Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only 3% of drivers get into accidents each year, and only 1.5% of drivers/passengers get injured, with less than .0001% killed. That means that 97-98.5% of drivers don't have an issue. We're chasing ever smaller returns with ever more draconian laws that mostly just punish people who aren't having a problem anyhow. We DO take drunk driving seriously and yet half of those fatalities are still attributed to drunk driving. There are harsh consequences for intentionally killing somebody, yet we still have people killing other people on purpose. Harsher penalties and more draconian laws will not cure the problem and will have the unintended consequence of going after peopel who are enjoying driving.
The main problem with reckless is one person's safe, but spirited, driving is another person's reckless. The only way to be 100% safe is to stop driving altogether and I won't support that, as a car enthusiast.
I agree with electrician, we need better driver education, but even then, we will still get ******* drivers that pass the tests but drive like you described.
You make some good points.
Its like how drivers are always held at fault for pedestrian mistakes. I live in NYC and they just reduced the speed limit on all streets to 25mph! They cited the amount of accidents resulting in pedestrian deaths as the reason.
Now I can tell you that most pedestrians in NYC have zero regard for traffic laws. They cross whenever the hell they feel like it then look at you as if you're in the wrong for not slamming on your brakes despite you having a green light. Instead of constantly cracking down on drivers, why not target the pedestrians who habitually jaywalk and cross the streets in a reckless manner rather than the drivers who by the most part are obeying traffic laws.
yup, just as I thought, you can't drive and think ono one else can, either. We have barely .0001% of drivers getting killed and you want to punish 99.9999% of drivers just to try and reduce that .0001% even further. Not going to happen unless you stop people from driving altogether. Sorry.
And here's your stupidity in action: you think that driving at 55mph is safe, but 56 in a 55 is not. Your logic falls apart when it's shown that fatalities and the like do not go up in those areas where speed limits are increased, which means that speed is not the problem. You think that arbitrary speed limits made by lawmakers (and not engineers) have any bearing on safety and that exceeding said arbitrary speed limits is what's killing people. It's not.
In 38 years of driving high performance cars, I've only been in a couple accidents, and they were from people rear ending me at 5-10 mph at stop lights due to not paying attention. In both cases they were paying attention to things on the side of the road instead of what was in front of them.
Proper driver's ed would stress car control and paying attention to what's going on around you, which will reduce accidents far greater than making more draconian laws and harsher penalties. Why is THIS solution the one that busybodies like you don't want? Why is it that you idiots skip wanting better driver education and go straight for more laws and harsher penalties? Solve the problem, not band-aid the symptoms for once in your closed minded little life.
So your response is an ad hominem attack to assume that I can't drive well because I posited an idea that you don't like. That we should have stricter driving laws and/or better enforcement of the ones that we do have.
So how does that work? Is everyone who wants safer driving automatically a bad driver themselves or only when it's convenient to your "argument"?
"you think that driving at 55mph is safe, but 56 in a 55"
Where exactly did I say that?
You misinterpreted my comment about following driving laws to create a ridiculous strawman argument.
I'm guessing that a car "enthusiast" isn't driving 1mph over the speed limit. I'm guessing they are doing more than that. So they basically made a decision at some point that their personal driving skills were better than "mere civilians" and they have the right to speed excessively and put everyone else at risk.
Oh and better driver's ed isn't going to accomplish crap!
The problem is entitled idiots like yourself who think that laws should only apply to other people.
These are the same people who see no problem with speeding their hobby cars, texting while driving, drinking while driving, etc. They all have one thing in common. They all think they can handle it and just like driving laws, accidents happen to "other people".
Until they don't.
But sadly, it's often innocent people who end up paying the price. People who are just trying to get from point A to point B like that driver in the right hand lane that I saw nearly get creamed by a large pickup. I'm sure he thinks he is a great driver too.
So then how do we differentiate "reckless" driving in terms of fixing blame and punishment, from simple driver error?
Is 56 in a 55 reckless? Or 60 in a 55? After the accident has occured, can we reconstruct whether the car was in excess of the speed limit, if it was traveling within a couple MPH? Can we even rely on black box data when we know there is a small standard margin of error in a vehicle's own odometer?
What if speed is not an issue? What if it is an "unsafe" lane change? Or potentially someone disobeying a traffic control device? The black box may not be at all helpful in this.
Even better yet, have we determined how many, if ANY, of these death's are being caused by reckless driving?
Throwing out a highway death statistics and blaming it all on "reckless driving" is a nice straw dog you set up to knock over with your proposed criminal punishment system modeled on DUI laws. Your yet to prove a significant number of these deaths are really related to reckless driving, much less whether any tougher laws or consequences would do anything to reduce or prevent these deaths.
I am not an advocate for reckless driving or breaking of laws. I am an advocate for fair and balanced civil and criminal laws, and not wasting time, effort, or taxpayer money just for political feel good goals. Maybe if you came back with a more solid case that reckless driving is causing these, and upping penalties would be a remedy, people would be more open to it.
As it is, driver error and lack of skill do seem to be a far greater "menace" to safety on the roads. With anything, greater training tends to improve skill and ability and as such, advocating for greater training and standards to drive does seem to be a far more effective proposal at reducing accidents on the road.
I'm glad I don't drive a box truck anymore in the Boston area, back when I did the drivers were nuts now they are even worse.
People that drunk drive, are drugged, text, speeders, are careless, and or are just plain stupid should all be cracked down on. MY LIFE is at risk! Not to mention the unliscensed uninsured driver.
NOW massachusetts is considering giving illegal immigrants provisional drivers licenses... They drive anyway so maybe by giving them a license they will also get a bit or training and be responsible... maybe.
Another problem; Where I live now we have a majority of retired folk who are on medication and shouldn't be driving but still do. The other day one confused the gas for brake and crashed into a store front. He had his license revoked on the spot.
What is sad is usually the person who caused the accident due to being an idiot is the one who walks away, meanwhile you or me are being pulled from the wreckage.
So then how do we differentiate "reckless" driving in terms of fixing blame and punishment, from simple driver error?
Is 56 in a 55 reckless? Or 60 in a 55? After the accident has occured, can we reconstruct whether the car was in excess of the speed limit, if it was traveling within a couple MPH? Can we even rely on black box data when we know there is a small standard margin of error in a vehicle's own odometer?
What if speed is not an issue? What if it is an "unsafe" lane change? Or potentially someone disobeying a traffic control device? The black box may not be at all helpful in this.
Even better yet, have we determined how many, if ANY, of these death's are being caused by reckless driving?
Throwing out a highway death statistics and blaming it all on "reckless driving" is a nice straw dog you set up to knock over with your proposed criminal punishment system modeled on DUI laws. Your yet to prove a significant number of these deaths are really related to reckless driving, much less whether any tougher laws or consequences would do anything to reduce or prevent these deaths.
I am not an advocate for reckless driving or breaking of laws. I am an advocate for fair and balanced civil and criminal laws, and not wasting time, effort, or taxpayer money just for political feel good goals. Maybe if you came back with a more solid case that reckless driving is causing these, and upping penalties would be a remedy, people would be more open to it.
As it is, driver error and lack of skill do seem to be a far greater "menace" to safety on the roads. With anything, greater training tends to improve skill and ability and as such, advocating for greater training and standards to drive does seem to be a far more effective proposal at reducing accidents on the road.
I did not "blame it all" on reckless driving as far as the statistics go. I simply asked a question.. how much of those statistics were preventable and how much were due to factors that the driver cannot prevent such as car malfunction or sudden weather hazards. Before you accuse others of strawman arguments, check your own!
I don't see how greater training helps much when someone decided to answer a text while driving, take their new hobby car out for a high-speed spin or decide to drive like a maniac because they didn't manage their time well and are now late for work or something. People will apply themselves to do well in the training and it will all go out the window when they are on the road.
I think the best solution is technology. The GPS trackers the insurance companies use as well as the increased use of cameras.
It isn't "feel good" legislation either. Basically what it is, is entitled people who don't like to be held accountable for their actions lashing out at proposals which would do precisely that.
Maybe I'm guilty of prejudice, but why is it that seemingly 95% of the "nutty" drivers, as described in the first post, are almost always people driving pickup trucks or SUVs? I guess some would cite plenty of drivers of little or sporty cars seen doing the same thing, but in my case, at least 95% of the time, it's people driving pickup trucks or SUVs. It has inspired me to be dislike a person based on nothing more than they drive an SUV or pickup truck, unless I know them and know them to not be a "bully" type of driver.
The thing to me is, whatever the vehicle, there is a sometimes fine line between being "aggressive," which I think it GOOD actually, vs being over-the-top. I can tell you I'm on the road to do one thing--get where I'm going. Anything and anybody that impedes this is, to me, the enemy. They are to be removed from the roads completely. To that end, I think people who drive slow in the fast lane should be removed from the roads, as should people who take so long to go when the light is green that barely 2 cars get through, and add to that people driving 20 below the speed limit on windy "scenic" roads and refusing to let the "parade" of cars behind them by. Quit putting the onus on other people to be tolerant of that sort of thing. It's inexcusable slothfulness.
Also, get rid of funeral processions, if I want to show respect to someone who's passed on I will do so by going to the funeral itself. Otherwise, I didn't know the person, it has nothing to do with me, and I've got somewhere to be. Also, seriously ticket "rubber neckers." I see an accident, I go around it. I didn't know them, and besides, the police are on their way, and I'll just get in the way.
Now, all of that being said, I do think sometimes people jump on easy targets like drinking or cell-phone based distractions, when to me there are many ways you can harm another person in your driving. That you did so ought to be the focus, not HOW you did so, to where we hear the word "cell phone" and automatically jump to conclusions. Sometimes the person with the phone in their hand is NOT the one who caused the accident, and to automatically assume they were is not correct. Sometimes it's those jerks who pull out in front of you at the last second, and then of course they turn off 3 seconds later and/or go 20 below the speed limit. If they get hit from doing that, I say THEY caused the accident.
Also, get rid of funeral processions, if I want to show respect to someone who's passed on I will do so by going to the funeral itself. Otherwise, I didn't know the person, it has nothing to do with me, and I've got somewhere to be
Wow
Let 'em all walk to the funeral home, eh, Sparky? After all, you've got somewhere to be (no doubt discovering cold fusion or curing cancer) and they are taking up space on "your" roads.
There is always a tradeoff between safety and convenience. Banning motor vehicles entirely, would be conducive to road-safety. But it would be rather inconvenient.
The value of human life is not infinite. If you pardon the crassness, human life can be "valued" in actuarial terms. This is how insurance-policies are written. If we place an infinite value on human life, then no behavior increasing the risks of accidents could be countenanced. Then society grinds to a halt.
In the tradeoff between safety and convenience, sometimes it is unwise to so accentuate safety, that life becomes inconvenient.
Personally I'm not the least aghast at the annual number of traffic deaths, given the number of people driving and the number of miles driven. Even if the odds of getting killed on the road were 10X higher, or even 100X, I'd still drive. And if somebody told me: "Ohio_peasant, how would you like to become a statistic?" Well, my retort would be: "We all have to go one way or another; perhaps my time has come".
The intent is different ;so different law. Why would anyone say drunk driving is taken seriously, Second offense for instance is a felon in Texas. But repeated they are plea bargained to a misdemeanor. Even then reckless driving can vary much like assaults to have one punishment.Also remember that the result of conduct matters in law and both can end in assault with a motor vehicle or homicide .
Reckless driving should be treated the same as drunk driving, in other words, treated FAR more seriously than it is.
I was driving in heavy rain yesterday, in the middle lane. A pickup truck came speeding up, swerving in and out of lanes, he made it over to the far right lane, attempting to pass on the right and misjudged the car in front of him, slammed on his breaks and nearly collided. The car he almost rammed was just driving the speed limit, in the far right lane and nearly got severely rear-ended. Then he just takes off up the road, in and out of lanes, driving like a complete nut.
Sad thing is, this isn't unique. Nearly everyone witnesses something crazy, stupid or reckless nearly every time they get behind the wheel. It's just accepted as a part of life.
I really wish we would, as a society, treat this much more seriously, with much harsher consequences than we do. To me, that pickup driver should not be allowed to have a license. People who drive like maniacs with no regard for others should not be allowed to drive.
We lose something like 30,000 people a YEAR to traffic fatalities. That is roughly TEN TIMES the fatalities of 9/11/2001 EVERY SINGLE YEAR. To say nothing of the people injured or handicapped.
How many of those fatalities were the result of reckless driving, distracted driving, drunk driving and how many were related to impaired driving conditions, such as weather, car failure or an unexpected medical condition?
I'm going to guess that if you factor out the stupid people who choose to drive drunk, distracted or like reckless a-holes, that number goes WAY down.
I just wonder when we, as a society get collectively pissed off enough to say enough is enough.
My son just got a reckless driving ticket on Thanksgiving morning. It was his first ticket ever, and he is almost 22. He was trying to get home for Thanksgiving, was 1 hour from home, and nodded off, drifted off the road, and rolled the car 4 times. Car is totaled, but that was the only damage - he didn't hit anything other than the ground. He had barely a scratch, thank God. He wasn't driving like "a maniac", but it was definitely reckless to be driving when you have not had enough sleep. We have had to hire a lawyer, because reckless driving here in this state is considered a criminal offense. You HAVE to have a lawyer (or they appoint one for you). There are 11 categories of reckless driving here...and they all get the same treatment - all just as serious. I don't know how other states treat these tickets, but here, it is very serious business.
I don't think your complaint is not with the treatment of the ticketed offense, it's with the committing of the offense. And for that, I guess you just need better driver training and awareness. And maybe more cops!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
