It is doubtful that there will ever be significant gains made in diminishing car/pedestrian deaths despite our great desire to do so. Cyclists like myself often blame the driver and sometimes the car but I think we should blame something else. I think we should blame the windshield.

After all it is the windshield that creates this problem. It creates a cocoon around the driver which takes away the driver's most basic sense which is the sense for speed. The forces felt on a drivers face at 100 miles per hour are equal to the forces felt while sitting in front of the televesion watching ESPN on TV, or the forces felt while sitting in front of the mirror at home applying makeup.

The cocoon created by the windshield does not allow the driver to realize that his body is in fact being propelled through the air like a missile that could explode on impact. I think this is why people are so negligent behind the wheel. Far too many of them simply don't understand where they are based on the lack of feedback from their environment. In other words, because of the windshield.

Think about what how many times you have been somewhere and all of the sudden your body sensed something hot. Your brain immediately tells you that you need to start taking precautions because there is danger in the area. It is a subconscious decision in many cases. I feel that the wind generated at 60 mph in a car would create the same sense of caution in the motorist.

So am i advocating that we remove all windshields from cars? Yeah, that would be nice. However, i don't think it is likely to happen. I think I would more likely be committed to a mental institution for having the idea. However, maybe at least every driver should be required to drive 20 miles on the interstate with no windshield every so often. Just as a reminder that they are a projectile, not a cat lounging on the sofa.

What if they removed the engine or fuel delivery system?

Well my Atv does not have a windshield and i do 70+mph doesent slow me down. Windshield or not i do the speed limit. I doubt removing windshields from cars and trucks would solve anything.

Lots of racing cars don't have windshields and it doesn't seem to slow them down much, nor keep them from having accidents and getting killed.

I'd rather see a HUD (heads up display) that enhances (through radar) the visual acuity of the motorist.

I don't know about the windshield but I definitely think that the CD player, soundproofing, cruise control, and airconditioning should be removed. The driver should also be physically isolated from passangers. It should also be illegal to carry a cellpohone in the driver's compartment, there should be alaw that requires cellphones to be carried in the trunk switched off.

Lets pack our bags Ranger, looks like we're off to the funny farm! :p

The MG-TD and MG-TF both had fold down windscreens that could also be removed or replaced with small (Brooklands) windscreens. This sort of thing used to be typical of sports cars.

Paul

Ever been hit square in the face with something about the size of a 3/4" nut at 70 MPH?

I have.

Glad a had a full face helmet on.

Ever been hit square in the face with something about the size of a 3/4" nut at 70 MPH?

I have.

Glad a had a full face helmet on.

I've been hit by a nut holding the wheel with one hand and a cellphone with the other, I would have loved to hit that nut square in the face at 70mph (not if he was wearing a full face helmet tho)

Ever been hit by a bee that then stung your head under your helmet or crawled into your shirt to sting you on your back? Shields are a good thing, face or wind. I say keep the windshield but remove the doors, the body and two of the wheels.

This idea has no merit. Removing safety equipment to create a danger is like firemen starting fires to demonstrate the need for a new firestation.

Place a metal spike where the airbag should be.

As to the issue as raised in the initial post, that's why we have speed limit laws. People need to follow the speed limit.

As to the issue as raised in the initial post, that's why we have speed limit laws. People need to follow the speed limit.

Just remember that either way you look at it, the laws of physics always win.

Place a metal spike where the airbag should be.

I think it was Alec Issigonis (designer of the original Mini) who proposed something like that -- if you want people to drive more safely, rather than have big padded dashboards, instead line the dashboard with knives pointed at the driver..... ;-)

[snip]
So am i advocating that we remove all windshields from cars? Yeah, that would be nice. [snip]

Then most people would just drive with their eyes closed. :eek:

John Wilke
Milwaukee

Lots of racing cars don't have windshields and it doesn't seem to slow them down much, nor keep them from having accidents and getting killed.

Apples and oranges. Unlike the typical oblivious motorist, the race car driver is a professional who knows exactly what he's getting into and the risks involved.

I think the OP's point is that by removing the windshield and getting people in the wind, some who might otherwise have no real sense of how fast they're really going might get a clue and adjust their habits accordingly.

-B

As to the issue as raised in the initial post, that's why we have speed limit laws. People need to follow the speed limit.

Why do they keep raising speed limits? That is an issue that is driving me nuts here in San Diego where a once 45MPH road is now signed at 65MPH.

Why do they keep raising speed limits? That is an issue that is driving me nuts here in San Diego where a once 45MPH road is now signed at 65MPH.
Why? I would think because motorists prefer to go faster, rather than slower. Or perhaps they would prefer to get to their destination sooner, rather than later. Whether that drives you nuts or not, probably doesn't enter into the equation.

This idea has no merit. Removing safety equipment to create a danger is like firemen starting fires to demonstrate the need for a new firestation.

Kinda sounds like what the Memphis FD actually did back in 77 or 78 :eek:

Well my Atv does not have a windshield and i do 70+mph doesent slow me down. Windshield or not i do the speed limit. I doubt removing windshields from cars and trucks would solve anything.

I think you guys are missing the point. I didn't say that removing the windshield would slow anybody down. That wasn't the point. The point of removing the windshield is to make people aware that they aren't sitting on their living room couch, they are actually hurling through the air at a very dangerous speed.

Sure you can do 70 mph on your ATV. But i challenge you to put makeup on, read a newspaper, send a text message, or talk on your cellphone while doing so. When you are going 70 mph on an ATV you are going to be concentrating on the road very hard. If not, than you are really a moron. I also haven't seen a lot of race car drivers without windshields that are busy doing other tasks. You might notice even in NASCAR with windshields, that the driver pretty much has his eyes glued to the track.

The purpose of theoretically removing a windshield is to bring awareness to the driver. It is not to make him slow down.


Removing safety equipment to create a danger is like firemen starting fires to demonstrate the need for a new firestation.

Again, the real point that I am trying to make here is that people seem to have no awareness of the dangerous environment they are in while driving a car. The windshield is the biggest reason for this. I am not literally advocating that windshields be removed. It was sort of an analogy to get people to see that it is in fact the apathetic, careless attitude of drivers that is the biggest problem.

The main reason, that i feel most people are careless, and apathetic is because they don't fully understand the dangerous speed they are traveling at because they can't "feel" it.

Why do they keep raising speed limits? That is an issue that is driving me nuts here in San Diego where a once 45MPH road is now signed at 65MPH.

From a local paper editorial on how speed limits were determined for a road under review:

"The engineers determined what the "reasonable" speed for the areas is based on what 85 percent of the drivers were traveling, saying drivers typically drive a speed they feel comfortable with under prevailing conditions."

;)

Al

Again, the real point that I am trying to make here is that people seem to have no awareness of the dangerous environment they are in while driving a car. The windshield is the biggest reason for this. I am not literally advocating that windshields be removed. It was sort of an analogy to get people to see that it is in fact the apathetic, careless attitude of drivers that is the biggest problem.

The main reason, that i feel most people are careless, and apathetic is because they don't fully understand the dangerous speed they are traveling at because they can't "feel" it.

I see your point. One way to get this point across is to put anybody caught speeding doing community service on an interstate highway. That should raise their eyebrows to how fast they are traveling. Nothing like having an 18 wheeler doing 80+MPH passing you with in a foot or two.

Just ask your local DOT worker/ Police officer about that. Its funny they sound just like us. People need to slow down.

Why? I would think because motorists prefer to go faster, rather than slower. Or perhaps they would prefer to get to their destination sooner, rather than later. Whether that drives you nuts or not, probably doesn't enter into the equation.

Great, so we should let motorists go faster whenever they can, simply because they prefer to? So why don't we raise the speed limits in your local residental zone to about 50 or so?

If motorists need to get somewhere in a hurry they should either leave sooner, or take available freeways, otherwise, to reduce the potential damage in collision situations, and to allow more time to evaluate potential collision situations, surface streets (non-hiways) should be limited to 45MPH and enforced.

If motorists need to get somewhere in a hurry they should either leave sooner, or take available freeways, otherwise, to reduce the potential damage in collision situations, and to allow more time to evaluate potential collision situations, surface streets (non-hiways) should be limited to 45MPH and enforced.
Why so fast? Why do you think 45mph is OK but 55 is not? Why not 15-20mph, tops? Who needs to go faster, eh?

Why so fast? Why do you think 45mph is OK but 55 is not? Why not 15-20mph, tops? Who needs to go faster, eh?

Boy, for one who is always criticizing folks for making straw man arguments you sure enjoying making them yourself.

Why so fast? Why do you think 45mph is OK but 55 is not? Why not 15-20mph, tops? Who needs to go faster, eh?

Actually I prefer 40MPH... but was willing to compromise slighly... I find that at 40MPH I have few problems with seeing and being seen by motorists, but at higher speeds, motorists are so focused on the road that everything else seems to fade away. At higher speeds it becomes increasingly difficult to negotiate for lane changes...

If I really had my way, no one would ever drive over 30MPH.

How do I know this? My regular routes consists of roads that are posted at speeds from 35 to 45 to 55 and up to 65 MPH; also I ride on a freeway shoulder and off ramp where motorists typically hit 70MPH+... at the higher speeds I find it difficult to "negotiate" with motorists when I need to make left turns or simply move into their lane to avoid pot holes and construction along the roadside.

At higher speeds, the motorists seem to be "racing" everywhere with little regard for other users of the road, including other motorists.

Actually I prefer 40MPH... but was willing to compromise slighly... I find that at 40MPH I have few problems with seeing and being seen by motorists, but at higher speeds, motorists are so focused on the road that everything else seems to fade away. At higher speeds it becomes increasingly difficult to negotiate for lane changes...

If I really had my way, no one would ever drive over 30MPH.

How do I know this? My regular routes consists of roads that are posted at speeds from 35 to 45 to 55 and up to 65 MPH; also I ride on a freeway shoulder and off ramp where motorists typically hit 70MPH+... at the higher speeds I find it difficult to "negotiate" with motorists when I need to make left turns or simply move into their lane to avoid pot holes and construction along the roadside.

At higher speeds, the motorists seem to be "racing" everywhere with little regard for other users of the road, including other motorists.
OK I think I got it now. Speed limits for motorists should be set nationwide at whatever level Genec thinks they should be set. Seems pretty clear now.

OK I think I got it now. Speed limits for motorists should be set nationwide at whatever level Genec thinks they should be set. Seems pretty clear now.
Gene's got my vote!

Al

OK I think I got it now. Speed limits for motorists should be set nationwide at whatever level Genec thinks they should be set. Seems pretty clear now.

Oh you would prefer that motorists set the speed limits at whatever they feel is appropriate?

How about residential areas? These generally get a nationwide setting of 25MPH...

Do you have any meaningfull suggestions or do you want to just keep burning strawmen?

I see your point. One way to get this point across is to put anybody caught speeding doing community service on an interstate highway. That should raise their eyebrows to how fast they are traveling. Nothing like having an 18 wheeler doing 80+MPH passing you with in a foot or two.

Just ask your local DOT worker/ Police officer about that. Its funny they sound just like us. People need to slow down.


You raise a good point. I wonder who has a higher chance of being killed by a vehicle percentage wise.

a) cyclist

b) law enforcement officer on the side of the road

I almost bet that the percentage killed is higher for law enforcement officers.



http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=25301

Oh you would prefer that motorists set the speed limits at whatever they feel is appropriate?

How about residential areas? These generally get a nationwide setting of 25MPH...

Do you have any meaningfull suggestions or do you want to just keep burning strawmen?
Burning straw men? BullStuff! It is no straw man argument to see the impact of your "meaningful" proposal to impose arbitrary restrictions on the lifestyles and daily activities of millions of Americans based on nothing more than your opinion of what is good enough/fast enough for them.
You make all sorts of claims about what motorist speeds are good enough, based on your personal preference of what is appropriate for everybody else. Facts? None. Everyone who wants to get somewhere faster than Genec deems "fast enough" should apparantly just take the freeway that genec must think is right around the corner for everybody, just like in San Diego.

Here's the skinny for you and its no BS strawman argument, roads that can be safely driven at higher speeds, will be driven at those speeds (if not faster). Motorists-voters are not going permit significant restrictions on speed based on no better reason than a handful of unaffected whinners don't like higher speeds on general principles, or have a dream that they will decide the value of time for everybody else.

Burning straw men? BullStuff! It is no straw man argument to see the impact of your "meaningful" proposal to impose arbitrary restrictions on the lifestyles and daily activities of millions of Americans based on nothing more than your opinion of what is good enough/fast enough for them.
You make all sorts of claims about what motorist speeds are good enough, based on your personal preference of what is appropriate for everybody else. Facts? None. Everyone who wants to get somewhere faster than Genec deems "fast enough" should apparantly just take the freeway that genec must think is right around the corner for everybody, just like in San Diego.

Here's the skinny for you and its no BS strawman argument, roads that can be safely driven at higher speeds, will be driven at those speeds (if not faster). Motorists-voters are not going permit significant restrictions on speed based on no better reason than a handful of unaffected whinners don't like higher speeds on general principles, or have a dream that they will decide the value of time for everybody else.

Spoken like a true motorist!

Here's the skinny for you and its no BS strawman argument, roads that can be safely driven at higher speeds, will be driven at those speeds (if not faster). Motorists-voters are not going permit significant restrictions on speed based on no better reason than a handful of unaffected whinners don't like higher speeds on general principles, or have a dream that they will decide the value of time for everybody else.

It's probably a bit more accurate to say that drivers will drive at speeds that they feel like driving at, as long as they can get away with it - safety not being one of the major factors that seems to concern us. Of course we could make an attempt to enforce the speed limit laws that exist, but that might inconvenience those motorist-voters. If the government really wanted to get wild & crazy they would impose speed limits at the source - the vehicles themselves. Funny how the government can mandate speed limits, emissions standards, tail-pipe tests, catalytic converters, seat-belts, airbags and such, but never attempted to mandate the maximum speed that a motor vehicle can physically achieve on public roads without major modifications (made as illegal as tampering with emission control devices). Seems like population control through vehicle-related mortalities is the priority, which meshes well with the need of lead-foots like me to do 120mph on lonely country roads. A nation has to have its priorities. :rolleyes:

Spoken like a true motorist!

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Spoken like a true motorist!
And that I am; as well as a true/real/serious cyclist just like every other cyclist.

Who do you speak for? And what makes your opinion about arbitrarily set slow limits on speed for everybody else so special?

You raise a good point. I wonder who has a higher chance of being killed by a vehicle percentage wise.

a) cyclist

b) law enforcement officer on the side of the road

I almost bet that the percentage killed is higher for law enforcement officers.
Maybe inadvertent drift is the real killer (tell OJ).

Solution: cops should not pull traffic violaters over to the side of the road. They should stand in the middle of the road where they will be safe from inadvertent drift.

And that I am; as well as a true/real/serious cyclist just like every other cyclist.

Who do you speak for? And what makes your opinion about arbitrarily set slow limits on speed for everybody else so special?

I speak for the "other users" of the road... the peds and cyclists in my area... I also speak from history... watching these speed limits ratchet up over the years makes my blood boil. I also speak from the side of practicality. Perhaps the roads are not like this in your area, but in my area, there are a dozen of high speed surface streets within sight of the limited access freeways... and these roads sport freeway-like speeds... Why, the freeway is within obvious sight?

Further, locally several smaller cities HAVE determined that local road speeds ARE too high and have taken measures to lower those speeds... So there is a precident.

I also speak for the two dead cyclists who were killed on a local surface street with a posted speed of 65MPH. That road too is within sight of a mulitlaned freeway and I use that same road... I don't want to become dead just like them.

Now what I want to know is why, when there is a freeway paralleling a surface street, should that surface street have a speed of 50, 55 or 65MPH? Other options (such as the freeway) are quite available for those that need to go fast, but the option to travel on slower paced roads is not available to peds or cyclists. Sure peds and cyclists can travel at slower speeds, but meanwhile motorists are going to fly past them at much higher speeds... and those motorists are only encouraged to drive even faster by the lack of enforcement on the roads now.

Who am I, someone that cares... just like the first mother to be concerned about drunk drivers, or the first handicapped person that could not move off a sidewalk as there was no ramp.

That's who I am... simply someone that cares.

But you obviously don't care...

And that I am; as well as a true/real/serious cyclist just like every other cyclist.

Who do you speak for? And what makes your opinion about arbitrarily set slow limits on speed for everybody else so special?
The key word is "arbitrarily". No. Not arbitrary speed limits. Reasonable speed limits, speed limits which permit all users of the road to use it safely. Motorists aren't the only road users, neither are cyclists or pedestrians. All of these users' needs should be considered by an objective third party, such as a traffic safety board, when setting speed limits.

Convenience will sometimes have to take a backseat to safety, but that's not as big a deal as it may seem -- if a motorist is travelling 5 miles, the difference between that trip at 40 mph and that trip at 60 mph is a paltry 2 minutes and 30 seconds. People around here would probably squander any time they saved watching commercials on TV anyway.

Besides, motorists have perfectly good segregated infrastructure, carefully designed and built just for them -- they should use it and stay off the f***ing streets! :p

And yeah, the windshield idea is impractical, but the point that motorists don't appreciate the reality of the speeds they drive is a good one. Maybe all driver education students should have to walk a mile beside a freeway (maybe picking up some trash while they're at it); something is needed to provide a cold splash of reality, to wake up all the sleepwalkers operating their death machines.

That's who I am... simply someone that cares.

But you obviously don't care...
Uh Huh, a regular Mother Teresa of the Roadway. You care about what concerns you; and care about solving problems to your satisfaction and screw everybody else who doesn't share your visions. Don't wear out your arm patting yourself on the back for your virtuous good intentions.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

-From “To a Louse,” by Robert Burns.

... allow more time to evaluate potential collision situations, surface streets (non-hiways) should be limited to 45MPH and enforced.I think we should have a national speed limit of 45 MPH. At 45, electric and other alternative vehicles become feasible. The 40,000 vehicular deaths a year would drop to a fraction that. Bikers could share the freeways. People would clamor for high-speed trains. A lot of good things would happen. Including that most people would get places *faster*.

My father tells me that during WWII the national speed limit was 35 MPH. We're at war right? With oil-producing entities, right? If the war on terror was real, we'd have a real speed limit.

I think we should have a national speed limit of 45 MPH. At 45, electric and other alternative vehicles become feasible. The 40,000 vehicular deaths a year would drop to a fraction that. Bikers could share the freeways. People would clamor for high-speed trains. A lot of good things would happen. Including that most people would get places *faster*.

I still like the idea of free beer (fruit punch for those who are not of age) and pizza dispensers at every corner for the exclusive use of bicyclists.

IMO, more effective and more relevant to bicycling advocacy, just as credible, and far cheaper than the recent (bicycling advocacy?) proposals found on this thread. Are these Klass Kut-up gags? Or are the proposals like mine, wouldn't it be nice if this happened?- Really! Windshield free/uncomfortable autos? Freeways around every corner for those "true motorists" who don't appreciate the laid back slow-mo lifestyle, and high-speed trains available everywhere to replace automobiles for transporting people to their daily destinations.

Uh Huh, a regular Mother Teresa of the Roadway.

While you play the role of Devil's Advocate...

Solution: cops should not pull traffic violaters over to the side of the road. They should stand in the middle of the road where they will be safe from inadvertent drift.
Given a roadway with intermittent traffic, which do you think would be safer for a pedestrian waiting for someone:

During gaps in traffic, stand in the roadway until traffic approaches. When an approaching car is about 8 seconds back, move aside into the shoulder.
Just stand in the shoulder.

Which approach would make the pedestrian more likely to be hit?

Do you agree that while in either case the pedestrian is out of the way in the shoulder by the time the car arrives, in approach A, the approaching motorist is much more likely to be aware of the presence of the pedestrian (since he is very likely to take notice when the pedestrian is standing in the middle of the road), and therefore much less likely to choose to take his eyes away from the road to address a distraction, than in approach B? Don't you think that in approach B, but not in A, the motorist might look up, see nothing/no one in his intended path (the pedestrian standing out of his intended path in the shoulder is likely to be ignored), and so decide that it's safe to look away for a few seconds to deal with a distraction. That's the set up for the unintended drift collision, is it not? Now he looks away, and unintentionally drifts from his intended path into the shoulder where the unnoticed pedestrian is standing (or the unnoticed cyclist is traveling).

While you play the role of Devil's Advocate...
And dang proud of it too, especially considering the dreck that gets passed off by the holier/more serious-than-thou zealots as gospel about bicyling advocacy and bicycling safety issues on this forum.