If I don't use the cruise control, 90 MPH happens and I don't even feel it..

I can handle High speeds, i just cannot handle tickets...

So I use My "ticket control" option..

i think 90 mph is the top speed cruise control works in the Z.

I know that song. Didn't it get used as the theme to a sitcom? Pretty good band.

I've heard that driving 5-10 below below the speed limit was found to be more highly associated with accidents than driving 5-10 above, but it's not as if there aren't car wrecks on the Autobahn...

I'm going to ignore your advice and do some research anyway :p -- thanks for posting :tiphat:

EDIT: Here's a NHTSA.gov link with a pdf of some findings and conclusions -- they mention, and do not dismiss, Cimino's work, but also note that speed changes and other factors matter quite a bit.

Anyway, more contemporary (from 2005) findings to muse over. Check it out if so inclined :tiphat:

Well the essence of the speed argument is that there are two ways to look at the speed factor. Speed definitely does increase accident mortality. A crash from cruising at 90 is going to be more fatal than a crash from cruising at 55, that's just physics. The counter-arguments don't deny that. The other side of the argument though, is that restricting speeds leads to traffic patterns and driver behaviors that are more likely to cause an accident in the first place.

Yea I agree with this 100%

Reported!

:ban: that spammer p o s

lol he posted facts and cited a study. Where's your proof to counter his? :bowrofl:

Unfortunate Cookie
 

Very cute comment, and considerable truth. The slow driver is often someone who is incapable of dealing quickly with what happens in front of them, which is why they are going slowly, but also surprised by things that overtake them from behind. Twice the danger. Plus the autos overtaking have to deal with the slow driver. Thus more lane-changing going on, braking, evaluating gaps in traffic, etc.

My theory re why insurance company stats show that the safer drivers are those traveling 10MPH FASTER than the traffic around them is that they have only half the world to worry about: What's happening in front of them. Things that occur behind them are no longer in their universe; left behind, as it were. They are not generally being overtaken.

May be an erroneous theory, but it's all mine!

Rational Discussion
 

"Your a nut. And disagree with everything you say."

That's a cogent, substantive, well-thought-out argument. Thanks!

JORDO!

You say "here's the link" but I find no link. I would really appreciate said link, as I've spent much time trying to find the old Cimino study.

Maxwell Halsey
 

That was Maxwell Halsey's argument long, long ago. Highway designs and laws which create speed changes are the major cause of accidents. His traffic safety philosophy was to do whatever it took to keep the traffic moving. I think it's been proved many times to be the correct argument.

hahahah, glad you liked my fortune cookie. :tup: it really does piss people off when someone's driving at or just under speed limit. reality is, this heightend tension causes people to take unnecessary risks and cause accidents.

so a person that appears to be having a bad day (one can tell from just their driving) and then gets 'trapped' behind some anus going 2-3mph under the speed limit, i back off a good 50yrds or so. :icon17:

You need to come to the Bay area...

People are angry fools..

If you do not have rules of speed, and stop signs, you will have Chaos, no matter what your reports say..

It is the attitude and mind set of the driver that is the problem...Not the slower speed.

It is all about EMOTION, that causes wrecks.. People are not paying attention. or are too selfish and angry, that cause the accidents...

Not the slower drivers...And the argument that driver's that drive slow due so because they need to because they cannot handle the speed ?hahaha.

I drive slow to protect my License...Get to the track with me and good luck keeping up...And if you do, you will be driving your car at the limit, and well done..

"bay area people are angry fools." noted! :tup:

Well not all of them...I am the observer...Man, back in my younger days ?

I was both... Now I am pretty happy and pretty smart.

With the state of the economy, it is like people are driving like it is near Christmas. you know how people drive near the holidays ...

They are not concentrating on other things and they are angry, and mean..

Since i retired at 50, I have a different attitude, but before that , i drove 200 miles a day on average at work, so i have some experience with year round driving.

As I said in my BIG fortune cookie earlier...I think a big part is the emotion and mind set of a person.

If you are levelheaded when you drive, you are the better driver at all speeds.

Just my opinion...Not anything more.:tiphat:

very nice explanation indeed. :tup: that is the same way here in the mornings when there are fools driving 2-3mph under the speed limit. everyone wants to get to work faster. not sure why. i dont want to go to work faster....

great to hear your retirement at 50. i think you are the envy of many many people. :tup:

He attached a PDF document that cited the old Cimino study, but also some newer research, which noted that accidents occurred as speed varied from the norm of the road, and while more accidents occurred when drivers went much slower than the norm, the ones that occurred at much faster than the norm were more often fatal.

You left out the distracted drivers who cause accidents, and they tend to drive more slowly than normal. Yes, slower drivers cause accidents. This has been my main objection to speed cameras for a long time. When people know there is a speed camera, they will speed all the way up to it and then drastically reduce their speed to avoid a ticket. If the motorist behind them doesn't know about the camera, they may rear-end the other driver or be forced to swerve. I've seen that more times than I can count. A state trooper is a better deterrent to speeding, in my opinion, than a speed camera.

Also, the idea that a yield is better than a stop is also quite logical. Replacing red lights with traffic circles has reduced fatalities in a few key locations in Maryland, including the main traffic circle in Towson that links Dulaney Valley Rd to a couple other main arteries. The number of fender benders increased, but the number of severe accidents involving bodily harm went to practically nil.

Thanks. I tried to give my best explanation.:tup:

And Thanks about the retirement. A few things, Don't be too envious. I have some serious medical conditions that MADE me retire early..Brain, and Heart stuff..Do not be envious...You don't want this stuff..

True I planned to retire at 57 due to long term planning, but the health issues made it happen sooner. moral is start early and have a plan B. Also I "yinged" when 2006 to 2008 "yanged", and I was one of the Lucky/smart few that were on the winning end..I lost in the bubble of the 1980's, and I saw this one coming..

And to Shado Quad..Around this area, yield signs would not work, people are just plain selfish and crazy..But we can agree to disagree..:tiphat::hello:

The resort/Home I am bidding on ,is in an area of no traffic , and a much more laid back area..Here people commute long distances to major cities are they are in a constant "road Rage"..:mad:

So as I said before, I just stay out of the way since I have nowhere to be in a hurry, unless on the Track..:yum:

I drive slow to protect my License...Get to the track with me and good luck keeping up...And if you do, you will be driving your car at the limit, and well done..

Hi, Bucketlist!,

1) As I said twice, "One Size Does Not Fit All." That you are outside the two-standard-deviation limit of normalcy does not mean that the statistics are inaccurate. I'll stand by the hard data. Personal anecdotal information is not proof.

2) That you believe yield signs wouldn't work doesn't prove they wouldn't! The hard data, research done decades ago, indicates they would work. People may be, despite your opinion, more rational than you think.

3) I'm very sorry for your medical conditions. Hang in there. The three main bad boys tend to be blood pressure, sugar, and cholesterol in that order. Some debate about the latter, but research goes on. That there are some who smoke, drink, and live to be 90 doesn't disprove the statistics, does it?

4) Your explanation for your driving makes perfect sense--for you. Don't expect your situation to apply to others. Recognize and PERMIT other people to deviate from your beliefs. That's the American way.

5) As noted, unreasonable laws tend to produce rebellious behavior in THE AVERAGE DRIVER. You can't micromanage everything. I note that this is a political problem in regard to the economy as well as traffic regulations.

6) You SOUND rather hostile despite protestations. Anger takes its toll on the body, too, and should be avoided.

7) Thanks again for the rational discussion! I much enjoyed your posts.

--SailFree

PS: Regarding retirement, unless it is FORCED by medical problems (doesn't seem likely if you drive on the race track), then I discourage it. Too many go to seed and their health deteriorates when they stop working.

"He attached a PDF document that cited the old Cimino study, but also some newer research, which noted that accidents occurred as speed varied from the norm of the road, and while more accidents occurred when drivers went much slower than the norm, the ones that occurred at much faster than the norm were more often fatal."
--Shadoquad

Thanks! Silly me, I just assumed "link" meant the usual HTML link to the government website. I went back and saw and downloaded the PDF file, but haven't read it yet.

I'll pay special attention to see if the data indicates MORE accidents and MORE deaths from faster drivers, or is it just the obvious kinetic energy story wherein accidents at higher speeds cause more injury? That part should be a given. The question would be where this equates to more actual deaths. If you have fewer accidents, that may mean a lower death rate in faster drivers (which was suggested by prior research) even though each accident might carry a higher risk. In the military, we stratified risks by both severity and likelihood, which I would want the government to do also.

Perhaps "Cirillo" is the name I was after--my memory had "Cimino" stuck there, which may be why I was never able to find the article again. Thanks much for the link to the article.

I note the article contains, in its "overview" summary pages, some LIES. It says, for example, that "both studies show the lowest accident rates when vehicles were traveling at the mean speed." This is clearly not true for the Cirillo data on the freeways, which matches my recollection of the safest drivers travel 10MPH FASTER than the mean speeds. The Cirillo graph definitely bottoms out at 10MPH over mean.

Thus it would appear the police would get more bang for their buck in highway safety improvement by giving tickets to those going UNDER the speed limit by 10MPH and ignoring those going 10MPH faster.

But that's too fact-and-logic based for politicians who create the laws and for law enforcement which sometimes has no leeway, just following orders, and frequently doesn't really delve into the data.

I note that both Solomon and Cirillo noted the dangers of intersections and slowing or stopped traffic, thus agreeing with the same data from Maxwell Halsey and other highway safety researchers from over 50 years ago. Which brings to mind the question: Why do they have to keep doing the same research and coming to the same conclusions over and over? Do they not know that this prior research exists? And once the research is done, WHY DO THEY IGNORE IT? I know precisely why: THEY DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE IT! It would give them no excuse for more traffic laws, stop signs, and speeding tickets!

I recall a study done by some bright young doctors back around 1980 which indicated that people with sudden unexplained fatigue were at a high risk of having a heart attack in the next few weeks. They thought they had discovered something new. I recalled that, back in 1968, a Doctor Nixon had reported the exact same findings in The Lancet, a British medical journal. It's apparent that everybody thinks history begins the year they were born and that nothing important ever occurred before they thought of it.

I note the West and Dunn graph, which is then summarized BUT WITH THE SAME SORT OF LIES. The summary says the crash risk was greatest for vehicles traveling 2 standard deviations above the mean speed. Clearly NOT TRUE, as the risk of crash rises much steeper at SLOWER speeds than at higher speeds, and the risk was GREATEST at ZERO speed--when the vehicle was STOPPED.

This again fits with all of us who note the risks of causing the traffic to slow down.

It's clear that the NHTSA is not above blatant lying which is easily disproved by their own graphs. Reminds me of current politics.

dang this thread's turning into a history class... :icon17:

interesting, nontheless!

bucket- hope you feel better. :tup: and yah, im probably going to retire when im ready, but then will still do some freelance stuff until the day i die. :icon17: something about work. it keeps my mind in focus. focus is good.

I note the summary statement that highway fatalities declined from 1973 to 1974 and that they attributed this to the national 55MPH speed limit. What they ignore is that that 55MPH speed limit was later rescinded and that highway fatalities CONTINUED TO DECLINE as measured by fatalities per 100,000 miles driven. Much of the decline in fatalities could thus be attributable to better tires, better brakes, better overall vehicle design, not the speed limits.

Older data (again from the 50s) indicated that, on rural roads, one could travel 3 TIMES FARTHER at 60MPH than at 35MPH before a fatal accident. Speed and kinetic energy are not the sole factors here, certainly.

Apologies, kenchan! I realize that data can get tiresome. Opinions are so much more fun, even if blatantly false.

my opinions are not false though. it's reality from real world experience... although i do spice it up a little for entertainment purposes. :icon17:

Sailfree, but the study does denote that the early studies you cited were before the days where highway on/off ramps and passing lanes were common. I believe that makes a difference.

we are talking about combustion engines, not steam engines right? :icon17:

[Ok, getting this thread back on track, ie: how Fast the Z feels...]

... just wait till you modify it a little and get a bump in HP and Torque. I have not seen reasonable gas mileage from the car since I did my upgrades. I just CAN'T keep my foot from pushing that oh-so-responsive hammer down. Couple that with the "rail" effect which is even more pronounced with upgraded sway bars, and it can all be summed up by quoting a female passengers who went out on a ride with me: "it was Orgasmic!"... :tup:

First Z car stuff. I am still getting used to the "smoother" feel of the Z car.

It doesn't "feel" as Fast as the 350Z, but I hear that it is.. Just something I will be checking out.

Hey There.:tiphat:

Yes,

One and two are just my Personal opinion, so that is not any hard data..

On three, My Cholesterol, Sugar, and Blood Pressure are very good, and no smoking, Drugs or Alcohol..

On four, yes to each his own. I would never tell anyone that my way fits them..

On five, I just think people are more tightly wrapped these days due to many reasons, and it shows in their driving.

On number six, actually no anger here, I am so blessed in Life it is not funny..First, i shouldn't even be alive, and then I am financially able to enjoy life, so sorry if it seems like I am angry..

On number seven, yes I love to discuss all kinds of stuff. We don't have to agree on everything.. Who am i to say what is right ? :tiphat:

On the P.S. I had a Major Heart Infection (endocarditis) that turned into a Brain Lesion that caused a Seizure/Stroke.. Now that I am medication things have become better, but I refuse to get back into the Rat Race since I can afford to Retire. And yes, the Hot Rods and other things keep me busy so I don't just rot..That is why i built my Pro Touring car at 50, so i can keep the juices flowing and harass the young guns on the race track..I am not looking to beat them , but to just have fun..

Thanks for the kind words, and your insight..I love brainstorming with intelligent people..:hello:

Mike

Spice ? Haha , you are Cayenne Pepper or Habaneros...

But that is what I like about you...

I've driven in the Bay Area (a lot over the past 5 years actually, I end up spending a week there for meetings once a quarter and driving a rent car). I get clogged up in packs across all 4-5 lanes or whatever of the 101, and it's all Priuses and other eco-cars going 10 under the limit and trying to hypermile or whatever. Bunch of stoners who don't care how long the drive takes, so long as they get 0.2% better mileage and don't have to think or react to anything, just follow the bumper in front of you as slow as you can.

They try to make everyone save fuel..

They hate me...I own Oil stocks, I have an F150 that gets 16MPG, and a Z/28 that gets 4 to 9 MPG, and the 370Z....

I am hated by the Prius crowd.....Just the way I like it...True granola bars with a license...They "occupy" the road, hahaha

MD has a high prii population.

Any time I see one, or a Smart Fortwo, I downshift and stomp as I roll by. Partly as a nod to environmentalists, but partly as a way of saying, "Look what I can do. Don't you wish you could do this?" :bowrofl:

Teehee!

"They hate me...I own Oil stocks, I have an F150 that gets 16MPG..."

Hi, Bucketlist,

This is a true story--right up to the last sentence. I once hired a gentleman who cut down trees, and the second day he brought his wife--and three children, all around 5-7 years old. They had named the kids after pickup trucks. One of the little girls was named Sierra after the Chevy, one Dakota after the Dodge. And the little boy was named F150 after the Ford.

When I was about 10, I was watching the nightly local news, and there was a lady being interviewed. Her name was, and I am in no way kidding, "Velveeta".