Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 06:04:33 -0400
Reply-To: "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: safe speeds, underpowered engines,
Vanagon diesel mortality (LVC, some Friday content)
alex:
two different safety aspects going on.
the potential for mayhem increases with the square of speed, so collisions
are much more destructive at higher speeds. also, time to react goes
approximately inversely with speed. these are examples of mechanical
things, and there aren't any possible arguments to the contrary.
unrelated to the above, sometimes driving faster to more or less blend in
with the flow of traffic may be safer from the standpoint of not creating
accident prone situations.
also, the so-called energy crisis is back, permanently until the end of
the oil and the industrial age in 30 - 50 years, and so it doesn't make
any difference how fast people drive, or how big the engines are. there is
no substitute for conventional petroleum as a primary energy source, and
any saving through conservation today will be used up shortly in the
struggle to pump the oil as fast as possible from smaller and ever more
depleted wells. this problem is driven by the population explosion,
economic growth and the work ethic, and cannot be solved through technical
means.
dan
>Hi Malcolm,
>
>Everything that I've read indicates that the highest accident rates (when
speed is at issue) are among the fastest 5% and slowest 10% of drivers.
Said another way, there is a larger percentage of slow drivers
contributing to accidents than fast drivers.
>
>Decades ago traffic engineers came up with the "85th percentile rule"
based on these findings. Engineers survey the speeds people travel on a
road in the absence of a speed limit. They then toss out the results from
the slowest 10% and the fastest 5% (the most accident prone groups). The
fastest speed among the remaining 85% of drivers becomes the speed limit.
So in most cases the speed limit should reflect the speed of the average
driver rather than contain it.
>
>Speed limits have become political however. The national 55 MPH speed
limit instituted in 1974 was a response to the energy crisis; it had
nothing to do with safety. Frequently citizens complain to politicians
about speeding cars on the street in which they live and expect the speed
limit to be lowered in order to prevent a tragedy. Never mind that the
people who are upsetting them are violating the existing speed limit.
These same complainers can be found speeding also - just in someone else's
neighborhood. Don't forget law enforcement, which in too many cases
lobbies for low speed limits under the banner of "speed kills", but really
wants to create opportunities for revenue. It's amazing that (by my
estimation) enforcement seems to be down now that limits are up; if speed
does kill, these higher limits would demand increased enforcement it would
seem. After all, now everyone is continuously flirting with death.
>
>The "safety nazis" as they are derisively called co-opted the 55 limit as
a way to save lives. People like Ralph Nader and Joan Claybrook of the
Carter administration led the charge. Never mind that they had only the
weakest of evidence to support their claims. In the late 1970's and the
1980's they asserted that vehicle fatalities had dropped steadily after
the institution of the 55 and that the limit should be preserved. The
energy shortages of the 1970's were gone, so the original reason for the
55 was gone too. Anyone who really looked into the figures however,
learned that the 55 MPH advocates were telling a half-truth. Yes,
fatalities did trend downward after the institution of the 55, but
fatalities have actually been trending downward since the 1920's.
>
>It would seem that if the "speed kills" mantra were true thousands of
additional fatalities would have been reported after the 65 MPH limit was
put in place in many States beginning in 1987. And that even more
fatalities would have accrued after the federal speed limit was repealed
entirely in 1996. This hasn't happened.
>
>Also consider that the number of miles each American drives per year has
increased steadily for at least the last 30 years. The number of drivers
and registered vehicles on the road has also increased dramatically as the
population has grown. At the same time, the number of miles of roadway has
increased at a far smaller rate. One would think that more vehicles
traveling more miles on about the same amount of roadway would equate to
far more fatalities. It hasn't happened.
>
>Automotive safety has increased by leaps and bounds one could argue.
Airbags have saved many lives (ended a few also). Cars with better impact
protection have proliferated. ABS brakes are now widespread, although they
haven't been proven to reduce accidents, most likely because most drivers
don't know how to use them properly. Higher levels of seat belt use and
increased DUI enforcement has also improved safety.
>
>On the other hand, the increase in population has created more business
and residential driveways along with more intersections on existing roads.
These are all new "opportunities", if you will, for collisions. High
levels of cell phone use and deafening stereos have literally pulled the
attention levels of many drivers down to the same as that of drunks.
>
>What ought to be taken away from this is that reducing your speed below
average is not a way to increase safety. As much as average drivers in
this country suck, they aren't suicidal. People often take stupid risks,
but since the vast majority of drivers don't kill themselves from driving
too fast on the road, the speed at which the vast majority drive isn't
crazy. Most stay within the boundaries of their piss-poor abilities. The
driver's who are extreme, both fast and slow, are statistically more
likely to be involved in accidents. Furthermore, speed is usually not the
fundamental cause of accidents; driver error is. And the "speed kills"
mentality doesn't hold much credibility. If true, why not just reduce the
speed limit to 5 MPH? Then everyone would be safe. The goal is to move
people in addition to goods and services as fast as possible at just a
little bit slower than the point where risk ramps up dramatically. If the
average motorist did drive in the high risk zone, the roads would be
desolate. So driving slower than average makes little sense from a safety
standpoint. As stated before, the slowest 10% of drivers are at a higher
risk for collisions than the average ones.
>
>**************************************************************************
************************************
>
>When it comes to engine power, rarely is too much dangerous all by
itself. It could be dangerous if a guy in a 911 Turbo flattens the
throttle in a school zone or parking garage, but that only happens when
the nut behind the wheel makes a moronic decision; the power of the car
isn't the problem.
>
>Low engine power can be dangerous. It is a problem in mountain villages
in Europe. Drivers with anemic tiny diesel engines pray for downhills to
gather speed so that they have enough momentum to climb the next grade
without dropping to 20 MPH. If a village in a valley interrupts mountain
grades, drivers of underpowered cars are loath to slow down and lose
precious speed. They will take risks to avoid slowing down. The person
behind the wheel is a fault here, but to a degree is forced into it by a
lack of power. I used to own a 48HP Dasher diesel and I know exactly what
this is about. In my case, a good run before a long uphill grade would
limit how hot my engine would get and how much I would need to slow down
when climbing.
>
>Let's compare a Vanagon Westfalia diesel with a Suzuki GSXR-1000.
Vanagon: 48hp, 3,700lbs. Suzuki: 160hp, 440lbs.
>
>Pulling out of a parking lot onto a busy street:
>Suzuki: Rider waits a few seconds and sees a 200-foot gap between cars.
When gap presents itself Suzuki rider accelerates into position, taking
1st gear to 10,000RPM and 50MPH in 2.5 seconds. Other drivers are a bit
startled at the fast movement but don't have to hit their brakes or do
anything else to accommodate the rider on the road.
>Vanagon diesel: Wait for an opening. Wait some more. Wait even more.
Minutes have passed, still waiting. No quarter-mile break in traffic
develops which will give room to pull onto the road without causing other
drivers to hit the brakes. Finally figure that if you want to get to your
daughter's high school graduation (she is currently 10) you will need to
pull into a gap too small for all-afternoon acceleration. Crawl into
traffic (floored). Dump truck driver chatting on the cell-phone to his
toothless girlfriend doesn't realize how slow this VW is and flattens it.
RIP Vanagon driver and the whole family too. Vanagon driver found to be at
fault by accident investigators for being too damn slow.
>
>Driving on the interstate:
>Suzuki: Rider can cruise at any speed he wants. He decides to move a
little faster than traffic so that he doesn't get forgotten in someone's
blind spot. If anyone tailgates and threatens to put him in danger he can
accelerate instantly to well over 100 MPH if he chooses - the tailgater is
now somewhere in last week. The rider is now relocated to a part of the
road where potential threats to his safety are fewer.
>Vanagon diesel: In order to avoid having to slow down for drivers
entering and exiting the freeway, the driver has moved into the middle
lane (we're assuming 3 lanes here). Vanagon driver figures, "I'm in the
center lane - I can stay here and not change lanes for the whole trip!"
Cars approach from behind at the 65MPH speed limit and have to slow down,
then find an opening in the left lane traffic and pass. Left lane traffic
is moving at over 70 though, so when 65MPH people pull into their lane
they have to slow down. Now the left lane is a wagon train of people all
tailgating one another, hoping that the 65MPH person displaced by the
Vanagon will pull to the right. Dozens of drivers are negatively affected.
Then an 18-wheeler looms in the Vanagon diesel's rear-view mirror. "Why
is this trucker tailgating?," Mr. Vanagon whines. Like most motorists, Mr.
Vanagon is oblivious to the fact that trucks are prohibited from the left
lane in his State; for a truck to pass properly on the left, it must use
the center lane. The Vanagon diesel is unknowingly blocking the passing
lane for trucks. The trucker continues to tailgate, hoping Mr. Vanagon
diesel learns the law. Finally after several miles of following, the
trucker moves into the right lane to pass. As he is passing some flea-
brain stopped in the break-down lane decides to pull onto the roadway to
accelerate. He doesn't use his brain and accelerate in the break-down lane
and THEN pull onto the roadway; that would mean merging at a safe speed,
clearly not acceptable. Besides, that corrugated pavement on the side of
the road is bumpy and could spill the monster Slurpee in the cup-holder.
Meanwhile, the trucker panics - he has been cut off in the middle of a
dangerous pass on the right that he was forced into by the Vanagon. The
trucker can't slow down enough for the break-down lane Slurpee guy and
swerves to the left, right over the family in the Vanagon and the 3 cars
backed up behind it. The road is closed to clean up the mess. !00,000
people inconvenienced. Vanagon driver RIP.
>
>Driving in the mountains:
>Suzuki: Rider can move along as fast as traffic allows. The road is
winding and passing zones are rare, but when they do appear the rider can
blast around slower traffic with minimal exposure time in the oncoming
traffic lane.
>Vanagon driver: A row of frustrated vacationers is stacked up behind Mr.
Vanagon. They become inpatient. Soon Muffie guns her Saab Turbo to get
around the smoking van. A guy in a Mitsubishi follows her into the pass
thinking he has enough time. After all, he has to get around this damned
van. The Saab barely makes the pass. A corner is coming and Muffie slows
down closing the gap between her and the Vanagon. The passing zone has
long since ended and Mitsubishi guy has nowhere to go - he can either have
a head on collision with oncoming traffic or attempt to punt the Vanagon
off the right side of the road. Big accident - Vanagon driver dies along
with the rest of the family. Three others dead, road closed for 8 hours.
6,000 people inconvenienced. Vanagon driver RIP.
>
>Final Point:
>Larger engines do not automatically use more fuel. GM is actually very
good at massaging MPG out of large engines. The Corvette tested long-term
by a car magazine recently averaged in the mid-20's. I rented a 3,700lb.
Pontiac Bonneville and drove it cross-country stuffed with luggage and
tools. 26 MPG at 75 MPH. BMW 6-cylinders deliver good mileage. And the
list goes on. Sometimes a large engine loafing at low RPM will use less
fuel than a small engine being thrashed to within an inch of its life.
>
>Larger engines are not worse for the environment in many respects. EPA
rules mandate the maximum acceptable levels of various tailpipe and
evaporative emissions on a per mile basis. This means that a Cadillac
DeVille can't emit any more pollutants per mile than the average VW. The
only environmental downsides to large engined vehicles relates to their
levels of fuel consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions, which
aren't regulated by the EPA.
>
>-Alex
| 
