Re: Driving Pet Peeves

In article <dooshDALzv1.BAw@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:

>Bruce Augenstein <rba@augenstein.ultranet.com> wrote:
>)Tom, any motorist who respects the law is a danger to his or her fellow 
>)drivers. Motorists know the speed laws are ridiculous, and drive accordingly. 

>How exactly do motorists "know" this?  Why is the person who is obeying
>the law the one who is creating the danger?  If your speed is too high to
>safely share the road with all reasonable road users (including bicyclists),
>then your speed IS TOO HIGH.

They know this because they can all take curves at a minimum 50% over the 
posted speed without anyone in the car becoming uncomfortable. They know this 
because they tend to drive in a way that makes them feel safe and in control 
of the vehicle, and when they look at the speedometer it's at minimum 10 or 15 
mph over the posted limit. They know this because the speed limits on major 
roadways used to be 10 or 15 mph higher than they are now.

The person obeying the law is creating the danger in a way that has been 
already explained. To recap, it's because they're an obstruction, because 
the other 99.9% of us are speeding, and we're speeding because we know 
we're still safe while doing so, except for the people who either 
shouldn't be out there because they can't go with the flow, or those who 
are making a statement. 

I agree that our speeds are "TOO HIGH" to share the roads safely with 
cyclists. They're not going to change anytime soon.

Tom, you asked because you wish to argue the point. I am *not* taking a stand 
here. I am reporting the facts. I don't give the south end of a north 
facing rat about arguing the point. If you'd like to win an argument, 
fine. Consider yourself the victor. 

You, of course, *are* taking a stand, and  that's fine with me, but stop 
making this an argument.

>)It isn't that anybody objects to cyclists. We object to 
anyone who is an >)obstruction.

>I object to anyone who insists on driving 10MPH over the speed limit, and
>the law agrees with me.
Tom, as I 've already explained, we don't care about the law that you care 
about. Your objection to 99.9% of the driving population is duly noted.

>)As a cyclist, if you insist on equal rights to road use, you will get 
>)statistically killed, or cause someone else (typically a motorist) to be 
>)to be statistically killed.

>Actually, riding on the roads, using the vehicular rules of the road, is
>the safest way known to cycle.
This doesn't address the point in any way that I can see. The fact that 
cyclists can get hurt or killed more often while driving on the sidewalks 
doesn't mean that mixing cyclists and motorists is in any way safe.

>)Many cyclists quote the law under these circumstances, which is just so much 
>)silliness when we all know exactly what goes on out on the roads, why people 
>)get killed, and why speed differential is so much a part of this.

>Please provide some statistics which show that speed differential is so
>much a part of people getting killed on the roads.

Sorry, I have none, and wouldn't quote them if I did, since they're so easily 
skewed. However, if you'd care to delve into any auto safety reports from 
NHTSA or even the insurance nazis (IIHS, et al), they'll all make the same 
point over and over about speed differential.

See a back issue of Car & Driver (sometime in '94) quoting some NHTSA folks, 
or go directly to NHTSA.

Speed differential is an absolute linchpin of most published safety reports.