compare to heart disease, etc., which is ridiculous when you think about it. For just one example, many people live in cities (ie, NY City), use public transit, and have little or no exposure to motor vehicle crashes.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:51PM
Even Capitalist Russia's population is mostly clustered around its western portions.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:11PM
That is not the right metric to use for comparisons.
I suppose that depends on whether you want to somehow compare countries (which is silly, because of the truckload of uncontrolled variables), or historical figures within one country (because decreasing both total deaths and miles driven by e.g. better public transport/straighter roads would be a desirable outcome)
The study compared a bunch of things:
Motor vehicle crash deaths per 100,000 population, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and per 10,000 registered vehicles, and percentage decreases from 2000 to 2013
Turns out, the US is at the bottom for % decrease of deaths, both per mile traveled and per population.
(Also, "US somewhere in the middle for deaths per mile traveled" doesn't sell papers/clicks)
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday July 25 2016, @09:44AM
Those numbers are in TFA (or at least the CDC article which is T-actual-FA rather than some dumb summary).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6526e1.htm#T1_down [cdc.gov]
Spoiler: US is still among the worst, and it's improvement over the last decade or so is the worst by a large margin.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:31PM
If they didn't pull over black motorists and shoot them point-blank for driving while black, maybe the stat would improve?
Study your road map, don't drive through the ugly bits of freeway - you don't have to be black to get shot by the local's finest.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:00AM
There are way too many aggressive drivers on our highways. They are treating all of the roads like the Autobahn. Every drive to work should not be the equivalent of a NASCAR race, where you fear you may not make it there in one piece.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:02AM
Okay then, stay out of the left lane then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @06:14AM
There are also far too many sociopathic assholes on our highways who think they own the highways, assholes who block the passing lane while driving below the speed limit, then floor it to block anyone who tries to pass them, and then "brake check" randomly to endanger anyone behind them who simply wants to drive the speed limit. In some states it is illegal to block the passing lane like this, but police refuse to enforce the law due to some bullshit rationalization about it "rewarding speeders", when in reality what enforcement would do is help prevent traffic jams and accidents (driving below the speed limit is far more dangerous than driving above it).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @07:57AM
and then "brake check" randomly to endanger anyone behind them who simply wants to drive the speed limit. In some states it is illegal to block the passing lane like this, but police refuse to enforce the law . . .
So YOU were the asshole that kept trying to push me to exceed the speed limit so that you could break the law, and followed so dangerously close that I just had to slam on the brakes to make you realize how fucking slow your fucking reaction time actually is at 75+mph. You do realize that if you strike another vehicle in the rear, even if they slammed on the brakes for what appears to you and your tunnel-visioned sense of self-entitlement to be NO REASON, you are legally at fault for causing the accident. I would have my terminator unit extract you from your burning vehicle, turn you over, and rear-end you for being such a dick, if you ever had the chutzpah to do something like that. So, I look forward to blocking a passing lane near you soon by driving the legal maximum. Back off, mutherfugga!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 25 2016, @06:32PM
So YOU were the asshole that kept trying to push me to exceed the speed limit so that you could break the law...
If you weren't passing in that left lane then you were actually the one breaking the law (in my state at least).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:45AM
And what makes you think I wasn't, oh appropriately handled Soylentil? Stay off my bumper. Safe distance is at least one vehicle length per 10mph.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:39PM
The problem is the rules that should be enforced but aren't. First, in the US, law mandates that manufacturers install indicators on all vehicles, yet it's never illegal to not use them. When traffic is moving 100km/h or greater and there is some density to it, it's easy to create some risk and danger if nobody is using indicators. It means everyone is suddenly guessing at any instant what happens next. You see panicked disruptions and such. More importantly is slower traffic keep right. Those four words should be the most heavily enforced rule out there. Too many assholes cruising in the fastest lane at an absolutely unacceptable speed. This is the most dangerous element short of lane weaving at insanely close proximities repeatedly (fuckers that do this shouldn't be fined but arrested outright if you ask me. In nearly two decades I've only seen police pull over someone doing this ONCE. This is preposterous as this is incredibly dangerous regardless of speed. If not arrested, then suspension of licence.) Like damage traffic will try to route around it to maintain the flow it should have. In Germany, this rule IS strictly enforced, and if you are caught going slower in the left expect to be pulled over and fined.
Have all the cops stop enforcing the speed limit and make them enforce relative speeds of the lanes. Anyone going slower on the left forcing traffic to pile up or forcing it to pass from the right to route around it should be stopped and fined like in Germany. Overall flow of speed is set naturally by the environment based on weather conditions and density of traffic. We shouldn't need a speed limit due to physics. If there is someone trying to go 30km/h+ greater than every other car traversing all lanes, obviously he deserves to be stopped as well, but other than that, speed limits can fuck off along with the cops who fine people for infringing them when their driving conduct was absolutely safe otherwise!!
I'd even venture to say that those who religiously observe the limit are potentially a problem. Maybe they can't afford another fine and another increase in insurance premiums so they will never exceed it, but most of the time, the flow is greater than the limit so they're creating an obstruction overall. Even if they remain in the right lane where they belong at that speed, it's still not very intuitive. Going 20km/h+ BELOW everybody else just creates a bottleneck effect and encourages a lot of sudden passing by others.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:25PM
"in the 1970s when vehicles simply weren't capable of handling sudden changes correctly"
WTF?
Lemme guess. You've been drinking some Kool-Aid, without checking where it came from. And, to reinforce the Kool-Aid, you've veiwed some tired old, worn out cars from the '70's which haven't seen proper maintenance since about 1990
First, you need to be aware that virtually everyone back then learned to drive with rear-wheel drive. Most people still had bias tires. Brakes weren't ABS. But, overall, the suspension was reliable. You learned to drive with the suspension you had, you learned to use the brakes intelligently, you understood the capabilities of your tires, or you smashed into something. And - things really haven't changed much today. There are still millions of people, young and old alike, who don't understand today's "safer" cars any better than you understand vintage cars.
Most accidents are, and always have been, due to human error.
The rest of your post is reasonable though. In fact, they had a term for what you describe, many decades ago - the 85th percentile.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/93CE5655-F442-4D8F-B67C-11AA8B2F531D/0/Speed_Limits_Info.pdf [wa.gov]
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @09:25PM
yet it's never illegal to not use them
In all of the states I have been in it is illegal to NOT use them. Enforced? Not at all. Basically one of those laws that is only enforced when the cop wants an excuse to pull you. A few have started passing 'dont hang in the left lane' laws.
What I noticed is in major cities everyone drives like 'they know how' and drive like it is a race. Then in rural areas they want *NO* *ONE* in front of them and will ride your ass.
I had the 'pleasure' of driving I24 between nashville and padukah. Everyone in cars were in the left lane. All the trucks in the right. *that* was 'fun'.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:12PM
There may be to many aggressive drivers - but there is a worse excess of drivers who are timid, and/or stupid, and/or impaired, and/or distracted. It would be nice if there were stats available to compare all those classes of drivers. As a general rule, it's not the aggressive driver who is smashed up on the side of the road. Note that "aggressive" and "reckless" are not synonyms.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @06:48AM
My driver test was trivial. I didn't have to go on a highway, rotary, or hill. I did have to answer insulting questions about drugs and dangerous questions about hand signals. (if you see an arm out the window, it's actually just an arm because nobody does hand signals -- heck, most don't do any signals)
Lots of people drive without licenses. The punishment is trivial. They get right back on the road. IMHO, when this is obviously intentional (not recently expired) the punishment should be death.
Lots of people drive drunk. Sure, they get in trouble, but see above. It's the same deal. Nobody commits a second offense in Saudi Arabia.
Generally, we treat the situation like bumper cars. We are big into mandating passive protection, like the seatbelt stopper thing that nearly kills me when I urgently need to look over my shoulder and it triggers. Some of our mandated passive protection is even really expensive. Hit somebody? Oh, no big deal, get back on the road. WTF!!!
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:31PM
We are big into mandating passive protection, like the seatbelt stopper thing that nearly kills me when I urgently need to look over my shoulder and it triggers.
They make these things called mirrors. Newer cars even have cameras now. You really should not have to move that far around to look. A quick glance at any blind spots (adjust your mirrors correctly to minimize these!) should be sufficient.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:30PM
Mirrors don't give you full coverage, and rear cameras are still somewhat rare. A driver should always turn his head to double check what he thinks his mirror is showing him.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @11:45PM
A driver should always turn his head to double check what he thinks his mirror is showing him.
Or just drive facing backwards, so he can see where he's been!
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:01PM
Mirrors don't give you full coverage, and rear cameras are still somewhat rare.
True, but one should still not need to do gymnastics to glance for a double check. That's the point I was trying to make, even if I perhaps did so poorly. I probably also should consider that I'm fairly tall so maybe I'm not as affected by this.