Dangerous drive: 25 die on I-95 in 12 months

[Jaxson]

http://www.grossmanroth.com/blogs/wrongful-death-attorney-miami-florida%E2%80%99s-i-95-is-nation%E2%80%99s-most-dangerous-road/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-06-07/news/os-deadliest-roads-in-the-country-20100607_1_i-95-lanes-broward-stretch

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-06-07/news/fl-i-95-deadly-highway-20100607_1_i-95-lanes-broward-stretch

[urbanlibertarian]

The sooner we get the irrational, unreliable humans (that's almost all of us) out from behind the wheel the better off we will be.  Self-driving cars will be much much safer and a lot more efficient.

I doubt there will be many train riders in 2040. American travelers generally prefer cars because they offer point-to-point mobility, but trains have two advantages over passenger vehicles today: They don't get stuck in traffic, and riders can do other things during the trip.

Autonomous vehicles will eliminate those advantages. In "The Moral Case for Self-Driving Cars" from Reason's August/September 2014 issue, Science Correspondent Ron Bailey explained how autonomous vehicles can solve the traffic problem:

    "Roadway engineers estimate that typical highways now accommodate a maximum throughput of 2,200 human-driven vehicles per lane per hour, utilizing only about 5 percent of roadway capacity. Because self-driving cars would be safer and could thus drive closer and faster, switching to mostly self-driving cars would dramatically increase roadway throughput. One estimate by the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research in November 2013 predicts that a 50 percent autonomous road fleet would boost highway capacity by 22 percent; an 80 percent robot fleet will goose capacity 50 percent, and a fully automated highway would see its throughput zoom by 80 percent."

Whole article here: http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/24/self-driving-cars-amtrak

[thelakelander]

Jim Epstein's position reeks of social elitism. For example, everyone won't be able to afford a self-driving car or the space to store them. So what happens to this sizable segment of the population?

Transit-wise, buses and trains are subsidized to the tune of billions per year.  The roads those buses are riding on aren't free and they don't turn a profit. Thus subsidization.

Also, he completely ignores the economic development  factor in choosing to select certain forms of mobility for specific urban environments. This is pretty clear, when they're railing off about California high speed rail, Amtrak and a local LRT system in the same light. All three are different animals with a completely separate set of pros and cons.

Last, there's no position on the importance of changing land use and development patterns.  Get smart about land use and transportation infrastructure investment and we can grow our percentage of people walking and biking....giving citizens the choice of how they select to live, commute and move around throughout their daily lives.

[urbanlibertarian]

Jim Epstein's position reeks of social elitism. For example, everyone won't be able to afford a self-driving car or the space to store them. So what happens to this sizable segment of the population?

Yes, the poor are the last ones to benefit from new technology.  Maintaining rail in the NE Corridor and making it safer is prudent while car technolgy develops and becomes widely adopted.  It will help elderly and handicapped folks be much more independent.  The expansion of ride-sharing will diminish the storage and cost of ownership issue.

Transit-wise, buses and trains are subsidized to the tune of billions per year.  The roads those buses are riding on aren't free and they don't turn a profit. Thus subsidization.

Also, he completely ignores the economic development  factor in choosing to select certain forms of mobility for specific urban environments. This is pretty clear, when they're railing off about California high speed rail, Amtrak and a local LRT system in the same light. All three are different animals with a completely separate set of pros and cons.

Last, there's no position on the importance of changing land use and development patterns.  Get smart about land use and transportation infrastructure investment and we can grow our percentage of people walking and biking....giving citizens the choice of how they select to live, commute and move around throughout their daily lives.

Subsidies of roads and mass transit will continue as they have.  Using government policy to elbow people out of their cars and suburbs for their own good is kind of elitist, too.  Let them be autonomous.

[Adam White]

I live in a suburb and ride a train to work every day.

I don't see providing mass transit options to people as being "elitist". I also think that driving a car when you can take mass transit is very selfish and infringes upon the rights of others, too.

Obviously, the best scenario is to have a mix of transit options available so everyone has a way to travel that fits their budgets and requirements.

[thelakelander]

Yeah, no need to force people out of their cars. That's not the purpose of public transit.

[Dog Walker]

Who says you have to own a self-driving car anyway?  I will own one and when I don't need it will let Uber rent it out to anyone who needs transportation at X$ per mile.  Driving to and from work a car sits unused for at least eight hours per day.  Let someone else use it and  pay the cost.

[thelakelander]

Or that person will bike, use transit, walk or have their own car. Unless we stack the deck for the majority of the population to be forced to use self-driving cars, I don't believe we'll see the transformation Epstein describes and advocates for anytime in the near future.

[Adam White]

One thing I remember from reading Freakonomics (and the second book) was that you can't just change people's behavior. There has to be some sort of benefit or incentive for people to change the way they do things.

Mass transit works that way - people will use it when it's the easiest or cheapest or whatever option. Having a quicker commute and not having to pay for parking is a pretty decent incentive - I can see that eventually happening if downtown Jax ever returned to its former glory and was the kind of place where 10s of thousands of people had to travel to every day for work.

Those same people might use their cars for the weekend trip to Costco or whatever. But they would likely see the benefit in using mass transit at least some of the time.

As it stands, you basically have no choice but to drive in Florida. And that's not good for anyone (other than those who profit from it).

[thelakelander]

^Pretty much!....

[Buforddawg]

I'll need a self driving car in 20 - 25 years. But what I really want is AAF to get that Jax to WPB line going before I die.  Here's a thought.  Will my self-driving car be able to take me to the rail station and drive home after it drops me off?  Then can I use my smart phone to instruct it to be at the train station when my train arrives?  And can I have all of this within the next 5 years please (that's a demand not a question)!  Thanks.

Sorry that was a bit off topic.  I have noticed the lack of Highway Patrol cars between Jacksonville and Daytona on I-95.  I have a habit of counting law enforcement vehicles whenever I drive for a long distance.  On my last two trips to Orlando I did not see one trooper on the I-4 corridor.  Especially in or around the construction zones.

[I-10east]

All people are gonna do when they see a trooper on a highway is slow down then speed up with the close is clear, while the police get the one lone person. In general, I think the theory that highway (contrasting from the city) speeding correlates with safe driving is all financially driven BS, and I'm gonna tell you why. What are the speeds of the Autobahn in Germany, some crazy breakneck speed, and far as I know, there are no concerning negative effects.

If everyone agreed to keep the highway relatively open (no one impeding others speed) there would be very few accidents. Accidents mostly happen because all of the other stuff; texting, cell, road hogging the fast lane, recklessly using the emer lane to pass, quickly weaving in and out, no turn signals, tail gating, making that last exit on a split decision, swerving to avoid road debris etc etc etc. I do believe that speeds should be slowed around construction zones.

[Gunnar]

All people are gonna do when they see a trooper on a highway is slow down then speed up with the close is clear, while the police get the one lone person. In general, I think the theory that highway (contrasting from the city) speeding correlates with safe driving is all financially driven BS, and I'm gonna tell you why. What are the speeds of the Autobahn in Germany, some crazy breakneck speed, and far as I know, there are no concerning negative effects.

The recommended speed is on any divided 4+ lane highway (i.e. two in each direction) is  130kph = approx 80 mph. If no speed limit is posted and there are no adverse weather conditions, then you are free to go as fast as you want, however is you go faster than 80 mph and an accident happens you are assuming at least partial liability.

That said, there are those who want to impose a speed limit (I'd say for ideological reasons) but stats show that the accident / death rate on German highways is not higher than in the neighboring countries that do have speed limits.

In order for this to work, there are requirements such as cards needing to be inspected every two years (to determine that they are safe to drive), the tire speed rating needs to at least match the vehicle's top speed, roads being built differently....

Of course, during rush hour traffic you really cannot go that fast due do there being too many cars on the road (so if you look at the average / typical speed it's not that high) but when there is less traffic you can go 155 mph or more if you feel like it.

The most dangerous roads in Germany are two lane undivided highways with a max speed limit of 65 mph, btw.

If everyone agreed to keep the highway relatively open (no one impeding others speed) there would be very few accidents. Accidents mostly happen because all of the other stuff; texting, cell, road hogging the fast lane, recklessly using the emer lane to pass, quickly weaving in and out, no turn signals, tail gating, making that last exit on a split decision, swerving to avoid road debris etc etc etc. I do believe that speeds should be slowed around construction zones.

+1 - definitely agree.

[Dog Walker]

What are the speeds of the Autobahn in Germany, some crazy breakneck speed, and far as I know, there are no concerning negative effects.

European drivers are much better trained than US drivers.  It is much harder to get a license and requires a mandatory number of hours of instruction and a really tough driving test, not just parallel parking.  A friend in England told me he spent over $2000 to get his license.  That was a long time ago and things might have changed.

[Gunnar]

What are the speeds of the Autobahn in Germany, some crazy breakneck speed, and far as I know, there are no concerning negative effects.

European drivers are much better trained than US drivers.  It is much harder to get a license and requires a mandatory number of hours of instruction and a really tough driving test, not just parallel parking.  A friend in England told me he spent over $2000 to get his license.  That was a long time ago and things might have changed.

Good thing I got mine in Florida and then a German one based on it :-)