Americans Don't Drive

"cuts_off_prius" (cutsoffprius) 12/18/2013 at 22:39 • Filed to: None

5

20

A great read, full of passion, on passive drivers. You guys will love this.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/12/18/ame…

getchapopcorn > cuts_off_prius 12/18/2013 at 22:52

2

For all the talk about how Americans can't drive, I would say our insurance premiums being wildly lower than pretty much any other country (especially given tha we live in an overly litigious country) would pretty much put that myth to bed.

To quote Marshall Eriksen, "Lawyered."

dogisbadob > cuts_off_prius 12/18/2013 at 22:53

0

Awesome story

cuts_off_prius > getchapopcorn 12/18/2013 at 22:57

2

That's just part of making driving more accessible to people in our country due to driving being a necessity because of major sprawl. Doesn't mean necessarily mean we're safer than those other countries. Most European countries have a lower fatality rate per billion km driven than the US. Not to mention Canada and Australia having lower rates as well. I mean it's not a blood bath out here but, you know, we could do better.

NinetyQ > cuts_off_prius 12/18/2013 at 23:04

2

I don't buy it.

Each of those examples are exceptions rather than the norm. Overall, American traffic works well. And much of the time, let's face it, attention is not entirely necessary to drive safely. Wide open straight highway for miles and miles aren't really the kind of place that inspires active driving. Set cruise, put on some tunes, and relax. You'll live longer.

I also disagree with the idea that to "really drive" you have to "use" all of the car's horsepower and handling potential. Bullshit. The advantages of a powerful, well-handling car are felt in average-speed driving. You could drive a K-car as fast as an M3 driver commuting home, but the M3 driver will be able to accelerate more smoothly and at lower RPMs. He can also take corners more confidently and smoothly even if he's never testing the limits of grip.

There's no need to "hoon" on public roads, but the improvements in technology, power, and handling abilities seen in modern cars help make driving a more peaceful experience. To many, that's what it's all about.

Just because I'd rather drive a Studebaker Avanti than a Toyota Camry doesn't mean that I can blame those who disagree with me for "not being drivers."

rotarykid > cuts_off_prius 12/18/2013 at 23:32

0

Taking my fairly mint condition rx8 off the road.

I like driving my beater el camino better. Yeah fly back and fourth with those fucking bench seats. My speaker need to be adjusted if they fall over in the back. There no radio. I havnt even tried figuring out if the fucking thing could have ac that works. The paints in rough shape and every women I met asked why I didnt pick her up in rx8. I like her better. And also rich kids can't buy what I have with that el camino.

Anyways back on point. As much I love my rotary, the feeling of going back to the basic is unreal. No computers.

aquila121 > cuts_off_prius 12/18/2013 at 23:58

0

"No one else can get around the rolling roadblock without being aggressive . A snappy – and safe – passing maneuver momentarily over the double yellow is an outrage of Auschwitzian proportions. Eyes bug out, horns honk and high beams flash.

The penalty for not being sufficiently passive."

I'm sorry, but no matter how much you hate being stuck behind two cars covering both lanes at the same speed, crossing the double-yellow centerline is not something I agree with. Ever. This sort of hypothetical argument is not how you get me on your side.

Biased Plies > cuts_off_prius 12/19/2013 at 00:22

0

That was a great read. Haven't got anything else to add because the author is just correct.

Biased Plies > NinetyQ 12/19/2013 at 00:29

0

He's not advocating that you hoon or use all of your own or your car's potential on public roads. He's lamenting the fact that you need to use so little of it to get by. He's disgruntled by the fact that modern cars take away the need to be attentive, both through driver aids and the performance capabilities of the cars.

More used to be required of drivers to keep traffic moving and not become a nuisance. Laziness has become the norm instead of being frowned upon. Few people pride themselves on being a good driver, they put in the minimum effort that required of them.

That is what the author is getting at.

NinetyQ > Biased Plies 12/19/2013 at 00:37

0

But why? Why work harder to accomplish the same thing? I'm saying this as someone who has driven a car from 1952 for more than a thousand miles. It's fun, and I get that. But primitive brakes, poor acceleration, and more don't really _add_ to the experience per se, so much as create a different one. I love driving that car because of what it is. There's a lot of theatre about it. But that doesn't mean we should lament that cars are fundamentally better now.

They are better at power. Better at handling. Better at getting us to destinations without dying. Yes, I think some "safety" things are stupid, and mandating that such things exist rather than letting the free market play out is also stupid. But why demonize a specific nation in the process of calling these things out? They exist (and in fact many were invented) in Germany too.

Drivers weren't better in the old days. There were simply fewer of them to crash into one another, and we view that era through rose-tinted glasses.

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > cuts_off_prius 12/19/2013 at 01:01

0

I agree for the most part.

American drivers, in general, seem very passive. The younger ones sometimes have a bit of fizz in their driving, with them having more fun & all. I compare my American friends and their driving to my mom & I driving.
Whereas they chat about the music, and just look ahead/at their phones, my mom and I discuss the car, how it's running, the effect on the altitude/weather on the performance, the weight of the contents in the tank/trunk, etc. All while both of us are paying attention both front and back for bad drivers and opportunities.

Now I know for a fact very few people "drive" in the manner my mom & I do, but it is a very safe, effective, and invigorating system (we even tried "pace notes" style driving, where I'd read the oncoming turns on a twisty road off of a GPS, and then she'd match her speed/gear to it :D !)

I love having parents who are competent behind the wheel!

Biased Plies > NinetyQ 12/19/2013 at 01:05

0

I'm not necessarily* saying drivers were better 'back in the day'. More was just required of them. Cars have gotten better and safety has improved. I'm not trying to belittle any of that. But I don't think I or that author are trying to demonize America because of it. Just trying to raise the issue in the hopes of improving awareness and doing something about it. Sitting still won't accomplish anything.

The problem is that the attitude around driving has devolved along with the development around cars. Not to be a broken record but most people put in the bare minimum effort when driving along. This becomes an issue when situations arise that demand more. The author put it best in saying that the attitude is reactive, rather than proactive. Being pro-active doesn't require all that much more from the driver. The habits and education just aren't there.

This is another discussion altogether but since you sort of brought it up, I think it's generally accepted that drivers in Europe are better drivers. I don't know how significant the difference is statistically but I think we can all agree that more is required to drive properly there and that drivers are better trained so they can deal with it.

*goddamnit, I can't spell that word without spell check. Fuck you, little red squigly line

cuts_off_prius > aquila121 12/19/2013 at 01:08

0

Agree with you there.

Leadbull > cuts_off_prius 12/19/2013 at 01:32

1

Overarching generalizations, yada yada, warblegarble.

The main takeaway, I think—and he's spot on with this—, is that people simply don't care about driving anymore. They suffer through their morning commutes and react, not predict, because that's too hard for me . I'm too freaking into this Miley Cyrus song right now, yo.

IDROVEAPICKUPTRUCK > cuts_off_prius 12/19/2013 at 01:50

0

He was coming off sorta assholy from the start but I couldn't take this guy seriously at all once he suggested that drunk driving was okay.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > aquila121 12/19/2013 at 01:57

0

If I can see a quarter mile down the road or more, and I have the power to make the pass quickly, I'm doing it. Cars don't just materialize in the other lane. If it's clear, it's clear. Of course, if you can't see that far ahead, don't do it.

duurtlang > getchapopcorn 12/19/2013 at 08:01

0

Are they really wildly lower? As a first time car owner I paid the equivalent of about $300 a year for my then 19 year old VW Golf in 2010. I was in my twenties. Had I had a long history of car ownership it could've cost half, about $13 a month. This is in the Netherlands.

Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney > duurtlang 12/19/2013 at 12:11

0

Compared to what we've heard from our friends in the British Isles (several grand a year for complete shitbuckets), I would say that they're massively lower.

The different levels of coverage available and different regulations make it a really hard comparison to make. You can get liability only with the bare minimum for injury coverage in the US for dirt cheap, but most have full coverage of some type. It also varies a lot from state to state, as car insurances isn't really regulated at the national level here.

KirkyV > Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney 12/19/2013 at 15:04

1

Britain's situation can't really be used as an example of what 'the rest of the world' typically has to deal with in terms of insurance, though. Our system is utterly, utterly broken, and not representative of the norm on the European continent.

In any case, I think the original poster's supposition - that, because the US has to pay less for insurance, American drivers must be better than those in places where people have to pay more - is inherently flawed. The cost of insurance - as demonstrated by the situation in Britain, the nation with, depending on which study you go by, the first or third safest roads in the world for the number of people driving - on a nation-by-nation basis has very little to do with how competent a country's drivers are.

Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney > KirkyV 12/19/2013 at 15:24

0

There are absolutely far too many factors in insurance, especially when comparing multiple systems, to suggest that it puts anything to bed. But while we're all throwing vagueries and statements lacking data around, that supposition actually holds some merit.

Insurance premiums, at their core, are a factor of risk and cost. Lower risk, which one can suppose is correlated with safer roads which it can be supposed are correlated with safer drivers, should then correlate with lower premiums at some level. The question of how much is a much deeper exercise, but it's not exactly a flawed assumption.

It's one thing to rightly point out that data don't support a particular assertion, but it doesn't really work when the counterpoint also contains no data and only vague references to studies and quasi-regression analyses.

The discussion needs data, and more importantly, it needs a regression. Anything else being said beyond that is meaningless.

KirkyV > Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney 12/19/2013 at 15:53

1

I agree entirely, and was in the process of editing in some hard data... But then my sister called me, and asked me to help clean the kitchen. In any case, if you're willing to take the time, here's a WHO report on road traffic fatalities, broken down by country (it's a PDF; you'll have to download it): http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream…

If you're willing to accept it, there is a summarised table of the data on Wikipedia, with the appropriate calculations done to work out the number of fatalities proportional to each nation's population, and the number of vehicles on the road: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c…

Now, I'll admit that, even here, there are far too many factors in play to accept the data as irrefutable proof that a country's road users are more competent - the number of people using public transportation and such is perhaps compensated for by the 'number of vehicles' breakdown on the table, but any number of other factors, including how well maintained, designed and signposted the local roads are could have a significant effect on the number of accidents - but I'd still say that it holds more weight than the original, data-less supposition. A supposition that, while perhaps logical, operates on the assumption that insurance companies are both completely fair in their risk assessment, and able to operate in regulatory environments so similar as to make little difference to the final quote.