Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

Thomas Borchert wrote
Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not supported
by the numbers.

Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

Technology has indeed made cars safer; it has also made them more
expensive in constant dollars.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote

Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with
technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply
not supported
by the numbers.

Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

One sample State of Florida says it is true. Between 1978-1998,
licensed drivers doubled, vehicle miles doubled, small increase in
roads. But total crashes actually decreased about 1/3, with small
increase in total deaths. Complete charts at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/...SourceBook.pdf

Fred F.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Thomas Borchert wrote
Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not
supported
by the numbers.

Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.


Technology has indeed made cars safer; it has also made them more
expensive in constant dollars.

As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology should
make them _cheaper_.

I'd say "crowded cities" is the biggest factor, or at least one of the
biggest. Add to all that the fact that there is far more widespread drivers
training, crackdowns on DUI, better road design and paving...those will
pare the rates.

OTOH, way back years ago (the late 70's or early 80's) a school of Highway
Engineering (U of Houston rings a bell) announced that bad traffic controls
were a major factor in a very high percentage of accidents. Something like
2/3rds.

When was the last time you ever hit more than two green lights in a row?

When was the last time you ever hit more than two green lights in a row?

I don't know how common this is in other places, but when I learned to drive
in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, where the speed limit is the standard 20 miles
per hour business district limit, you can go through all of downtown
(guessing 6 to 10 lights) with a green light, by going exactly 18 miles per
hour. I always thought it was pretty cool, and pretty funny how people that
didn't know about this would accelerate as hard as they could at each green
light, go well over the speed limit, only to get to a red light at the next
intersection and lose all their efforts at going faster by waiting at the
light. They made their own stop and go traffic instead of riding the green
light "wave"...

-Aviv Hod

Aviv Hod wrote:

I don't know how common this is in other places, but when I learned to drive
in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, where the speed limit is the standard 20 miles
per hour business district limit, you can go through all of downtown
(guessing 6 to 10 lights) with a green light, by going exactly 18 miles per
hour.

In 1970, there was a strip of highway in Greenville, SC that was like this. In one
direction, you could travel five miles or more without a red light if you held to
within about 2 mph either way of the speed limit. In the other direction, you'd catch
exactly one red light doing this.

By contrast, there's a strip of highway in Pennsylvania on which the State posted a
speed limit around 55 mph. The local traffic director wanted 25 mph and got
overruled, so he set the lights to all go red for anyone traveling faster than 25
mph.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


In 1970, there was a strip of highway in Greenville, SC that was like
this. In one
direction, you could travel five miles or more without a red light if you
held to
within about 2 mph either way of the speed limit. In the other direction,
you'd catch
exactly one red light doing this.

Years ago when I first lived in Denver, you could travel down Broadway Ave.
from the North side of town to the south side (several miles...probably from
Colfax to Hampden) and hit maybe one red light (out of two dozen or more) by
merely driving right at the speed limit (35-40 if memory serves).


By contrast, there's a strip of highway in Pennsylvania on which the State
posted a
speed limit around 55 mph. The local traffic director wanted 25 mph and
got
overruled, so he set the lights to all go red for anyone traveling faster
than 25
mph.

The main arterial I live off now has a 45MPH speed limit, but the lights are
synced at 55-57. Yup, the cops hide in the bushes just off the road ala
Barney Fife.

The next town over they put in traffic cams and shortened the yellow from 7
seconds to 4.5. That's another 45 zone. When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.

Go figger!

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the
council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.



This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and the
whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how there is
such lack of respect these days for their authority.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the
council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.



This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and the
whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how there
is
such lack of respect these days for their authority.

It is done to raise revenue. Several municipalities, including the city of
chicago, have been very up front in saying so.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage. Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.

These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable. Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively. They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology should
make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage.

Fender benders (ie, less than $xxx in damages) versus ones requireing
medical attention

Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.


These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Quite so. A few years back I was "kooked" (the tap to the rear fender like
cops use in chases), hit the barrier wall at over 50MPH on a 45 degree
angle, rolled three time and ended up on the roof. The car didn't even look
like a car anymore, but I rolled down the window, unhooked the seat belt and
climbed out. Got worse injuries (cuts) on the glass from the window. Some
kid came running up asking if I was okay; I said "That was a hell of a
ride". When the Fire Department rolled up they immediately brought out the
"jaws of life", but I was sitting on barrier and talking on my cell phone.
Of course, the next day my back told me I'd aged 40 years.



Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable.

Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
than hitting the brakes.

Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively.

Fun Question: In your opinion, which is worse: aggressive driving, or
careless driving?

They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

More survivable and the vehicles make them more avoidable. Think of the
marshmallow suspensions of days gone by and imagine trying to make some of
the moves we don't think tiwce about today in the world of wishbone
suspensions, MacPherson struts, rack and pinion steering, radial tires...


As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology
should
make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Good post!

No-Fault insurance was supposed to reduce the rates, but haven't either.
States in the Southwest, even with better year round driving conditions are
having soaring accident rates due to the influx of transients.

I wonder if we'll ever see action to improve drivers attention spans, given
the proliferation of distractions such as CD's, cell phones, kids in rear
car seats...