stringtranslate.com

Distancia libre asegurada por delante

En terminología legal, la distancia libre asegurada por delante ( ACDA ) es la distancia por delante de cualquier dispositivo locomotor terrestre, como un vehículo terrestre , típicamente un automóvil , o una embarcación , dentro de la cual deberían poder detener el dispositivo. [1] Es uno de los principios más fundamentales que rigen el cuidado ordinario y el deber de cuidado para todos los métodos de transporte, y se utiliza con frecuencia para determinar si un conductor tiene el control adecuado y es una consideración implícita casi universal en la responsabilidad por accidentes vehiculares. [2] [3] [4] La regla es una carga trivial precautoria requerida para evitar la gran gravedad probable de la pérdida de vidas preciosas y daños trascendentales. [5] [6] [7] Satisfacer la regla ACDA es necesario pero no suficiente para cumplir con la ley de velocidad básica más generalizada y, en consecuencia, puede usarse como un criterio de lego y una prueba judicial para que los tribunales la utilicen para determinar si una velocidad particular es negligente, pero no para demostrar que es segura. [8] Como estándar espacial de cuidado , también sirve como aviso explícito y justo requerido de conducta prohibida para que las leyes de velocidad insegura no sean nulas por vaguedad . [9] [10] [11] El concepto ha trascendido a la reconstrucción y la ingeniería de accidentes . [12]

Esta distancia está determinada y limitada por el borde próximo de visibilidad clara, pero puede atenuarse hasta un margen más allá del cual se puede esperar razonablemente que aparezcan peligros de manera espontánea. La regla es el caso espacial específico de la regla de velocidad básica del derecho consuetudinario [13] y una aplicación de volenti non fit injuria [14 ] . La regla de los dos segundos puede ser el factor limitante que rige la ACDA, cuando la velocidad del tráfico que va adelante es lo que limita la velocidad básica segura y podría surgir un peligro primario de colisión si se sigue a un vehículo más cerca. [2] [3]

Como la regla de conducción de derecho consuetudinario original que precedió a la ley de tránsito estatutaria , [13] es una regla fundamental cada vez más importante en el complejo entorno de conducción actual. Debido a que ahora existen clases protegidas de usuarios de la carretera, como un autobús escolar , un cartero , un vehículo de emergencia , un vehículo tirado por caballos , una maquinaria agrícola , una barredora de calles , un vehículo averiado , [14] un ciclista y un peatón , así como peligros naturales que pueden ocupar u obstruir la carretera más allá del límite de la visibilidad, [14] la negligencia puede no depender ex post facto de lo que un conductor golpeó por casualidad, no podría haber sabido, pero tenía el deber concurrente de evitar. [13] [15] Además, el conocimiento moderno de los factores humanos ha revelado limitaciones fisiológicas, como el umbral de detección de velocidad angular subtendida (SAVT), que puede dificultar, y en algunas circunstancias, imposibilitar, que otros conductores siempre cumplan con los estatutos de derecho de paso manteniéndose alejados de la carretera. [16] [17]

Como norma o estatuto de derecho consuetudinario

Orígenes

Al igual que con la génesis de la mayoría de la doctrina legal que rige los problemas que preceden a una solución legislativa, el principio ACDA generalmente se origina en precedentes decisorios de tribunales superiores que razonaron reglas generales de sentido común de conducta que se desprenden naturalmente del proceso repetitivo de determinar la culpabilidad específica. [18] [5] [19] [20] [21] [22] A menudo, posteriormente siguió una legislación que codificó y respaldó o revisó superfluamente estos principios, [23] [24] cuyos tribunales a su vez continuaron desarrollando los detalles. [25] [26] [27] A fines de la década de 1920, el término "distancia clara asegurada por delante" comenzó a usarse ampliamente como la identidad de un elemento estándar de cuidado al elegir la velocidad segura, [28] [29] con diferentes jurisdicciones que adoptaron el lenguaje para tener los mismos efectos. [30] [31] Gran parte de los primeros registros publicados se refieren naturalmente a naufragios de alto riesgo [18] [21] entre buques [32] o vehículos [33] tal como se definían en aquellos tiempos, aunque el principio obvio se aplica a los carros y, de hecho, podría ser de tiempos inmemoriales . [13] [34] [35]

Presente

Todavía se puede esperar que los caballos utilicen las carreteras, así como las bicicletas y los automóviles. [36] [37] [38] Los primeros son una aparición regular tanto en las áreas urbanas como en el campo , y son comúnmente utilizados por los viajeros y los Amish . Muchas carreteras no han cambiado desde el siglo XIX, mientras que las carreteras de acceso controlado se han inventado específicamente para el automóvil. [39] "En el derecho consuetudinario , un automovilista debe regular su velocidad para poder detenerse dentro del rango de su visión. En numerosas jurisdicciones, esta regla se ha incorporado en estatutos que normalmente requieren que ninguna persona conduzca un vehículo de motor en y sobre una carretera o autopista pública a una velocidad mayor que la que le permita detenerlo dentro de la distancia libre asegurada por delante". [4] [13] La ley decisoria generalmente establece las circunstancias por las cuales una parte de la carretera está seguramente despejada sin que se mencione en el estatuto. [2] Los estados donde el poder judicial ha establecido explícitamente la ley ACDA del estado incluyen Indiana, [40] Iowa, [27] Kansas, [41] Luisiana, [42] [43] Michigan, [44] [45] [46] Nueva York, [47] Carolina del Norte, [14] Ohio, [26] [48] Tennessee, [22] [49] Vermont, [50] Wisconsin, [21] [51] y California. [52] [53] [15] [54] [55]

Muchos estados han aprobado además estatutos que exigen a sus tribunales que tengan en cuenta de forma más inflexible la ACDA a la hora de determinar la velocidad o el comportamiento razonables. Dichos estatutos lo hacen en parte al designar las infracciones de la ACDA como una infracción de tráfico sancionable, lo que obliga al conductor infractor a refutar la presunción de negligencia . Entre los estados con disposiciones explícitas de la ACDA sobre el estándar de cuidado se incluyen: Iowa, [56] Michigan, [57] Ohio, [58] Oklahoma, [59] Pensilvania, [60] y Texas. [61]

Los estados que aplican el principio por ley a las embarcaciones en vías navegables incluyen a los 174 estados miembros de la Organización Marítima Internacional , [62] a pesar de su membresía: Gran Bretaña y su derecho consuetudinario que hereda la Mancomunidad de Naciones , [18] [19] Estados Unidos, [5] [20] [25] Florida, [63] Hawai, [ 64] Illinois, [65] Luisiana, [66] Michigan, [67] Montana, [68] Oregón, [69] Texas, [70] y Virginia Occidental. [71]

La mayoría de los manuales de conducción emitidos por los estados y algunos canadienses instruyen o mencionan la regla ACDA como un cuidado obligatorio o una práctica segura. [1] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

Los estatutos y reglamentos explícitos de la ACDA, [79] especialmente aquellos que crean una infracción de tránsito o una infracción marítima que puede dar lugar a una sanción, tienen como objetivo prevenir los daños que podrían resultar de una conducta potencialmente negligente, mientras que la doctrina de la ACDA del derecho consuetudinario, ligeramente más oscura, se invoca con mayor facilidad para remediar los daños reales que ya se han producido como resultado de dicha negligencia. Los estatutos de velocidad insegura no pueden ser anulados por vaguedad [11] cuando contienen cláusulas explícitas de la ACDA. Las normas explícitas e implícitas de la ACDA rigen para millones de conductores norteamericanos.

Estándar universal de atención

No todas las jurisdicciones han aplicado la regla de manera uniforme, y la mayoría de las veces difieren en cuanto a las excepciones para "emergencias repentinas" específicas. Ha habido un creciente interés en la ACDA codificada como un estándar universal de atención [80] [81] que ha sido provocado por cambios tecnológicos y sociales recientes como grabadoras de datos de eventos , [82] [83] cámaras para tablero , autos sin conductor , [84] [12] ciudades seguras y movimientos de usos múltiples, [85] [ 86] [87] [ 88] [ 89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] y un movimiento para reducir las reclamaciones de los conductores que exceden la velocidad máxima contra los gobiernos por "condiciones peligrosas" cuando las velocidades de operación exceden la velocidad de diseño inferida de una carretera. [96]

La responsabilidad por colisión ha beneficiado históricamente a la profesión jurídica al ser encubierta como una mezcla de hechos y derecho, pero con los EDR preservando con precisión "un estado de hechos" a menudo repetido con diferentes resultados de juicios, las colisiones son menos una cuestión de hecho, sino de derecho. [80] [81] [97] [98] [99] El acceso electrónico a datos y fallos precisos de EDR con nuevas herramientas de modelado ideológico, ahora puede exponer a los jueces como defensores políticos consistentes de diferentes intereses especiales de los usuarios de la carretera. [100] [101] [102] [103] Además, la ley debe ser clara, precisa y uniforme [104] [105] a nivel nacional para la panoplia de fabricantes de automóviles con la responsabilidad estricta por su programación de vehículos autónomos respetuosos de la ley. [84] [12] Es previsible que dos marcas de automóviles autónomos puedan colisionar porque su algoritmo de la letra de la ley es diferente; [84] un problema resoluble que ha estado preocupando a los conductores humanos durante décadas. La ACDA es un estándar con matemáticas descriptivas, muchas de las cuales son utilizadas en sentido inverso por los ingenieros de carreteras al diseñar o rediseñar carreteras según un criterio de velocidad, que se esperaba que sus usuarios siguieran. [106]

Determinación de la ACDA

ACDA estático

Distancia de "línea de visión" hacia adelante

Velocidad máxima prima facie frente a distancia de "línea de visión". [107]
Permitido por neumáticos en buen estado y pavimento limpio, seco y nivelado.

El rango de visibilidad, cuyo rango de visibilidad es de facto la ACDA, es usualmente la distancia antes de la cual una persona común puede ver pequeños peligros, como un cono de tráfico o una boya , con una visión 20/20 . Esta distancia puede ser atenuada por condiciones específicas como la opacidad atmosférica , [108] resplandor cegador , [109] oscuridad, [1] [110] diseño de la carretera , [111] [112] y peligros ambientales adyacentes incluyendo actividades civiles y recreativas, [13] vehículo tirado por caballos, [37] animal montado, [37] ganado, [37] ciervos, [113] tráfico que cruza, [15] y autos estacionados . La ACDA también puede ser algo atenuada en carreteras con una clasificación funcional más baja . [114] [13] [112] Esto se debe a que la probabilidad de tráfico espontáneo aumenta proporcionalmente a la densidad de puntos de acceso a la carretera, y esta densidad reduce la distancia a la que una persona que ejerce un cuidado ordinario puede estar segura de que una carretera estará despejada; Esta reducción de la ACDA es fácilmente aparente a partir de las condiciones, incluso cuando un punto de acceso específico o el tráfico en el mismo no lo es. [115] [Nota 1] Además, aunque un conductor que conduce directamente puede presumir normalmente que todo el tráfico se mantendrá despejado con seguridad cuando lo exija la ley, dicho conductor no puede asumir tal presunción cuando las circunstancias proporcionen conocimiento real bajo un cuidado ordinario de que dicho tráfico no puede obedecer la ley. [115] Durante las horas de oscuridad, los vehículos comerciales pueden ver hacia adelante aproximadamente 250 pies con luces bajas y aproximadamente 350-500 pies con luces altas. [1] Esta distancia libre corresponde a una velocidad máxima segura de 52 mph y 65-81 mph respectivamente en pavimento seco con buenos neumáticos, [107] [116] que se atenúa aún más por la curvatura convexa y lateral de la carretera ; la velocidad segura siempre es dinámica. Los vehículos no comerciales tienen distancias de iluminación aún más cortas. [116] Los conductores suelen conducir al límite máximo de velocidad establecido durante la noche, a menudo violando la norma ACDA [116] [110] [46] [108] y esto se refleja en los datos de accidentes. [117] [3]

Intersecciones
Límites visuales de los conductores que entran en una intersección desde una parada

A medida que un vehículo avanza lentamente hacia una intersección, la perspectiva lateral disminuye hasta que el movimiento frontal que se avecina es el más revelador de los dos. Tanto el movimiento lateral como el que se avecina también pueden combinarse de alguna manera para mejorar la detección según la teoría de la Gestalt , lo que permite que ambos sean observables.

Como corolario de la regla de que los conductores generalmente no deben representar un "peligro inmediato" en los lugares o cuando no pueden asegurar que la distancia que tienen por delante esté despejada, se deduce que otros pueden presumir que ningún vehículo representa un "peligro inmediato" desde más allá de donde pueden ver con una vigilancia adecuada. Cuando hay cruces de caminos o caminos secundarios con obstrucciones visuales, la distancia despejada asegurada termina en el camino más cercano de los usuarios potenciales de la calzada hasta que haya una vista que asegure que la intersección permanecerá despejada. En tales situaciones, la velocidad de aproximación debe reducirse en preparación para ingresar o cruzar una carretera o intersección o los cruces peatonales sin marcar [121] [122] y los carriles para bicicletas [123] que crean debido a los peligros potenciales. [124] [125] [54] [126] [127] [128] Esta jurisprudencia surge en parte debido a la dificultad conocida de estimar la distancia y la velocidad de un vehículo que se aproxima, [128] [118] [119] que se explica psicofísicamente por su pequeño tamaño angular y divergencia tardía de una tasa de expansión asintóticamente nula , que está más allá de los límites del umbral de detección de velocidad angular subtendido (SAVT) de la agudeza visual [129] [130] [131] [16] [17] por medio de la ley de potencia de Stevens [16] y la ley de Weber-Fechner , hasta que el vehículo puede estar peligrosamente cerca; la constancia subjetiva y la ilusión del ángulo visual [132] también pueden desempeñar un papel. [Nota 2] [Nota 3] Los vehículos que se acercan a una intersección desde más allá del límite SAVT no se pueden distinguir de manera confiable entre vehículos en movimiento y estacionados, aunque pueden estar viajando a una velocidad tan imprudente que represente un peligro inmediato. En esta circunstancia, es imposible que el conductor que ingresa tenga conocimiento justo de que su conducta contemplada está prohibida por dicho peligro, [9] [119] y cualquier expectativa legal en contrario implicaría violar la doctrina de vaguedad de la Constitución de los EE. UU . [9] [Nota 4] Es deber del conductor que pasa por la intersección desacelerar [133] [125] [54] [126] y aplicar el principio ACDA específicamente a la intersección. [1] [13] [35] [112] [15] VerTabla de umbrales de detección .

Teoría técnica de intersecciones de ACDA

Al aproximarse a una intersección no señalizada controlada por una señal de pare , la distancia libre asegurada adelante es:

La aceleración normal " a i " para un vehículo de pasajeros desde una parada hasta 20 mph es de aproximadamente 0,15 g, siendo difícil superar más de 0,3 g. [124] La distancia " d i " es la suma de la distancia de retroceso de la línea límite medida , que normalmente está regulada por un Manual de Dispositivos Uniformes de Control de Tráfico , a menudo entre 4 y 30 pies en los Estados Unidos [134] [135] [136] —y el ancho del paso de peatones , el carril de estacionamiento y el arcén de la carretera . Un vehículo que acelera desde una parada recorre esta distancia en un tiempo t i = 2d ia i mientras que el tráfico que pasa por ella recorre una distancia igual a su velocidad multiplicada por ese tiempo. El tiempo t pc , para el automovilista detenido, es la suma del tiempo de percepción y el tiempo necesario para activar una transmisión automática o cambiar a la primera marcha, que suele estar entre 12 y un segundo. [137]

ACDA en función de la distancia de visibilidad horizontal

El espacio libre horizontal se mide desde el borde de la calzada hasta el fondo del objeto más cercano, el tronco de un árbol o la cara de la masa de follaje de un arbusto, el retiro de la planta o el crecimiento maduro. [106] [138] La distancia de visibilidad horizontal no debe confundirse con la zona de recuperación despejada que proporciona un retiro de vegetación peligrosa para permitir que los vehículos errantes recuperen el control, y es exclusiva de un bosque segado y desramado que puede permitir una distancia de visibilidad adecuada, pero una recuperación insegura. [138] La altura y la distancia lateral de las plantas restringen la distancia de visibilidad horizontal, a veces oscureciendo la vida silvestre que puede asustarse por un vehículo que se acerca y cruzar la carretera para escapar con su manada . [113] [138] Este principio también se aplica a los vehículos y peatones que se aproximan en intersecciones no controladas y, en menor grado, en intersecciones no señalizadas controladas por una señal de ceda el paso . La distancia de visibilidad horizontal " d hsd " afecta a la ACDA porque el tiempo t i = el hsd/Yo soyEl tiempo que tarda un objeto, animal, peatón o vehículo interceptor con una velocidad " V i " en recorrer esta distancia después de emerger del borde próximo de visibilidad lateral le otorga a un vehículo con una velocidad " V " una distancia libre de " V*t i ". Por lo tanto, la distancia libre de interceptación asegurada " ACDA si " es:

Cuanto más rápido se conduce, más lejos debe estar el interceptor en la carretera para poder atravesar la distancia de visibilidad horizontal a tiempo para colisionar, pero esto no dice nada sobre si el vehículo puede detenerse al final de este tipo de distancia libre asegurada. Al equiparar esta distancia con la distancia de frenado total y calcular la velocidad, se obtiene la velocidad máxima segura , determinada únicamente por la distancia de visibilidad horizontal.

Distancia de "seguimiento" dinámica

La ACDA también puede ser dinámica en cuanto a la distancia de movimiento más allá de la cual un automovilista puede estar seguro de poder mantenerse alejado de un peligro dinámico previsible (como mantener una distancia que le permita esquivar con seguridad a un ciclista en caso de que sucumba a una caída) sin requerir una parada completa de antemano, si puede hacerlo con el debido cuidado hacia el tráfico circundante. Cuantitativamente, esta distancia es una función del intervalo de tiempo apropiado y la velocidad de operación: d ACDA = t gapv . La regla de distancia libre asegurada por delante, en lugar de estar sujeta a excepciones, en realidad no está destinada a aplicarse más allá de las situaciones en las que una persona vigilante y normalmente prudente podría o debería anticipar. [4] Una forma común de violar la ACDA dinámica es seguir de cerca a otro vehículo .

Medición

La forma más precisa de determinar la ACDA es medirla directamente. Si bien esto no es práctico, se pueden utilizar fórmulas de distancia de visibilidad con mediciones menos directas como estimaciones de referencia aproximadas. La distancia libre segura empírica calculada con visión por computadora , determinación de rango , control de tracción y SIG , como mediante la programación adecuada del hardware de computadora utilizado en automóviles autónomos , se puede registrar para producir o colorear posteriormente mapas de referencia de ACDA y velocidad segura para la investigación de accidentes, la ingeniería de tráfico y mostrar disparidades entre la velocidad segura y la velocidad "operativa" del percentil 85. [139] Los automóviles autónomos [12] [140] pueden tener una velocidad segura más alta que los vehículos conducidos por humanos para un ACDA determinado donde los tiempos de percepción-reacción de la computadora son casi instantáneos.

Discreción

La distancia libre asegurada por delante puede ser subjetiva a la estimación de referencia de una persona razonable o estar predeterminada por la ley. Por ejemplo, si uno debería haber previsto razonablemente que una carretera no estaba despejada con seguridad más allá de 75 a 100 metros debido a tractores o ganado que comúnmente emergen de la vegetación invasora y cegadora, en ocasiones depende de la experiencia social dentro del lugar. En ciertos entornos urbanos, una calle recta, sin tráfico y de paso puede no estar necesariamente despejada con seguridad más allá de la entrada de la intersección visualmente obstruida más cercana según la ley. [13] [112] [115] [128] Dentro de la distancia libre asegurada por delante, existe la certeza de que el viaje estará libre de obstrucciones, lo que excluye la incapacidad de apreciar un peligro. Las colisiones generalmente solo ocurren dentro de la distancia libre asegurada por delante que son "inevitables" para ellos, de modo que no tienen negligencia comparativa, incluidos los actos legales de Dios y la negligencia repentina e imprevisible de otra parte. Los peligros que penetran el borde próximo de visibilidad clara y comprometen la ACDA generalmente requieren una acción evasiva.

Los conductores no necesitan ni están obligados a determinar con precisión la velocidad máxima segura a partir de cálculos matemáticos en tiempo real de distancias de visibilidad y distancias de frenado para su vehículo en particular. [118] Los operadores de vehículos de motor de inteligencia media [81] [141] deben utilizar constantemente su memoria cinestésica en todo tipo de tareas de conducción, incluso cada vez que frenan hasta detenerse por completo en una línea de detención en una panoplia de condiciones. [53] [142] Como cuando se lanza una pelota de béisbol, uno no tiene que calcular matemáticamente una trayectoria o una solución de disparo para dar en un blanco con precisión repetida. Durante las primeras etapas del aprendizaje de cómo conducir , uno desarrolla una memoria de cuándo empezar a frenar (cuánto tiempo lleva) desde varias velocidades para detenerse en la línea límite. [142] Si bien puede haber un grado de variación de dicha habilidad en los conductores experimentados, generalmente no tienen la discreción para participar en un comportamiento como conducir a una velocidad por encima de la cual ninguna mente razonable podría diferir en cuanto a si es inseguro o si uno podría detenerse dentro de la distancia total por delante. [126] [141]

Regla de segundos de distancia para detenerse

Tanto los conductores como los agentes de la ley pueden aplicar aritmética elemental [143] para elaborar una regla general que les permita calcular la distancia mínima de frenado en términos de cuántos segundos de viaje les quedan por delante a su velocidad actual. Para la velocidad " v " en millas por hora, esta regla general es la siguiente:

Si esta distancia es mayor que la ACDA, deben desacelerar. Si bien la mayoría de los conductores experimentados desarrollan una amplia intuición que se requiere para frenar a diario, [142] esta regla general aún puede beneficiar a algunos para recalibrar las expectativas ante frenadas bruscas poco frecuentes, en particular a altas velocidades. Se pueden realizar correcciones simples adicionales para compensar el entorno y la capacidad de conducción. Lea más sobre la regla de los segundos de distancia hasta detenerse .

Caso específico de la regla ACDA generalizado a la Ley de Velocidad Básica

Las distancias ACDA son un componente principal que se debe evaluar en la determinación de la velocidad máxima segura (VBSL ) según la ley de velocidad básica, sin la cual no se puede determinar la velocidad máxima segura. Como las afirmaciones matemáticas son más precisas que las afirmaciones verbales por sí solas, [144] la relación de la ACDA como un subconjunto de la regla de velocidad básica para vehículos terrestres se puede cuantificar objetivamente de la siguiente manera:

El valor de la variable "e" es el seno del ángulo de inclinación de la pendiente de la vía . Para una vía plana este valor es cero, y para ángulos pequeños se aproxima al porcentaje de pendiente de la vía dividido por cien.

[Nota 5]

La velocidad máxima permitida por la distancia libre asegurada hacia adelante controla la velocidad segura (VBSL ) solo para los casos superior y dos. La velocidad segura puede ser mayor o menor que el límite de velocidad legal real según las condiciones a lo largo de la carretera. [124]

[Nota 6]

Consulte las derivaciones de referencia VBSL para obtener una explicación de la física básica.

ACDA: línea de visión hacia adelante

En el caso superior, la velocidad máxima está determinada por la "línea de visión" clara y asegurada, como cuando la "distancia de seguimiento" detrás del tráfico delantero y el "control de dirección" son adecuados. Los ejemplos comunes incluyen cuando no hay ningún vehículo a la vista, o cuando hay una neblina o niebla que impediría visualizar un vehículo cercano al frente. Esta velocidad máxima se denota por la variable de caso , el coeficiente de fricción se simboliza por —y en sí mismo una función del tipo de neumático y las condiciones de la carretera , la distancia es la ACDA estática, la constante es la aceleración de la gravedad y el intervalo es el tiempo de percepción-reacción —generalmente entre 1,0 y 2,5 segundos. [145] [146]

Consulte la tabla de velocidad segura en función de la línea de visión hacia adelante

ACDA: línea de visión horizontal

El segundo caso describe la relación entre la distancia de visibilidad horizontal y la velocidad segura. Es la velocidad máxima a la que un vehículo puede detenerse por completo antes de que un objeto, con velocidad V i , pueda interceptarlo después de haber emergido y recorrido la distancia de visibilidad horizontal "d hsd ". Las áreas urbanas y residenciales tienen distancias de visibilidad horizontal que tienden a estar estrechamente obstruidas por automóviles estacionados, postes de servicios públicos, mobiliario urbano, cercas, señalización y jardinería, pero tienen velocidades de interceptación más lentas de niños, peatones, automóviles que dan marcha atrás y animales domésticos. Estos interceptores combinados con un uso denso dan como resultado colisiones que son más probables y mucho más propensas a infligir daño a una vida humana externa. En las áreas rurales, la fauna silvestre asustada que se mueve rápidamente, como ciervos , [113] alces , alces y antílopes, tienen más probabilidades de interceptar una carretera a más de 30 mph (48 km/h). La fauna silvestre cruza con frecuencia una carretera antes de que sea necesario detenerse por completo, pero las colisiones con animales de caza mayor son previsiblemente letales y, por lo general, el conductor tiene el deber de no dañar a sus pasajeros. La velocidad de intercepción previsible o la distancia de visibilidad horizontal mal diseñada pueden variar "razonablemente" según el criterio judicial .

Consulte la tabla de velocidad segura en función de la línea de visión horizontal

ACDA: retroceso interseccional

Este tercer caso se refiere a la velocidad segura en intersecciones sin semáforos en las que un conductor en una calle de paso sin control tiene el deber de reducir la velocidad al cruzar una intersección y permitir que los conductores controlados puedan pasar por la intersección sin peligro de colisión. [126] [147] El conductor en la calle de paso debe anticipar y, por lo tanto, no acercarse a una velocidad insegura que impida que otro conductor pueda entrar mientras el tráfico esté a cierta distancia, o que sea insegura para un conductor que ya ha establecido el control de la intersección bajo una aceleración prudente a i , desde una parada en una línea límite a una distancia d sl de distancia. [137]

ACDA: distancia de seguimiento

El cuarto caso pedante se aplica cuando la "distancia de seguimiento" ACDA dinámica ( d ACDA d ) es menor que la distancia de "línea de visión" ACDA estática ( d ACDA s ). Un ejemplo clásico de esto ocurre cuando, desde una perspectiva de visibilidad, sería seguro conducir mucho más rápido si no fuera por un vehículo que se mueve más lento por delante. Como tal, el ACDA dinámico rige la regla de velocidad básica, porque al mantener esta distancia, uno no puede conducir a una velocidad más rápida que la que coincide con el vehículo que va delante. El "espacio de tiempo" t g o "colchón de tiempo" es el tiempo necesario para recorrer el ACDA dinámico o la "distancia de seguimiento" a la velocidad de operación . Dependiendo de las circunstancias, este colchón podría manifestarse como una regla de dos segundos o una regla de tres segundos.

Consulte la tabla de distancias de seguimiento de 2 segundos

Velocidad crítica

En el quinto caso, la velocidad crítica V cs se aplica cuando la curvatura de la carretera es el factor que limita la velocidad segura. Un vehículo que excede esta velocidad se saldrá de su carril. La velocidad crítica es una función del radio de la curva r , el peralte o peralte e y el coeficiente de fricción μ ; [124] la constante g nuevamente es la aceleración de la gravedad. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los automovilistas no tolerarán una aceleración lateral que exceda 0,3g ( μ  = 0,3) por encima de la cual muchos entrarán en pánico. [148] Por lo tanto, la velocidad crítica puede no parecerse a la velocidad de pérdida de control. [148] Los coeficientes de fricción "lateral" atenuados se utilizan a menudo para calcular la velocidad crítica. [138] La fórmula se aproxima con frecuencia sin el denominador para peraltes de ángulo bajo que pueden ser adecuados para casi todas las situaciones, excepto el radio más estrecho de las rampas de entrada a la autopista. [138] [149] El principio de velocidad crítica se aplica a menudo al problema de la calma del tráfico , donde la curvatura se utiliza tanto para regular la velocidad máxima de la carretera como en las rotondas como un dispositivo para obligar a los conductores a obedecer su deber de reducir la velocidad al acercarse a una intersección. [125] [54]

Ver tabla de curvaturas y velocidades críticas

Control de superficie

El caso inferior se invoca cuando se alcanza la velocidad máxima para el control de la superficie V cl . El control de la dirección es independiente de cualquier concepto de distancia libre por delante. Si un vehículo no se puede controlar de manera que permanezca de manera segura dentro de su carril por encima de una cierta velocidad y circunstancia, entonces es irrelevante cuán segura sea la distancia por delante. Usando el ejemplo del caso anterior, la velocidad segura en una curva puede ser tal que un conductor experimente una aceleración lateral de menos de 0.3 g a pesar de que el vehículo no pueda deslizarse hasta que experimente 0.8 g. El tambaleo de velocidad , el hidroplaneo , el centro de balanceo , el derrape , las tendencias de tijera , los baches , el efecto washboarding , el levantamiento por escarcha [150] y la clasificación de velocidad de los neumáticos son otros factores que limitan V cl .

Velocidad segura

La velocidad segura es la velocidad máxima permitida por la ley de velocidad básica y la doctrina de negligencia. La velocidad segura no es la misma que la velocidad operativa del percentil 85 [151] utilizada por los ingenieros de tránsito para establecer zonas de velocidad. [124] [134] [152] [153] La niebla, la nieve o el hielo pueden crear condiciones en las que la mayoría de las personas conducen demasiado rápido, y los accidentes de reacción en cadena en tales condiciones son ejemplos de casos en los que grandes grupos de conductores chocaron porque no redujeron la velocidad para las condiciones. [124] [154] Las velocidades a las que conduce la mayoría de las personas solo pueden ser una guía muy aproximada de la velocidad segura, [124] y una costumbre o práctica ilegal o negligente no es en sí misma excusable. [155] [81] [156] [80] La velocidad segura se aproxima a la velocidad de diseño inferida ajustada a las alteraciones ambientales y a los factores específicos del vehículo y de la persona cuando V ACDA s es el factor limitante. [157] El concepto de curva de Solomon puede crear un conflicto de aproximación-evitación dentro del conductor que no desea ni conducir más rápido de lo que es legal y las condiciones permiten ni tener una discrepancia de velocidad insegura con otros vehículos en la carretera; nunca es legal ir más rápido que el límite de velocidad, y reducir unilateralmente el riesgo de esto último puede llevar a un choque masivo causado por lo primero. [154]

Relación entre los límites de velocidad establecidos y la explicitud del estándar de cuidado del conductor

Distancia vista con luz ECE de noche

Muchas personas se enfrentan al concepto de velocidad insegura porque lo consideran vago y arbitrario. [11] Es bien sabido que las personas, en cambio, resuelven estos desafíos mediante la sustitución de atributos , [158] que en este caso puede significar simplemente emular las conductas de los demás. De acuerdo con la teoría cultural del riesgo , de hecho, una parte sustancial de la percepción del riesgo de un conductor proviene de comparar su conducta contemplada con la conducta de los demás; esto incluye la seguridad de una velocidad dada, a pesar del riesgo real. Como resultado de esta vaguedad no corregida, la conducta grupal a menudo puede estar en oposición a la velocidad segura y aún así gobernar un límite de velocidad publicado peligroso. Por ley federal, los límites de velocidad publicados generalmente están dentro de las 5 mph de la velocidad del percentil 85 del tráfico que fluye libremente. [106] [134] [152] [ 153] [159] Funcionalmente, esto equivale a que los ciudadanos "voten" el límite de velocidad de una calle con el pedal del acelerador por la influencia del cambio de grupo . Como la gente generalmente sigue reglas explícitas todo el tiempo con las que no está de acuerdo, a menudo se debe simplemente a que la ley de una jurisdicción no cuantifica y difunde suficientemente un aviso justo de un estándar explícito de cuidado, como la regla ACDA. La mayoría de los manuales para conductores del DMV enseñan la práctica, pero muchos menos estados la respaldan explícitamente en sus estatutos reales y en la aplicación de la ley. [1] [72] [73] [74] Si los conductores tuvieran en cuenta la ACDA, la velocidad de operación , por definición, no excedería la velocidad de diseño inferida . [106] [153] En algunos casos, la policía se centró en conducir bajo la influencia del alcohol y detuvo a los conductores nocturnos sobrios del cuartil más lento que no se movieran más rápido de lo que pueden detenerse dentro del radio de sus faros delanteros; [1] esto desalienta el ajuste de la velocidad a la baja de cualquier cosa que no sea la "velocidad máxima" publicada permitida por la ley, que se determina como se describió anteriormente. A menudo es inseguro o ilegal conducir a más de 40 a 50 mph por la noche. [116] [117] [110] [160] [3] [46]

"Garantía" más allá del límite próximo de la visibilidad clara como transferencia de responsabilidad

Un principio general en la doctrina de la responsabilidad es que un accidente que no habría ocurrido de no ser por la acción o inacción de alguna persona o entidad contraria a un deber como el ejercicio del cuidado adecuado fue el resultado de la negligencia . El espacio de responsabilidad del que uno puede recuperar [161] es típicamente, ellos mismos, otras partes o nadie. [162] Las excepciones jurisdiccionales que permiten a uno tomar legalmente "seguridad" de que la distancia será clara más allá del borde próximo de visibilidad clara y elegir esa velocidad en consecuencia, transfieren la responsabilidad clásica del derecho consuetudinario de ese conductor por sus acciones "ciegas". Este deber de asegurar una distancia clara por delante se transfiere inevitablemente, como una externalidad a todos o cualquier otra cosa que en su lugar debe advertir al conductor, como el gobierno, sus ingenieros de carreteras y los mantenedores. [163] [96] [164]

Como es generalmente probable y previsible que, si el azar lo permite, en algún momento habrá una obstrucción más allá de la línea de visión de algún conductor, tal derecho desafía siglos [18] [19] de precedentes en la doctrina de la negligencia, además de plantear difíciles desafíos de política e ingeniería. También viola el cálculo de la negligencia [144] porque la velocidad es un factor inherente en los accidentes vehiculares que son una de las principales causas de pérdida de vidas inestimables [165] [166 ] [167 ] [168] [169] [128] y demandas judiciales, y la carga de una precaución por exceso de velocidad es radicalmente menor que la anterior. [169]

La asunción de riesgo resultante de la actividad insegura de conducir más rápido de lo que uno puede detenerse dentro de su campo de visión, no depende ex post facto de lo que uno haya golpeado, de lo cual por naturaleza no podría haber sabido: podría haber sido un alce o un auto de lujo. Además, los tiempos modernos aún no ofrecen remedios legales para la desgracia darwiniana en toda la clase de accidentes indefendibles en los que los conductores y sus pasajeros no habrían chocado con un alce, [113] ganado, [37] árbol caído, roca, restos de material, vehículo tirado por caballos, [37] vehículo averiado, [170] autobús escolar, camión de basura, cartero, quitanieves, deslave, ventisquero o se habrían salido de la carretera, si no fuera por sus decisiones de conducir más rápido de lo que dictaba la distancia libre asegurada por delante. Independientemente de qué comportamiento pueda alentar una autoridad inventando nuevos derechos, sigue siendo atemporal que los electores no puedan demandar al viento por causar un accidente cuando inevitablemente viola un "derecho moderno a conducir más rápido de lo permitido por la ACDA" al no advertirles que derribó un árbol en un bosque con muchos árboles que finalmente cayeron. En este sentido específico, las jurisdicciones que otorgan a los conductores la libertad de ser tontos por su propia locura, también están condonando el daño colateral y la pérdida de vidas que se espera que ocurra. Además, los consumidores modernos que confían su vida a los servicios de conducción y a los automóviles sin conductor [12] que sufren tales lesiones causadas se quedan sin recurso legal para el resultado previsible de la velocidad imprudente; esto, a su vez, transfiere innecesariamente una parte sustancial del espacio de responsabilidad de la ACDA a casos fortuitos , reclamaciones gubernamentales , responsabilidad estricta u otras conclusiones de ficción legal que el sistema de justicia generalmente aborrece. Lo que están cambiando los tiempos modernos es que uno puede asegurar que la distancia está clara por delante virtualmente a través de la Internet de las cosas , ya que los autos inteligentes se conectan para obtener información de las autopistas inteligentes o pasan lo que ven por delante o miden al tráfico detrás. [171] Un corolario fundamental de la regla ACDA es que la tecnología, las expectativas y los deseos pueden modernizarse, pero las leyes de la física no pueden y no lo hacen. [34] [35] Los coeficientes de desaceleración y los tiempos de reacción pueden cambiar desde el transporte en carro , caballo y buggy , motor de combustión interna , motor eléctrico, y en vehículos sin conductor, pero las ecuaciones que rigen las distancias de frenado son inmutables. Por último, cuando la política de la ley es no culpar a ciudadanos diligentes bien intencionados por errores inocentes, [118] [119] la vida humana sigue beneficiándose del deber de la ACDA, que infunde el margen necesario para sobrevivir ileso de un error tan previsible y excusable, al tiempo que añade redundancia a la responsabilidad de evitar una colisión; los simples deberes unilaterales establecidos para garantizar la seguridad de los demás tienden a dar lugar a una compensación de riesgos peligrosos por parte de las partes que no tienen restricciones [172] , lo que da lugar a un riesgo moral .

Permitir que uno conduzca más rápido de lo que su visión le permite detenerse de manera segura, da como resultado que no haya un estándar básico de cuidado con respecto a la velocidad segura, lo que hace que las leyes de velocidad insegura sean nulas por vaguedad . [10] El estándar mínimo de la ACDA proporciona un aviso justo de qué conducta está prohibida, y las personas de inteligencia ordinaria pueden aplicar su experiencia de frenado o la regla de segundos de distancia para detenerse a la distancia que pueden ver; [142] una vez que a uno se le permite conducir sin control más allá del límite de visibilidad, hay poco consenso sobre qué velocidad arbitraria es insegura, o qué asumir de las condiciones vagas pasadas. [11]

Para poder garantizar la "seguridad" más allá del borde próximo de visibilidad clara, y al hacerlo eximir de la obligación de la ACDA, una carretera debe diseñarse y mantenerse de manera que no haya posibilidad de obstrucción en el carril de uno más allá del borde próximo de visibilidad clara. Se debe asegurar que el perfil vertical de una carretera tenga una curvatura tal que no esconda peligros detrás de sus crestas. Se debe eliminar con seguridad la discreción para que los conductores y los peatones ingresen a un carril potencialmente ocupado desde una calle lateral, por ejemplo, con vallas, carriles de incorporación o acceso señalizado. También debe haber una garantía de que no haya oportunidad de que los animales y los escombros ingresen desde los estacionamientos laterales, y que se realicen patrullas de mantenimiento continuas cada varias horas . Además, dichas secciones de la carretera deben distinguirse de otras carreteras para que el conductor pueda saber clara e inmediatamente cuándo puede o no tomar esa "seguridad" extendida. Pocas carreteras pueden cumplir estos requisitos, excepto algunas de las autopistas de acceso controlado de clasificación funcional más alta, como las autopistas y las autobahns . [114]

Incluso si se cumplen esos criterios, la ley también debe eximir al conductor de la responsabilidad de mantener una distancia libre más allá de la línea de visión. En la mayoría de las democracias, esa responsabilidad por el incumplimiento de la distancia libre más allá de la línea de visión se transferiría en última instancia a sus contribuyentes. [96] Esto sólo ocurre generalmente cuando los electores o sus tribunales han encomendado a los gobiernos la responsabilidad de diseñar y mantener carreteras que "asegurarán" que la distancia será libre más allá del límite próximo de visibilidad clara. Las presiones para realizar esos cambios pueden surgir de la normalización cultural de la desviación y el riesgo innecesario, la incomprensión del propósito del sistema de clasificación funcional de las carreteras , la subestimación del riesgo aumentado y la recuperación del tiempo de viaje. [114]

Una de las mayores dificultades que crea esta ampliación de la ACDA es la frecuencia con la que las carreteras reducen su clasificación funcional [114] sin que lo sepan los conductores, que siguen sin saber que han perdido esta "seguridad" ampliada o no entienden la diferencia. Este matiz en las jurisdicciones aplicables es una fuente prolífica de accidentes. [125] En los Estados Unidos , no hay una señalización vial explícita que prometa una distancia libre más allá de la línea de visión en el Manual de Dispositivos Uniformes de Control de Tráfico , aunque hay señales que comunican "distancia de visión limitada", "colina bloquea la vista", "cruce de caminos más adelante" y "fin de la autopista". [173] Una solución parcial a este desafío es eliminar la discreción del conductor para determinar si la ACDA se extiende más allá de la línea de visión, al designar explícitamente este cambio de ley a ciertas carreteras marcadas de alta clasificación funcional que cumplen estrictos criterios de ingeniería. [114]

La regla ACDA es análoga a las reglas de vuelo visual de la aviación , y su excepción discutida (permitida solo en una zona de control bien regulada) es análoga a las reglas de vuelo por instrumentos . A diferencia de las reglas de vuelo visual e instrumental, donde el derecho administrativo federal e internacional se aplica de manera uniforme y sin problemas en todos los estados, la regla ACDA que rige el transporte terrestre es relativamente variada en los distintos estados y circuitos judiciales . [10] [ 47] [105] [174] [175] La gobernanza primitiva y fragmentada sobre un importante tema comercial interestatal , en una era moderna en la que los ciudadanos viajan más rápido y con más frecuencia que nunca, crea problemas para los automóviles modernos sin conductor que se programan, distribuyen, venden y comercializan a nivel nacional. [12] [104] [140] A diferencia de un estándar estricto de cuidado, [176] [80] [81] [177] la delegación de dicho estándar a un jurado [178] supone la heurística de representatividad [179] para que doce personas determinen el cuidado ordinario representativo de todos mientras se ignora su insensibilidad al tamaño de la muestra , lo que por supuesto cuando se aplica a múltiples casos que involucran circunstancias situacionales idénticas resulta en muchos veredictos con puntos de vista extremos opuestos, [81] lo que va en contra de la utilidad de la ley al hacerla arbitrariamente vaga . [80] [81] Un estándar de uniformidad nacional que establece administrativamente la ley ACDA como se ha hecho para las aeronaves, o requiere que los estados la promulguen legislativamente para recibir fondos federales del DOT como se ha hecho para la edad legal nacional para beber, es un tema de debate para aquellos que argumentan que mueren muchas más personas en automóviles que en aviones. [165] [166] [128] [180] Si bien la polarización de los grupos en favor de la seguridad ha desplazado el umbral de alcoholemia para delitos por debajo de niveles en los que el riesgo es estadísticamente marginal, [6] [181] la tolerancia al exceso de velocidad (en el que cada incremento de unidad de velocidad conlleva un riesgo equivalente en relación con el nivel de alcohol en sangre [6]) sigue siendo relativamente descuidada. La velocidad es responsable de más accidentes y pérdidas económicas que el alcohol. [165] La discrepancia puede explicarse en parte por poderosos grupos de intereses especiales que están presionando contra la conducción en estado de ebriedad y a favor de una regulación más estricta de la velocidad. [182]

Derivaciones

Caso 1: Velocidad segura en función de la línea de visión hacia adelante

Derivación de ACDA 1
Fuerzas sobre un vehículo que se desliza por una pendiente con un ángulo θ .

Comenzando con la Segunda Ley del Movimiento de Newton y las Leyes de Fricción :

Igualando la fuerza neta a la masa por la aceleración :

Invocando las ecuaciones de movimiento y sustituyendo la aceleración:

Aproximación de ángulo pequeño :

Sustituyendo las aproximaciones de ángulos pequeños y aprovechando que el producto de un ángulo pequeño al cuadrado, en radianes, con el coeficiente de fricción, θ 2 μ, es insignificante (para una pendiente pronunciada del 20% y un buen coeficiente de fricción de 0,8, esto equivale a (.2) 2 x0,8≈0,03):

Ahora bien, la distancia total de frenado es la suma de las distancias de frenado y de percepción-reacción:

Aislando el cero como preparación para resolver la velocidad:

Completando el cuadrado o invocando la fórmula cuadrática para encontrar la solución:

Utilice la aproximación de ángulo pequeño para obtener una versión más práctica de la solución anterior en términos de porcentaje de pendiente /100 " e " en lugar de un ángulo θ en radianes:

Sustituyendo el ángulo como se describe se obtiene la forma de la fórmula del caso 1 ():

La Ley de Velocidad Básica limita la distancia libre asegurada a la distancia total de frenado, y el pequeño valor del ángulo de las pendientes de la carretera se aproxima a la peralte "e".

Muchas carreteras son niveladas, en cuyo caso las aproximaciones de ángulos pequeños o la peralte pueden descartarse por completo:

Este modelo ignora los efectos de la resistencia del aire , la resistencia a la rodadura , la sustentación y la relatividad , ya que el gran impulso y el peso de un vehículo dominan estos factores; aumentan la complejidad de las fórmulas mientras que cambian insustancialmente los resultados en prácticamente todas las situaciones de conducción, excepto en bicicletas de masa ultra baja que se detienen a velocidades inherentemente peligrosamente altas; la usabilidad para el profano y la conformidad con los supuestos de ingeniería estándar actuales [106] [107] es el objetivo y el factor de sustentación de un vehículo es a menudo inaccesible. Aprenda un modelo de terreno nivelado con la mayoría de esos efectos aquí o lea sobre el coeficiente de arrastre del automóvil .

Caso 2: Velocidad segura en función de la línea de visión horizontal

Derivación de ACDA 2

El tiempo necesario para que un obstáculo con velocidad v i atraviese la distancia de visibilidad horizontal d i :

El tiempo necesario para recorrer una carretera a una velocidad v hasta llegar a dicho obstáculo situado a una distancia d:

Igualando los dos tiempos:

Resolviendo esta distancia:

Igualando esto a la distancia total de frenado, que es la suma de las distancias de frenado y de percepción-reacción:

Aislando cero y factorizando av:

Resolviendo el caso no trivial (o se puede distribuir v en la ecuación anterior y aplicar la fórmula cuadrática para obtener el mismo resultado):

La solución de la ecuación anterior, que proporciona la velocidad máxima segura en función de la distancia de visibilidad horizontal, la velocidad de intersección y el coeficiente de fricción entre la carretera y los neumáticos:

Caso 3: Velocidad segura en función del retranqueo interseccional

Derivación de ACDA 3

El tiempo que tarda un vehículo en entrar en una intersección controlada desde una parada es la suma del tiempo de percepción (t p ), el tiempo necesario para accionar una transmisión automática o cambiar a la primera marcha (t c ) y el tiempo necesario para acelerar y entrar o atravesar la carretera (t a ). La suma de las dos primeras cantidades es t pc .

El tiempo necesario para que un vehículo que entra con aceleración a i recorra la suma de las distancias de retroceso y de arcén d i bajo aceleración uniforme a i desde una parada a través de las ecuaciones de movimiento :

El tiempo necesario para recorrer una carretera a una velocidad v hasta llegar a dicho obstáculo situado a una distancia d:

Igualando los dos tiempos:

Resolviendo esta distancia:

Igualando esto a la distancia total de frenado, que es la suma de las distancias de frenado y de percepción-reacción:

Aislando cero y factorizando av:

Resolviendo el caso no trivial (o se puede distribuir v en la ecuación anterior y aplicar la fórmula cuadrática para obtener el mismo resultado):

La solución de la ecuación anterior, que proporciona la velocidad máxima segura en función del retroceso horizontal, la aceleración de intersección y el coeficiente de fricción entre la carretera y los neumáticos:

Caso 4: Velocidad segura en función de la distancia de seguimiento

Derivación de ACDA 4

De las ecuaciones de movimiento :

Aislamiento para mayor velocidad:

Caso 5: Velocidad segura en función de la velocidad crítica

Derivación de ACDA 5
Fuerzas sobre un vehículo que se desliza por una pendiente con un ángulo θ .

Comenzando con las leyes del movimiento de Newton , las leyes de fricción y la fuerza centrípeta :

Sustituyendo fórmulas para la fuerza centrípeta , la fuerza de fricción y la fuerza gravitacional:

La fuerza normal es igual y opuesta a la suma de los componentes gravitacional y centrípeta:

Términos aislados :

Luego resuelve :

Para obtener:

Esta es la solución completa, sin embargo la mayoría de las esquinas tienen una inclinación inferior a 15 grados (aproximadamente un 28 %), por lo que en tales condiciones se puede utilizar una aproximación de ángulo pequeño que se pueda aplicar en el terreno.

Sustituyendo aproximaciones de ángulos pequeños sin  θ  ≈  θ , cos ≈ 1 −  θ 2 /2:

Aprovecha que un ángulo pequeño al cuadrado, en radianes, es insignificante sustituyendo θ 2 ≈0 lo que obtiene la fórmula utilizada en el caso 5 (también tan θ≈e):

Regla de segundos de distancia para detenerse

Derivación de la regla de segundos de distancia hasta la parada

La regla de los segundos de distancia hasta la parada se deriva de la siguiente manera.

Primero obtenemos la distancia total de frenado y luego la convertimos en tiempo de viaje, que es más fácilmente aplicable por el conductor.

Invocando las ecuaciones de movimiento ,

dónde

.

El tiempo que se tarda en recorrer casualmente la distancia de frenado a la velocidad de viaje es

.

Sustituyendo el primero en el segundo,

.

Esto se puede simplificar en forma de regla empírica.

Al observar que

.

Sustitución (unidades habituales de EE. UU.)

(seco) o (húmedo) o (nieve); , (convertir mph a fps);

tenemos

(seco), (húmedo) y (nieve).

Esto da como resultado una regla de segundos de distancia hasta detenerse (en MPH) de

(pavimento seco)
(pavimento mojado)
(nieve, dura).

La regla seca permite viajar más rápido en clima seco, pero es de esperar que la desaceleración de emergencia sea un poco incómoda. Si uno desea recordar solo una regla, use la regla húmeda. Sin embargo, debido a que la diferencia entre húmedo y seco es de medio segundo a 30 MPH y de un segundo a 60 MPH, y debido a que dividir por dos es más fácil que por tres, podemos usar una regla empírica corregible:

(en lugar de eso, agregue 2+ en condiciones húmedas o complejas, y también divida por 10 en nieve/hielo)

Por ejemplo, una velocidad de 60 millas por hora (97 km/h) corresponde a una distancia de frenado de 4 segundos a 60 mph. Los conductores que requieren un tiempo de percepción-reacción adicional, como los novatos, los mayores o aquellos que se encuentran en entornos complejos o adversos, pueden beneficiarse de la adición de segundos adicionales. [183] ​​[184]

El tiempo necesario para recorrer la distancia de frenado a la velocidad de viaje no debe confundirse con el tiempo de frenado para detenerse por completo, que es un número casi el doble de este valor ( t = en/microgramos +t ptr ). Como uno va disminuyendo continuamente la velocidad mientras frena, naturalmente tardará más en llegar al límite de frenado.

Los que tienen inclinaciones matemáticas suelen utilizar un tiempo de percepción-reacción más correcto de un segundo y medio. [107] [146] Al hacerlo, se obtienen los "segundos de distancia hasta detenerse" para pavimento seco y luego se convierte el tiempo en distancia real multiplicándolo por la velocidad de viaje y22/15 Convertir MPH a fps producirá resultados que concuerden estrechamente con esta tabla.

Mientras que la mayor parte de la conducción se realiza a menos de 80 millas por hora (130 km/h), manteniendo un tiempo de viaje de 5 o 6 segundos hasta el límite de visibilidad ( t = 80/20+1 ), mantendrá a los conductores en cumplimiento con la regla ACDA en las condiciones de conducción en carretera más simples, de día o de noche , con un error creciente hacia la seguridad a velocidades más bajas.

Como nota final, la pendiente tiene un efecto en la distancia de frenado. Será necesario agregar aproximadamente un segundo adicional al detenerse mientras se viaja cuesta abajo y, a la inversa, conducir cuesta arriba mejorará el frenado. [106] Esto tiene en cuenta que se asumió una carretera nivelada en la regla general. Vea una derivación más general aquí

Tablas de constantes de referencia y velocidades seguras

Constantes de referencia

Tabla de tiempos de percepción-reacción

Tabla de tiempos de percepción-reacción

Tabla de coeficientes de fricción entre neumáticos y calzada

Tabla de coeficientes de fricción entre neumáticos y calzada

Véase también Coeficientes de fricción y resistencia a la rodadura de los neumáticos

Tabla de valores de aceleración

Tabla de valores de aceleración

Ver aceleraciones específicas del vehículo

Tabla de valores de intersección

Tabla de valores de intersección

Vea más velocidades de intercepción de animales. Vea el artículo sobre velocidad .

Tabla de índices de velocidad de los neumáticos

Tabla de índices de velocidad de los neumáticos

Consulte el artículo sobre códigos de neumáticos .

Velocidades seguras

Tabla de ACDA: línea de visión hacia adelante

Tabla de ACDA: línea de visión hacia adelante

Los valores de velocidad de esta tabla se obtienen a partir de la fórmula utilizando un coeficiente de fricción "medio" (μ) de 0,7 y un tiempo de percepción-reacción de 1,5 segundos. Los valores de velocidad específicos para una circunstancia dada se pueden obtener con la misma fórmula utilizando las constantes de referencia adecuadas específicas para la circunstancia.

Tabla de ACDA: línea de visión horizontal

Tabla de ACDA: línea de visión horizontal

Esta tabla demuestra por qué los callejones , estacionamientos , parques y áreas residenciales frecuentemente establecen límites de velocidad de 5 a 15 mph cuando la distancia al costado de la carretera es menor a 15 pies. Una calle urbana o residencial que permite un límite de velocidad máximo de 25 mph en sus mejores condiciones (los costados de la carretera están libres de obstrucciones visuales más allá de un derecho de paso mantenido de 20 pies ), puede en la práctica ser insegura para conducir a más de 10 mph dentro de secciones con estacionamiento en la acera utilizado. Esta tabla también sugiere que la velocidad segura podría ser mayor que la velocidad reglamentaria de 25 mph, donde la distancia al costado de la carretera es suficiente para que ningún objeto "previsible" pueda emerger del borde próximo de la visibilidad del costado de la carretera, atravesar el área despejada e interceptar el carril antes de que el conductor pueda detenerse. Sin embargo, los ingenieros de diseño de carreteras cautelosos pueden tener diferentes puntos de vista sobre las velocidades de interceptación previsibles que la reflejada por la velocidad del percentil 85 elegida por el público. Esto puede tener consecuencias desafortunadas cuando el público que viaja en masa no está familiarizado con los peligros locales específicos o no los aprecia. Los carriles estrechos se utilizan deliberadamente para calmar el tráfico , porque los conductores cuidadosos eligen universalmente su velocidad dependiendo del ancho de la calzada. [191] Las distancias horizontales estándar suelen establecerse mediante las directrices de la AASHTO o el departamento de transporte de una jurisdicción. [106] [192]

Los valores de velocidad de estas tablas se obtienen a partir de la fórmula utilizando un coeficiente de fricción (μ) "medio" de 0,7 y un tiempo de percepción-reacción de 1,5 segundos. Los valores de velocidad específicos para una circunstancia dada se pueden obtener con la misma fórmula utilizando las constantes de referencia adecuadas específicas para la circunstancia.

Tabla de ACDA: retroceso interseccional

Tabla de ACDA: retroceso interseccional

Los valores de velocidad específicos de una circunstancia dada se pueden obtener con la misma fórmula utilizando las constantes de referencia apropiadas específicas para la circunstancia.

Tabla de distancias siguientes

Tabla de distancias de seguimiento (regla de los 2 segundos)

Tabla de velocidades críticas

Tabla de velocidades críticas

Los valores de velocidad de esta tabla se obtienen a partir de la fórmula utilizando un coeficiente de fricción "promedio" ( μ ) de 0,7 y un peralte cero . Los valores de velocidad específicos para una circunstancia dada se pueden obtener con la misma fórmula utilizando las constantes de referencia adecuadas específicas para la circunstancia.

La mayoría de los automovilistas no tolerarán una aceleración lateral superior a 0,3 g (μ=0,3) por encima de la cual muchos entrarán en pánico. [148]

Los valores de velocidad específicos de una circunstancia dada se pueden obtener con la misma fórmula utilizando las constantes de referencia apropiadas específicas para la circunstancia.

Tabla de umbrales de detección

Tabla de umbrales de detección: SAVT

Para una persona con un límite SAVT de , el movimiento inminente de un objeto que se aproxima directamente de tamaño S , moviéndose a una velocidad v , no es detectable hasta que su distancia D es [129]

Véase también

Notas

  1. ^ Por este motivo, casi nunca se requiere una distancia de visibilidad completa en las esquinas para entradas individuales en áreas residenciales urbanas de alta densidad, y el estacionamiento en la calle generalmente se permite dentro del derecho de paso .
  2. ^ Si bien el efecto Gestalt es generalmente valioso para procesar información visual, la ambigüedad , como la que se da cuando se aproximan vehículos distantes, también puede conducir a una percepción multiestable problemática , a errores de relleno y a fallas espectaculares, como la ilusión de Ebbinghaus , la ilusión de Delboeuf y la ilusión de Ponzo . Este tipo de error humano honesto surge insidiosamente a través de inferencias inconscientes a partir de información insuficiente, distractora o ilusoria; es especialmente importante prever este tipo de peligro en las intersecciones.
  3. ^ En el peor de los casos, un conductor tomará decisiones solo en función del "movimiento inminente" de los faros delanteros que se aproximan o la silueta de un vehículo anónimo, que debe alcanzar una cierta proximidad para superar el umbral de agudeza de expansión visual, . Dado un vehículo de tamaño y distancia , el ángulo visual es: . Su derivada con respecto a la distancia es . Un vehículo que se aproxima con velocidad constante disminuirá la distancia a una tasa . La tasa temporal de expansión visual se obtiene a partir de la tasa a la que el ángulo subtendido crece con la disminución de la distancia, multiplicada por la tasa a la que la distancia disminuye con el tiempo: . De ello se deduce que . Por lo tanto, el movimiento inminente de un vehículo que se aproxima no es perceptible hasta , donde el S 2/4El término se omite con la aproximación de ángulo pequeño . Las unidades de medida para las variables de tamaño, distancia y velocidad deben ser del mismo sistema (es decir, multiplicar por22/15 para convertir MPH a ft/s o5/18 para convertir km/h a m/s oπ/180 para convertir grados a rad necesarios). Leer más sobre este tema
  4. ^ También se aplica la doctrina de la amplitud excesiva , según la cual, para evitar el riesgo de consecuencias legales por utilizar intersecciones ciegas para las que no hay un aviso justo de que el resto del tráfico haga efectiva la prohibición de su uso, se disuade a las personas que no tienen una ruta alternativa de la libertad de movimiento, expresión y reunión pacífica. Por lo tanto, los efectos de la ley son mucho más amplios de lo que se pretende o de lo que permite la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. Además, como la distancia de visibilidad interseccional insuficiente es a menudo sintomática de barrios urbanos antiguos y de alta densidad, con viviendas de múltiples inquilinos que saturan los estacionamientos en calles estrechas (entornos socioeconómicos predominantemente más bajos), clases enteras de personas pueden verse desanimadas de manera desigual incluso de salir de sus casas. El conductor que pasa por el carril contrario no se ve afectado negativamente en este sentido, al verse obligado a reducir la velocidad para poder detenerse y evitar chocar con un automóvil o peatón que entra, como lo exige la ley.
  5. ^ En la mayoría de las jurisdicciones, se debe tomar nota judicial de la distancia total de frenado y, por lo tanto, dicha nota se toma lógica y sustancialmente de la velocidad máxima permitida para frenar dentro de la distancia de frenado según se aplica a la ACDA. Esta última es simplemente la función inversa de la primera. Además, las relaciones matemáticas fundamentales están sujetas a la consideración judicial.
    Por ejemplo, utilizando los valores y que produjeron las Tablas de velocidad y distancias de frenado del Código de Virginia § 46.2-880, uno simplemente obtiene las mismas velocidades que produjeron la distancia de frenado en el estatuto: Métrico ( SI ) – Velocidad en km/h a partir de la distancia en metros :
    Costumbre de EE. UU .: Velocidad en MPH a partir de la distancia en pies :
  6. ^ La velocidad segura se expresará en los mismos términos que las unidades ingresadas. Si se ingresa una distancia en pies y una aceleración en pies/s2 , se obtendrá una velocidad segura en pies/segundo. Para convertir a millas por hora, multiplique por 22/15 . Al ingresar la distancia y la aceleración en términos de metros, se obtendrá una velocidad en metros por segundo, que se puede convertir a kilómetros por hora multiplicando por a .18/5 (o 3,6) factor.

Referencias

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "Section 2 – Driving Safely" (PDF). Commercial Driver License Manual 2005. United States Department of Transportation. July 2014. pp. 2–15, 2–19, 2–26, 13–1. [pg 2-15] 2.6.4 – Speed and Distance Ahead: You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. Fog, rain, or other conditions may require that you slowdown to be able to stop in the distance you can see. ... [pg 2-19] 2.8.3 – Drivers Who Are Hazards: Vehicles may be partly hidden by blind intersections or alleys. If you only can see the rear or front end of a vehicle but not the driver, then he or she can't see you. Be alert because he/she may back out or enter into your lane. Always be prepared to stop. ... [pg 2-26] 2.11.4 – Vehicle Factors: Headlights. At night your headlights will usually be the main source of light for you to see by and for others to see you. You can't see nearly as much with your headlights as you see in the daytime. With low beams you can see ahead about 250 feet and with high beams about 350-500 feet. You must adjust your speed to keep your stopping distance within your sight distance. This means going slowly enough to be able to stop within the range of your headlights. ... [pg 13-1] 13.1.2 – Intersections As you approach an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate gently. Brake smoothly and, if necessary, change gears. If necessary, come to a complete stop (no coasting) behind any stop signs, signals, sidewalks, or stop lines maintaining a safe gap behind any vehicle in front of you. Your vehicle must not roll forward or backward. When driving through an intersection: Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection. Do not change lanes while proceeding through the intersection. Keep your hands on the wheel.
  2. ^ a b c Lawyers Cooperative Publishing. New York Jurisprudence. Automobiles and Other Vehicles. Miamisburg, OH: LEXIS Publishing. p. § 720. OCLC 321177421. It is negligence as a matter of law to drive a motor vehicle at such a rate of speed that it cannot be stopped in time to avoid an obstruction discernible within the driver's length of vision ahead of him. This rule is known generally as the 'assured clear distance ahead' rule * * * In application, the rule constantly changes as the motorist proceeds, and is measured at any moment by the distance between the motorist's vehicle and the limit of his vision ahead, or by the distance between the vehicle and any intermediate discernible static or forward-moving object in the street or highway ahead constituting an obstruction in his path. Such rule requires a motorist in the exercise of due care at all times to see, or to know from having seen, that the road is clear or apparently clear and safe for travel, a sufficient distance ahead to make it apparently safe to advance at the speed employed.
  3. ^ a b c d Leibowitz, Herschel W.; Owens, D. Alfred; Tyrrell, Richard A. (1998). "The assured clear distance ahead rule: implications for nighttime traffic safety and the law". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 30 (1): 93–99. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00067-5. PMID 9542549. The assured clear distance ahead (ACDA) rule holds the operator of a motor vehicle responsible to avoid collision with any obstacle that might appear in the vehicle's path.
  4. ^ a b c James O. Pearson (2009). "Automobiles: sudden emergency as exception to rule requiring motorist to maintain ability to stop within assured clear distance ahead". American Law Reports--Annotated, 3rd Series. Vol. 75. The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company; Bancroft-Whitney; West Group Annotation Company. p. 327.
  5. ^ a b c Newton v. Stebbins, 51 U.S. 586, 51 United States Reports 586 (Supreme Court of the United States December 1850) ("it may be a matter of convenience that steam vessels should proceed with great rapidity, but the law will not justify them in proceeding with such rapidity if the property and lives of other persons are thereby endangered. ... It is a mistake to suppose that a rigorous enforcement of the necessity of adopting precautionary measures by the persons in charge of steamboats to avoid damage to sailing vessels on our rivers and internal waters will have the effect to produce carelessness and neglect on the part of the persons in charge of the latter. The vast speed and power of the former, and consequent serious damage to the latter in case of a collision, will always be found a sufficient admonition to care and vigilance on their part. A collision usually results in the destruction of the sailing vessel, and not infrequently in the loss of the lives of persons on board.").
  6. ^ a b c C.N. Kloeden; A.J. McLean; V.M. Moore; G. Ponte. "Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement" (PDF). NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, The University of Adelaide. p. 54. the relative risk of an injury crash when travelling at 65 km/h in a 60 km/h speed limit zone is similar to that associated with driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 g/100mL. By strange coincidence, if the blood alcohol concentration is multiplied by 100, and the resulting number is added to 60 km/h, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash associated with that travelling speed is almost the same as the risk associated with the blood alcohol concentration. Hence, the risk is similar for 0.05 and 65, as noted; for 0.08 and 68; for .12 and 72, and so on...
  7. ^ Benjamin Preston (January 8, 2016). "Insurers Brace for a Self-Driving Future (and a Fading Need for Insurance)". The New York Times. p. B3.
  8. ^ Murray Carl Lertzman (1954). "The Assured Clear Distance Ahead Rule in Ohio". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 5 (1): 77–83. when an automobile collides with an obstruction on the highway it becomes important to determine whether the driver was exceeding a speed which would have permitted him to stop within his assured clear distance ahead...whenever a driver has collided with a readily discernible object located ahead of him and within his lane of travel for a substantial period of time, he has been held, as a matter of law, to have been negligent. Under such circumstances, the courts have indicated that the fact that a collision occurred furnishes evidence from which reasonable minds could only conclude that the driver was traveling at such a speed that he was unable to stop within the assured clear distance ahead
  9. ^ a b c Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 United States Reports 385, 391 (Supreme Court of the United States January 4, 1926) ("That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law, and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.").
  10. ^ a b c State of Montana, v. Rudy Stanko, 1998 MT 321, HN 30 (Supreme Court of Montana 23 December 1998) ("...we conclude that that part of § 61-8-303(1), MCA, which makes it a criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle "at a rate of speed ․ greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation" is void for vagueness on its face and in violation of the Due Process Clause of Article II, Section 17, of the Montana Constitution.").
  11. ^ a b c d Jim Robbins (December 25, 1998). "Montana's Speed Limit of ?? M.P.H. Is Overturned as Too Vague". The New York Times. The challenge to the speed limit was brought by Rudy Stanko, a cattle buyer in Billings who had contested three tickets. "I asked a cop how fast I could go and he never gave me an answer," Mr. Stanko said today. "They said it's up to the discretion of the cop and that ain't right. Let us decide how fast we want to travel." Although the court threw out a speeding ticket Mr. Stanko had received for traveling 102 miles an hour, it upheld two reckless driving counts -- one for traveling 117 m.p.h., the other for 121 m.p.h. Both violations were on two-lane highways as he crested a hill.
  12. ^ a b c d e f Le Vine, Scott; Liu, Xiaobo; Zheng, Fangfang; Polak, John (January 1, 2016). "Automated cars: Queue discharge at signalized intersections with 'Assured-Clear-Distance-Ahead' driving strategies". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 62: 35–54. Bibcode:2016TRPC...62...35L. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2015.11.005.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335, 189 Official California Reports 335 (Supreme Court of California July 27, 1922) ("[The basic speed law] is but a reiteration of the rule, in statutory form, which has always been in force without regard to a statutory promulgation to the effect that drivers or operators of vehicles, and more particularly motor vehicles, must be specially watchful in anticipation of the presence of others at places where other vehicles are constantly passing, and where men, women, and children are liable to be crossing, such as corners at the intersections of streets or other similar places or situations where people are likely to fail to observe an approaching automobile."). See Official Reports Opinions Online
  14. ^ a b c Morris v. Jenrette Transport Co., 235 N.C. 568 (Supreme Court of North Carolina May 21, 1952) ("It is not enough that the driver of plaintiff's automobile be able to begin to stop within the range of his lights, or that he exercise due diligence after seeing defendants' truck on the highway. He should have so driven that he could and would discover it, perform the manual acts necessary to stop, and bring the automobile to a complete stop within the range of his lights. When blinded by the lights of the oncoming car so that he could not see the required distance ahead, it was the duty of the driver within such distance from the point of blinding to bring his automobile to such control that he could stop immediately, and if he could not then see, he should have stopped. In failing to so drive he was guilty of negligence which patently caused or contributed to the collision with defendants' truck, resulting in injury to plaintiff."...it was his duty to anticipate presence of others, [...] and hazards of the road, such as disabled vehicle, and, in the exercise of due care, to keep his automobile under such control as to be able to stop within the range of his lights").
  15. ^ a b c d Allin v. Snavely, 100 Cal. App. 2d 411, 100 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 411 (California Court of Appeal November 14, 1950) (""A driver by insisting on his lawful right of way may violate the basic speed law as provided by Veh. Code, § 22350, and thus become guilty of negligence."(CA Reports Headnote #[2])").
  16. ^ a b c d e Errol R. Hoffmann; Rudolf G. Mortimer (July 1996). "Scaling of relative velocity between vehicles". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 28 (4): 415–421. doi:10.1016/0001-4575(96)00005-X. ISSN 0001-4575. PMID 8870768. Only when the subtended angular velocity of the lead vehicle exceeded about 0.003 rad/s were the subjects able to scale the relative velocity
  17. ^ a b c d e Michael E. Maddox; Aaron Kiefer (September 2012). "Looming Threshold Limits and Their Use in Forensic Practice". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 50 (1): 700–704. doi:10.1177/1071181312561146. S2CID 109898296. A number of laboratory researchers have reported values of the looming threshold to be in the range of 0.003 radian/sec. Forensic practitioners routinely use elevated values of the looming threshold, e.g., 0.005-0.008, to account for the complexity of real-world driving tasks. However, only one source has used data from actual vehicle accidents to arrive at a looming threshold – and that value, 0.0275 rad/sec, is an order of magnitude larger than that derived from laboratory studies. In this study, we examine a much broader range of real-world accident data to obtain an estimate of the reasonable upper end of the looming threshold. The results show a range of 0.0397 to 0.0117 rad/sec...
  18. ^ a b c d The Batavier, 40 English Reports in Law and Equity 19–27, 25 (Great Britain. Courts.; Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords.; Great Britain. Privy Council. Judicial Committee July 14, 1854) ("Page 25: At whatever rate she (the steamer) was going, if going at such a rate as made it dangerous to any craft which she ought to have seen, and might have seen, she had no right to go at that rate. ... at all events, she was bound to stop if it was necessary to do so, in order to prevent damage being done ... See more English Reports in Law and Equity").
  19. ^ a b c The Europa, 2 English Reports in Law and Equity 557–564, 564 (Great Britain. Courts.; Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords.; Great Britain. Privy Council. Judicial Committee June 11, 1850) ("Page: 564 Whether any given rate is dangerous or not must depend upon the circumstances of each individual case, as the state of the weather, locality, and other similar facts. See more English Reports in Law and Equity").
  20. ^ a b The Colorado, 91 U.S. 692, 91 United States Reports 692 (Supreme Court of the United States October 1875) ("when steamships are approaching another ship so as to involve risk of collision, they shall slacken their speed or, if necessary, stop and reverse, and the express provision is that every steamship shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate speed.").
  21. ^ a b c Lauson v. Town of Fond du Lac, 141 Wis. 57, 123 N. W. 629, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 40., 141 Wis. 57 (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1909) ("the driver of an automobile, circumstanced as was the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding, and operating it under such conditions as he operated his machine on the night of the accident, is not exercising ordinary care if he is driving the car at such a rate of speed that he cannot bring it to a standstill within the distance that he can plainly see objects or obstructions ahead of him").
  22. ^ a b Garner v. Maxwell, 360 S.W.2d 64, 360 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee December 20, 1961) ("What is known as the "The assured clear distance rule" arises out of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1914 in the case of West Construction Co. v. White, 130 Tenn. 520, 172 S.W. 301, in which case it was held that the failure of a plaintiff to stop his car within the distance lighted by the headlights of the car, and thus avoid a collision, amounted, as a matter of law, to contributory negligence which barred plaintiff's suit.").
  23. ^ "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" (PDF). International Maritime Organization (IMO), United Nations. October 20, 1972. Part B, Section I, Rule 6. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 7, 2012.
  24. ^ "Revised Statutes (1878), Title XLVIII (48), Chapter 5: Navigation, Section 4233, rules for preventing collisions". Congress of the United States. 1878. Rule twenty-one. Every steam-vessel, when approaching another vessel, so as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop and reverse: and every steam-vessel shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate speed
  25. ^ a b The Nacoochee v. Moseley, 137 U.S. 330, 137 United States Reports 330 (Supreme Court of the United States December 8, 1890) ("every steam-vessel, when approaching another vessel, so as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop and reverse; and every steam-vessel shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate speed. ... She was bound, therefore, to observe unusual caution, and to maintain only such a rate of speed as would enable her to come to a standstill, by reversing her engines at full speed, before she should collide with a vessel which she should see through the fog. ... whatever rate a steamer was going, if she was going at such a rate as made it dangerous to any craft which she ought to have seen, and might have seen, she had no right to go at that rate.").
  26. ^ a b Curtis v. Hubbel, 42 Ohio App. 520, 182 N. E. 589, 42 Ohio App. 520 (Court of Appeals of Ohio May 31, 1932) ("Statute requiring drivers to maintain speed permitting them to stop within assured clear distance ahead held applicable to both day and night driving ... Motorist unable, because of insufficient headlights, to see pedestrian until within few feet, must be able to stop within such distance, and failure to drive at speed permitting such stopping is negligence per se.").
  27. ^ a b Lindquist v. Thierman, 216 Iowa 170, 216 Iowa 170 (Iowa Supreme Court May 15, 1933) ("it is evident that the words "within the assured clear distance ahead", as used in the statute, signify that the operator of the automobile, when driving at night as well as in the day, shall at all times be able to stop his car within the distance that discernible objects may be seen ahead of it.").
  28. ^ "Ohio General Code, Section 12603". July 21, 1929. Section 12603, General Code, which was amended at the legislative session of 1929 (113 Ohio Laws, 283), becoming effective July 21, 1929, wherein, for the first time, appears the following: "No person shall drive any motor vehicle in and upon any public road or highway at a greater speed than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead."
  29. ^ "Iowa General Code, Section 5029 (1931)". 1931. I.G.C., § 5029 (1931): any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway, * * * and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  30. ^ McCool v. Smith, 66 United States Reports 459, 469 (Supreme Court of the United States 1861) ("It is a sound rule, that whenever our Legislature use a term without defining it, which is well known in the English law, and there has been a definite appropriate meaning affixed to it, they must be supposed to use it in the sense in which it is understood in the English law.'").
  31. ^ Shapiro v. United States, 335 United States Reports 1, 16 (Supreme Court of the United States 1941) ("In adopting the language used in the earlier act, Congress "must be considered to have adopted also the construction given by this Court to such language, and made it a part of the enactment."").
  32. ^ "Revised Statutes (1878), Title I General Provisions, Chapter 1, Section 3: Vessel". Congress of the United States. 1878. The word "vessel" includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.
  33. ^ "Revised Statutes (1878), Title I General Provisions, Chapter 1, Section 4: Vehicle". Congress of the United States. 1878. The word "vehicle" includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land.
  34. ^ a b Richard M. Nixon (October 1936). "Changing Rules of Liability in Automobile Accident Litigation". Law and Contemporary Problems. 3 (4): 476–490. doi:10.2307/1189341. ISSN 1945-2322. JSTOR 1189341. The courts before and since that time, almost without exception, have insisted that the rules of law applicable to automobile cases, were no different from those which had been developed in the days of the horse and buggy.
  35. ^ a b c Cook v. Miller, 175 Cal. 497, 175 Official California Reports 497 (Supreme Court of California June 19, 1917) ("The cause of plaintiff having no time to avoid the collision was not the speed of the automobile, for it had come practically to a stop at the instant of the collision. It was his own speed that shortened his time. ... A horse can travel at the rate of fifteen miles an hour, and even faster, for a short time. But in the days of exclusively horse-drawn vehicles one who crossed a street at such a place going at fifteen miles an hour would have been considered reckless. There have been city ordinances forbidding a team from crossing a street intersection faster than a walk. ( Stein v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 371, [113 Pac. 663].) Since our eyes have become somewhat accustomed to greater speed, the recklessness of fifteen miles an hour may not seem so obvious, but the danger is the same. ... A speed which carries a person twenty-two feet in one second of time at a "blind corner," with standing auto trucks projecting twelve feet into the street, obstructing the vision of the intersecting street until the last truck is reached, and with a wagon ahead of him, is not that speed which a person exercising ordinary prudence would choose at such a place, out of due regard for his own safety or that of others. Such speed may not be unusual at the present time, even under similar circumstances. But the person who receives an injury from a collision, while going at that rate under the conditions here existing, should not expect the other person to pay him the damages caused thereby.").
  36. ^ "California Vehicle Code §21050". State of California. every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle
  37. ^ a b c d e f "California Vehicle Code §21759". State of California. The driver of any vehicle approaching any horse drawn vehicle, any ridden animal, or any livestock shall exercise proper control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear necessary or as may be signalled or otherwise requested by any person driving, riding or in charge of the animal or livestock in order to avoid frightening and to safeguard the animal or livestock and to insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in charge of the livestock.
  38. ^ "California Vehicle Code §21200". State of California. A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs
  39. ^ Leyden Street remains unchanged since 1620
  40. ^ Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Huss, 96 Ind. App. 71, 180 N. E. 919, 96 Indiana Appellate Reports 71 (Court of Appeals of Indiana May 6, 1932) ("it is a violation of the law, and, therefore negligence, to drive an automobile at such speed, in the daytime or night time, that it cannot be stopped within the distance that objects can be seen ahead if proper lights are used").
  41. ^ Fisher v. O'Brien, 99 Kan. 621, 192 Pac. 317, L.R.A. 1917F, 610 (1917).
  42. ^ Demerest v. Travelers Insurance Company, 234 La. 1048, 234 La. 1040 (Supreme Court of Louisiana April 21, 1958) ("the jurisprudence of this state is that: "when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, etc., a motorist should reduce his rate of speed to such extent and keep his car under such control as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of accident from collision; and as an extreme measure of safety, it is his duty, when visibility ahead is not possible or greatly obscured, to stop his car and remain at a standstill until conditions warrant going forward.").
  43. ^ Carriere v. Aetna Cas. Co., 146 So.2d 451, 146 So.2d 451 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit October 1, 1962) ("The law is settled to the effect that a motorist is held to have seen an object which, by the use of ordinary care and prudence, he should have seen in time to avoid running into it, and that the driver of an automobile is guilty of negligence in driving at a rate of speed greater than that in which he could stop within the range of his vision.").
  44. ^ Spencer v. Taylor, 219 Mich. 110, 188 N.W. 461 (1922), 219 Mich. 110 (1922).
  45. ^ Gleason v. Lowe, 232 Mich. 300, 232 Mich. 300 (Supreme Court of Michigan October 1, 1925) ("...every man must operate his automobile so that he can stop it within the range of his vision, whether it be daylight or darkness. It makes no difference what may obscure his vision, whether it be a brick wall or the darkness of nightfall. ... He must ... be able to see where he is going, and if his range of vision is 50 feet, if he can see 50 feet ahead of him, he must regulate his speed so that he can stop in a distance of 50 feet; if he can see 20 feet ahead of him, he must regulate his speed so that he can stop within 20 feet, and so on.").
  46. ^ a b c Ruth v. Vroom, 245 Mich. 88, 222 N. W. 155, 62 A. L. R. 1528, 245 Mich. 88 (Supreme Court of Michigan December 4, 1928) ("It is settled in this State that it is negligence as a matter of law to drive an automobile at night at such speed that it cannot be stopped within the distance that objects can be seen ahead of it; and, if a driver's vision is obscured by the lights of an approaching car, it is his duty to slacken speed and have his car under such control that he can stop immediately if necessary. ... The rule adopted by this court does not raise merely a rebuttable presumption of negligence. It is a rule of safety. ... It is not enough that a driver be able to begin to stop within the range of his vision, or that he use diligence to stop after discerning an object. The rule makes no allowance for delay in action.").
  47. ^ a b O'Farrell v. Inzeo, 74 A.D.2d 806 (1st Dept. 1980), 74 A.D.2d 806 (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division 1980) ("It is negligence as a matter of law to drive a motor vehicle at such a rate of speed that it cannot be stopped in time to avoid an obstruction discernible within the driver's length of vision ahead of him. This rule is known generally as the 'assured clear distance ahead' rule * * * In application, the rule constantly changes as the motorist proceeds, and is measured at any moment by the distance between the motorist's vehicle and the limit of his vision ahead, or by the distance between the vehicle and any intermediate discernible static or forward-moving object in the street or highway ahead constituting an obstruction in his path. Such rule requires a motorist in the exercise of due care at all times to see, or to know from having seen, that the road is clear or apparently clear and safe for travel, a sufficient distance ahead to make it apparently safe to advance at the speed employed.").
  48. ^ Blair v. Goff-Kirby Co., 49 Ohio St.2d 5, 7 (Supreme Court of Ohio December 29, 1976).
  49. ^ West Constr. Co. v. White, 130 Tenn. 520, 172 S.W. 301 (1914) ("It was negligence for the driver of the automobile to propel it in a dark place in which he had to rely on the lights of his machine at a rate faster than enabled him to stop or avoid any obstruction within the radius of his light, or within the distance to which his lights would disclose the existence of obstructions ...If the lights on the automobile would disclose obstructions only ten yards away, it was the duty of the driver to regulate his speed of his machine that he could at all times avoid obstructions within that distance.").
  50. ^ Steele v. Fuller, 104 Vt. 303, 104 Vt. 303 (November 1932) ("Operator of motor vehicle has duty at all times to maintain lookout for persons and property on highway, and to use reasonable care to avoid inflicting injuries on such persons or property. ... Operator of motor vehicle is chargeable with knowledge of objects in highway which are in plain view. ... One who drives automobile along public highway in dark must drive at such speed that automobile can be stopped within range of its headlights. ... Rule that automobile operator may assume that other motorists would not obstruct highway unlawfully, and would show statutory lights if they stopped, applies only in favor of one whose own conduct measures up to that of prudent and careful man in like circumstances.").
  51. ^ Mann v. Reliable Transit Co., 217 Wis. 465, 259 N. W. 415, 217 Wis. 465 (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1935).
  52. ^ Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School Dist., 29 Cal.2d 581, 29 Official California Reports, 2nd Series 581 (California Supreme Court Jan 31, 1947) (""proper conduct of a reasonable person under particular situations may become settled by judicial decision or be prescribed by statute or ordinance.""). See California Official Reports: Online Opinions
  53. ^ a b Wilding v. Norton, 156 Cal.App.2d 374, 156 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 374 (California Appellate Court December 27, 1957) ("The so-called basic speed law is primarily a regulation of the conduct of the operators of vehicles. They are bound to know the conditions which dictate the speeds at which they can drive with a reasonable degree of safety. They know, or should know, their cars and their own ability to handle them, and especially their ability to come to a stop at different speeds and under different conditions of the surface of the highway. See Official Reports Online").
  54. ^ a b c d Whitelaw v. McGilliard,179 Cal. 349, 179 Official California Reports 349 (Supreme Court of California December 4, 1918) ("The rule regarding right of way does not impose upon the person crossing the street the duty of assuming that the other will continue across an intersecting street without slowing down, as required by law. See Official Reports Opinions Online").
  55. ^ Lutz v. Schendel, 175 Cal. App. 2d 140, 175 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 140 (California Appellate Court Nov 6, 1959) (""It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle using the public highways to be vigilant at all times and to keep the vehicle under such control that to avoid a collision he can stop as quickly as might be required of him by eventualities that would be anticipated by an ordinarily prudent driver in like position.""). See California Official Reports: Online Opinions
  56. ^ "Code § 321.285 Speed restrictions". The State of Iowa. Retrieved August 6, 2013. Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the highway and of any other conditions then existing, and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, such driver having the right to assume, however, that all persons using said highway will observe the law.
  57. ^ "§ 257.627 Speed limitations". The State of Michigan. Retrieved August 6, 2013. § 257.627(1) A person operating a vehicle on a highway shall operate that vehicle at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the highway and of any other condition then existing. A person shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than that which will permit a stop within the assured, clear distance ahead.
  58. ^ "Revised Code § 4511.21(A) Speed limits - assured clear distance". The State of Ohio. Retrieved August 6, 2013. § 4511.21(A)(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  59. ^ "Oklahoma Statutes § 47-11-801". The State of Oklahoma. Retrieved August 6, 2013. A. Any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and any other conditions then existing, and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  60. ^ "75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3361. Driving vehicle at safe speed". The State of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 6, 2013. No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  61. ^ "Transportation Code, Title 7, Ch. 545, §545.062(a)". State of Texas. Retrieved March 25, 2018. An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway.
  62. ^ "Member States". International Maritime Organization (IMO), United Nations. Retrieved July 3, 2018. Members of IMO are governed by International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea—Part B, Section I, Rule 6: Safe speed
  63. ^ "Boating Safety". Archived from the original on September 28, 2013. Retrieved August 27, 2013. Excessive speed is a rate of speed greater than is reasonable or prudent without regard for conditions and hazards or greater than will permit a person to bring the boat to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  64. ^ "HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, TITLE 13, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SUBTITLE 11, OCEAN RECREATION AND COASTAL AREAS, PART II, BOATING, CHAPTER 244" (PDF). The State of Hawaii. HAR §13-244-7 Careless operation. No person shall operate any vessel in a careless or heedless manner so as to be grossly indifferent to the person or property of other persons, or at a rate of speed greater than will permit that person in the exercise of reasonable care to bring the vessel to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  65. ^ "Illinois Compiled Statutes, Ch. 625, Boat Registration and Safety Act. Sec. 5-1". The State of Illinois. Sec. 5-1. Careless operation. No person shall operate any watercraft in a careless or heedless manner so as to endanger any person or property or at a rate of speed greater than will permit him in the exercise of reasonable care to bring the watercraft to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  66. ^ "Louisiana Laws - RS 34:851.4—Careless operation". The State of Louisiana. 2006.
  67. ^ Torrez v. Willett, 366 Mich. 465, 366 Mich. 465 (Supreme Court of Michigan May 18, 1962) ("Hereafter any motor boat, launch, or other water craft operated on the inland waters of this State or the waters connected with the Great Lakes. No such motor boat shall be operated on any of said waters in a reckless manner or at an excessive rate of speed so as to endanger the life or property of any person in or on said waters, having due regard to the presence of other boats, bathers or objects in or on such waters and of any other conditions then existing, and no person shall operate such motor boat on said waters at a rate of speed greater than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead."").
  68. ^ "§ 23-2-523(4). Prohibited operation and mooring -- enforcement". The State of Montana. Archived from the original on June 29, 2013. Retrieved August 6, 2013. § 23-2-523(4): A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel at a rate of speed greater than will permit the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, to bring the vessel to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. However, nothing in this part is intended to prevent the operator of a vessel actually competing in a regatta that is sanctioned by an appropriate governmental unit from attempting to attain high speeds on a marked racing course.
  69. ^ "Oregon Revised Statues § 830.315 - Reckless operation speed". § 830.315(2) No person shall operate any boat at a rate of speed greater than will permit that person in the exercise of reasonable care to bring the boat to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  70. ^ "Boating Safety: Operate at a Safe Speed". The State of Texas. Excessive speed is a rate of speed greater than is reasonable or prudent without regard for conditions and hazards or greater than will permit a person to bring the boat to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  71. ^ "Article 7, Chapter 20 of the Official Code of West Virginia" (PDF).
  72. ^ a b "Visual Search: How Well Can You Stop?". Driver Handbook (PDF). State of California: Department of Motor Vehicles. 2015. p. 39. If something is in your path, you need to see it in time to stop. Assuming you have good tires, good brakes, and dry pavement: At 55 mph, it takes about 400 feet to react and bring the vehicle to a complete stop. At 35 mph, it takes about 210 feet to react and bring the vehicle to a complete stop. Adjust your driving speed to the weather and road conditions (refer to the "Basic Speed Law" in the "Speed Limits" section). Turn on your lights during the day, if it is hard to see or you cannot see at least 1,000 feet ahead of you.
  73. ^ a b Alaska Driver Manual (PDF). State of Alaska. p. 28. A person may not drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit them to stop within the assured clear distance ahead
  74. ^ a b "North Carolina Driver's Handbook" (PDF). N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles. pp. 51, 66. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2016. Retrieved February 25, 2016. The faster you are moving, the farther ahead you must be able to see to allow enough distance for stopping ... Never drive at a speed at which you cannot stop within the distance you can see on the road ahead
  75. ^ Driver's Manual (PDF). Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. pp. 8–2.
  76. ^ Driver's Manual (PDF). Iowa Department of Transportation. p. 39.
  77. ^ Road Users Manual (PDF). Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. p. 49.
  78. ^ Road Users Manual (PDF). Prince Edward Island, Canada. p. 88.
  79. ^ "49 CFR 392.14 - Hazardous conditions; extreme caution". US Code of Federal Regulations. Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated. Whenever compliance with the foregoing provisions of this rule increases hazard to passengers, the commercial motor vehicle may be operated to the nearest point at which the safety of passengers is assured.
  80. ^ a b c d e Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 275 United States Reports 66 (Supreme Court of the United States October 31, 1927) ("In an action for negligence, the question of due care is not left to the jury when resolved by a clear standard of conduct which should be laid down by the courts ... If, at the last moment, [he] found himself in an emergency, it was his own fault that he did not reduce his speed earlier or come to a stop.").
  81. ^ a b c d e f g Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1881). "Lecture III—D. Liability for unintended Harm is determined by what would be Blameworthy in Average man". The Common Law. Little, Brown and Company. p. 108,122,123. The standards of the law are standards of general application. The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which make the internal character of a given act so different in different men. ... [Page 122] the averment that the defendant has been guilty of negligence ... that his alleged conduct does not come up to the legal standard. ... the question whether the court or the jury ought to judge of the defendant's conduct is wholly unaffected by the accident, ... it is entirely possible to give a series of hypothetical instructions adapted to every state of facts which it is open to the jury to find. ... the court may still take their opinion as to the standard. ... [page 123] ...supposing a state of facts often repeated in practice, is it to be imagined that the court is to go on leaving the standard to the jury forever? ... if the jury is, on the whole, as fair a tribunal as it is represented to be, the lesson which can be got from that source will be learned.... the court will find ... the conduct complained of usually is or is not blameworthy, ... or it will find the jury oscillating to and fro, and will see the necessity of making up its mind for itself. There is no reason why any other such question should not be settled, as well as that of liability for stairs with smooth strips of brass upon their edges.
  82. ^ "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Event Data Recorders". Federal Register. December 12, 2012.
  83. ^ "Event Data Recorder Supported Vehicles" (PDF). Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. July 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 11, 2016. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  84. ^ a b c "Here's why lawyers are 'salivating' over self-driving cars". Business Insider Inc. December 22, 2015. When, in the near future, a driverless car gets into an accident with another driverless car, it's going to be difficult to establish who is at fault. Is it the "driver," the car company, or even the programmer? ... "There's going to have to be some changes to the laws," David Strickland, former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told Bloomberg. "There is no such thing right now that says the manufacturer of the automated system is financially responsible for crashes."
  85. ^ "Urban Street Design Guide". National Association of City Transportation Officials. April 8, 2015. Streets comprise more than 80% of public space in cities, but they often fail to provide their surrounding communities with a space where people can safely walk, bicycle, drive, take transit, and socialize. Cities are leading the movement to redesign and reinvest in our streets as cherished public spaces for people, as well as critical arteries for traffic.
  86. ^ "Caltrans Backs Innovative Street Design Guides to Promote Biking and Walking". California Department of Transportation. April 11, 2014. In an effort to support the construction of more multimodal local streets and roads, Caltrans today endorsed National Association of City Transportation Officials' (NACTO) guidelines that include innovations such as buffered bike lanes and improved pedestrian walkways.
  87. ^ Eloisa Raynault; Ed Christopher (May 2013). "How Does Transportation Affect Public Health? (FHWA-HRT-13-004)". Public Roads. 76 (6).
  88. ^ "CDC Transportation Recommendations". Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 7, 2018. The U.S. transportation system has been shaped by multiple policy inputs and concrete actions which have arisen from transportation and community planners, funding agencies and others at Federal, state and local levels. Today, the system is designed to move people and goods efficiently; however, there is a growing awareness across communities that transportation systems impact quality of life and health.
  89. ^ "Smart Growth and Transportation". Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency. April 26, 2013. Historically, transportation planners have overlooked the important role streets play in shaping neighborhoods. For decades, decisions about street size and design in many communities have focused on getting as many cars as possible through the streets as quickly as possible. Street design determines whether an area will be safe and inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, which affects the viability of certain types of retail, influences land values and tax receipts, and shapes overall economic strength and resilience.
  90. ^ "Transportation". Smart Growth America. December 17, 2019. People want more transportation choices, whether it's to save money on gas, to get into shape by walking or biking to their destinations, or to have a more relaxing commute. Communities can provide these choices by making it easy for residents and visitors to drive, walk, bike, or take transit.
  91. ^ "More Choices, Less Traffic". National Resource Defense Council. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved February 28, 2016. our auto-centric transportation system -- built for the previous century -- is increasing pollution and the nation's addiction to oil. After 50 plus years of building sprawl-spurring highways, experience shows that we cannot pave our way out of gridlock; instead, new road capacity is quickly filled up and the fiscal burden of its upkeep puts us back at square one. It is time to revamp America's ailing road and rail networks to create a competitive, 21st century solution.
  92. ^ "Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities". January 17, 2014.
  93. ^ "What is universal access?". humantransport.org. July 29, 2021. Universal access is the goal of enabling all citizens to reach every destination served by their public street and pathway system. Universal access is not limited to access by persons using automobiles. Travel by bicycle, walking, or wheelchair to every destination is accommodated in order to achieve transportation equity, maximize independence, and improve community livability.
  94. ^ "Blunders in Traffic Law and Enforcement". Bicycle Blunders and Smarter Solutions. LAB Reform.
  95. ^ "Assured Clear Distance Ahead and Vision Zero". BikeWalk NC. October 2015.
  96. ^ a b c William Kenworthy (January 1, 2000). Killer Roads: From Crash to Verdict (2nd ed.). Lexis Law Pub. ISBN 978-0327100164.
  97. ^ Van Praag v. Gale, 107 Cal 438 (Supreme Court of California June 6, 1895) ("As a general proposition cases of negligence (to which those of contributory negligence form no exception) present a mixed question of law and fact, in which it devolves upon the court to say, as matter of law, what is or amounts to negligence, and upon the jury to say as matter of fact, whether or not in the particular case the facts in proof warrant the imputation of negligence. The court furnishes the standard; the jury adjusts the facts, and pronounces them as up to or falling short of the requirements of the standard.").
  98. ^ Doyle v. Eschen, 5 Cal.App 55 (California Court of Appeal February 21, 1907) ("usually the consideration of negligence, including "contributory negligence," involves "a mixed question of law and fact, in which it devolves upon the court, to say, as a matter of law, what is or amounts to negligence, and upon the jury to say as matter of fact whether or not in the particular case the facts in proof warrant the imputation of negligence. The court furnishes the standard; the jury adjusts the facts and pronounces them as up to or falling short of the requirements of the standard. When, however, the facts are clearly settled, and the course which common prudence dictates can be readily discerned, the court should decide the case as matter of law.").
  99. ^ Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal.App.2d 375, 377-378 (California Court of Appeal January 27, 1948) ("Respondent testified that he came to a complete stop at the boulevard stop sign, surveyed the highway, saw that no cars were approaching from the right, and that the nearest car, presumably appellant's, approaching from the left, was at a distance of approximately 80 yards north of the intersection. Having concluded that he had plenty of time to safely cross the intersection, he proceeded in, looking straight ahead. ... we cannot declare such conduct to be negligence as a matter of law.").
  100. ^ ""Martin-Quinn" measures of judicial ideology". University of California. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016.
  101. ^ Andrew Cabasso (September 3, 2015). "Vehicles Lawyers Should Not Drive". Lawyerist.com. Archived from the original on September 5, 2015. There must be some way to show clients you have won a lot of high-worth cases. How about an Audi A8, a Mercedes S-500, or a Lexus LS? Nope. Every lawyer has one of those. You need a car that shows that you are in a much higher tax bracket. You need a car that is worth more than your clients' homes. And they need to know it. Because when you hire "The Champ" (presumably the nickname you gave yourself), the client needs to know they will win their case and you will get a very nice contingency fee out of this one.
  102. ^ "Influence & Lobbying: Transportation". OpenSecrets. The transportation sector is heavily involved in lobbying at the federal level, and expenditures have eclipsed $240 million each year from 2008 to 2012. ... two of the sector's most active lobbying clients, have attempted to influence legislation relating to transportation safety and security, travel taxes, and the authorization of federal funds for roads and railways.
  103. ^ United States v. National City Lines, Inc., et al, 186 F.2d 562 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit January 3, 1951) ("On April 9, 1947, nine corporations and seven individuals, constituting officers and directors of certain of the corporate defendants, were indicted on two counts, the second of which charged them with conspiring to monopolize certain portions of interstate commerce...the conspiracy to monopolize had consisted of a continuing agreement and concert of action upon the part of defendants under which the supplier defendants, Firestone, Standard, Phillips, General Motors and Mack, would furnish capital to defendants National, American and Pacific, and the latter companies would purchase and cause their operating companies to purchase from the supplier companies substantially all their requirements of tires, tubes and petroleum products; the capital made available by the supplier defendants would be utilized by National and Pacific, to purchase control of or financial interest in local public transportation systems, located in various states, when the securing of such control and interest would further the sale of and create an additional market for the products of the supplier defendants to the exclusion of products competitive therewith...as National and Pacific acquired local transportation systems in the other sections of the country, those markets would be allocated to and preempted by a company selling petroleum products in such sections...").
  104. ^ a b R. J. H. (January 1937). "The Uniform Motor Vehicle Act in Virginia". Virginia Law Review. 23 (3): 351–358. doi:10.2307/1067282. JSTOR 1067282. The attempt of this conference was to reduce road accidents among the states, and to this end an exhaustive study of road conditions and accidents was made. The need for such uniformity is obvious when we consider that the late 1920s the major part of the traffic regulation was by municipalities; it had mainly been enacted ten to fifteen years before and hence left out of account the vast increase in number, speed, and use of automobiles. Each town and city had a different set of rules, confusing the motorist on tour. This dangerous chaos has been largely obviated by the substantial enactment in most states of the Uniform Act...
  105. ^ a b Stuart Silverstein (November 20, 2012). "Traffic Deaths: A Surprising Dimension of the Red State-Blue State Divide". FairWarning. blue states tend to adopt stronger safety laws, while red states opt for looser regulation
  106. ^ a b c d e f g A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (6th ed.). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2011. ISBN 978-1560515081.
  107. ^ a b c d e "Tables of speed and stopping distances". The State of Virginia.
  108. ^ a b Cannon v. Kemper, 23 Cal. App. 2d 239, 23 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 239 (California Appellate Court October 21, 1937). Driver traveling at 35 MPH when rain limited visibility to 25 feet held negligent when 65 feet were required to stop car on wet road. See California Official Reports: Online Opinions
  109. ^ Hatzakorzian v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co., 197 Cal. 82, 197 Official California Reports 82 (Supreme Court of California September 21, 1925) (""Under the circumstances of the present case -- the narrowness of the unpaved portion of the highway, the darkness of the night and the blinding of Kennell by the glare of the lights reflected from the headlights of the approaching machine -- the highway over which Kennell was traveling was beset by danger of an extraordinary character from the time his vision became so obscured as to make it impossible for him to see plainly the road before him to the time that he struck the deceased. Thus the ordinary care with which Kennell was charged in driving his car over the highway required such an amount of such care as was commensurate with the exactions of the extraordinary dangerous circumstances under which he was then operating his car. The respective rights and duties of drivers of automobiles and other vehicles and of pedestrians have repeatedly been by the courts of this state clearly pointed out.."").
  110. ^ a b c Bove v. Beckman, 236 Cal. App. 2d 555, 236 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 555 (California Appellate Court Aug 16, 1965) (""A person driving an automobile at 65 miles an hour on a highway on a dark night with his lights on low beam affording a forward vision of only about 100 feet was driving at a negligent and excessive speed which was inconsistent with any right of way that he might otherwise have had." (CA Reports Official Headnote #[8])"). See California Official Reports: Online Opinions
  111. ^ Falasco v. Hulen, 6 Cal. App. 2d 224, 6 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 224 (California Appellate Court April 17, 1935) (""Driving between 60 and 65 miles an hour over the brow of a hill, where one's view is obstructed and one cannot see what is on the opposite side of the hill for a sufficient distance to control the speed of his car, is an act showing a reckless disregard of the safety of others; and in said action, under the evidence, the jury was entitled to conclude either that defendant was driving at such a reckless rate of speed that he could not control the car, or that he was driving at such a high rate of speed that he did not perceive that the highway ahead of him afforded an unobstructed passage." (CA Reports Official Headnote #[9])"). See California Official Reports: Online Opinions
  112. ^ a b c d Riggs v. Gasser Motors, 22 Cal. App. 2d 636, 22 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 636 (California Court of Appeal September 25, 1937) (""It is common knowledge that intersecting streets in cities present a continuing hazard, the degree of hazard depending upon the extent of the use of the intersecting streets and the surrounding circumstances or conditions of each intersection. Under such circumstances the basic law...is always governing.""). See Official Reports Opinions Online
  113. ^ a b c d Meisingset, Erling L; Loe, Leif E; Brekkum, Øystein; Mysterud, Atle (2014). "Targeting mitigation efforts: The role of speed limit and road edge clearance for deer–vehicle collisions". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 78 (4): 679–688. Bibcode:2014JWMan..78..679M. doi:10.1002/jwmg.712. speed limit reduction and road edge clearance are both powerful mitigation tools to reduce the number of Deer–vehicle collisions.
  114. ^ a b c d e "Speeding Counts...on all roads!" (PDF). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). November 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 16, 2013. Retrieved February 23, 2016. Almost one of every three traffic fatalities is related to speeding, and speeding is a safety concern on all roads, regardless of their speed limits. However, much of the public concern about speeding has been focused on high-speed Interstates. The Interstate System actually has the best safety record of all roads and the lowest fatality rate per mile traveled. ... The difference in fatality rates by road classification reflects the difference in road design and use. The Interstate System is designed for high speeds, efficient movement of people and goods over long distances, with no at-grade intersections. Drivers have a clear view of the road, traffic, and signs. Collectors and local roads, however, are designed to provide more land access and lesser mobility. They may have sharp curves, steeper grades, and sight restrictions. The local road may also be shared by a high concentration of children and adult pedestrians, bicyclists, and an older user population.
  115. ^ a b c Leeper v. Nelson, 139 Cal. App. 2d 65, 139 Official California Appellate Reports, 2nd Series 65 (California Court of Appeal Feb 6, 1956) (""The operator of an automobile is bound to anticipate that he may meet persons or vehicles at any point of the street, and he must in order to avoid a charge of negligence, keep a proper lookout for them and keep his machine under such control as will enable him to avoid a collision with another automobile driven with care and caution as a reasonably prudent person would do under similar conditions.""). See Huetter v. Andrews, 91 Cal. App. 2d 142, Berlin v. Violett, 129 Cal.App. 337, Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335, and Official Reports Opinions Online
  116. ^ a b c d McKernan, Megan (May 13, 2015). "AAA Tests Shine High-Beam on Headlight Limitations". NewsRoom.AAA.com. AAA Automotive Research Center. Retrieved July 3, 2018. AAA's test results suggest that halogen headlights, found in over 80 percent of vehicles on the road today, may fail to safely illuminate unlit roadways at speeds as low as 40 mph. ...high-beam settings on halogen headlights...may only provide enough light to safely stop at speeds of up to 48 mph, leaving drivers vulnerable at highway speeds...Additional testing found that while the advanced headlight technology found in HID and LED headlights illuminated dark roadways 25 percent further than their halogen counter parts, they still may fail to fully illuminate roadways at speeds greater than 45 mph. High-beam settings on these advanced headlights offered significant improvement over low-beam settings, lighting distances of up to 500 feet (equal to 55 mph). Despite the increase, even the most advanced headlights fall 60 percent short of the sight distance that the full light of day provides.
  117. ^ a b Varghese, Cherian; Shankar, Umesh (May 2007). "Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities by Day and Night – A Contrast". Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. The passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate at nighttime is about three times higher than the daytime rate. ...The data shows a higher percentage of passenger vehicle occupants killed in speeding-related crashes at nighttime.
  118. ^ a b c d e Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal. App. 2d 377, 83 Official California Appellate Reports, Second Series 377 (California Appellate Court January 27, 1948) ("It is apparent that plaintiff misjudged the speed of the truck and was mistaken as to his ability to cross Anaheim Street in front of it with safety. However, every mistake of judgment is not negligence, for mistakes are made even in the exercise of ordinary care. See Official Reports Online.").
  119. ^ a b c d e Nevis v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 43 Cal.2d 626, 43 Official California Reports, Second Series 626 (Supreme Court of California November 9, 1954) ("Nonnegligent ignorance of the facts which bring a regulation into operation will support a finding that violation thereof is civilly excusable. See Official Reports Online").
  120. ^ Lappin JS, Tadin D, Nyquist JB, Corn AL (January 2009). "Spatial and temporal limits of motion perception across variations in speed, eccentricity, and low vision". Journal of Vision. 9 (30): 30.1–14. doi:10.1167/9.1.30. PMID 19271900. Displacement thresholds for peripheral motion were affected by acuity limits for speeds below 0.5 degrees/s. [0.0087 radians/s]
  121. ^ "California Vehicle Code §275(a)". The State of California. Archived from the original on June 11, 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2015. "Crosswalk" is...That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.
  122. ^ "California Vehicle Code §21950(a)&(c)". The State of California. Archived from the original on June 11, 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2015. The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. ... The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
  123. ^ "California Vehicle Code §231.6(a)". The State of California. Archived from the original on June 11, 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2015. A "bicycle path crossing" is ...That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of a bike path at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles.
  124. ^ a b c d e f g h J. Stannard Baker (1963). Traffic Accident Investigator's Manual for Police (2 ed.). The Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. pp. 43–48. LCCN 62-20895.
  125. ^ a b c d Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294, 106 California Official Reports, 2nd Series 294 (California Court of Appeal August 27, 1951) ("Nor is a plaintiff required to yield the right of way to one a considerable distance away whose duty it is to slow down in crossing an intersection. See Official Reports Opinions Online").
  126. ^ a b c d Page v. Mazzei, 213 Cal. 644, 213 Official California Reports 644 (Supreme Court of California 21 September 1931) ("Where a car has actually entered an intersection before the other approaches it, the driver of the first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver of the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be necessary to prevent a collision. ( Keyes v. Hawley, 100 Cal. App. 53, 60 [279 Pac. 674].) Nor is a plaintiff required to yield the right of way to one a considerable distance away whose duty it is to slow down in crossing an intersection. See Official Reports Opinions Online").
  127. ^ Fitts v. Marquis, 127 Me. 75, 127 Maine Reporter 75 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine March 15, 1928) ("If a situation indicate collision, the driver, who can do so by the exercise of ordinary care, should avoid doing injury, though this involve that he waive his right of way. The supreme rule of the road is the rule of mutual forbearance.").
  128. ^ a b c d e Raymond S. Nickerson; The National Research Council (September 15, 1995). "9". Emerging Needs and Opportunities for Human Factors Research. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/4940. ISBN 978-0309052764. In the United States, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 1 and 38 and are responsible for more deaths than all other causes combined between the ages of 15 and 24 ... the difficulty of estimating distance and velocity is assumed to account for the frequency of accidents involving a vehicle turning left in the face of oncoming traffic. ... many laws require operators of vehicles to accomplish tasks that are not within their capabilities. This leads to unnecessary litigation and appellate reviews and creates a disrespect for laws. If statutes such as the Assured Clear Distance Ahead rule and regulations governing the use of alcohol were examined in relation to the behavioral sciences literature on human capabilities and limitations while operating a vehicle, the findings could lead to more rational laws and codes ... In stark contrast with automobile travel, commercial aviation is the safest form of mass transportation.
  129. ^ a b Hershel Weinberger (February 19, 1971). "Conjecture on the Visual Estimation of Relative Radial Motion". Nature. 229 (5286): 562. Bibcode:1971Natur.229..562W. doi:10.1038/229562a0. PMID 4925353. S2CID 4290244.
  130. ^ Joseph S. Lappin; Duje Tadin; Jeffrey B. Nyquist; Anne L. Corn (January 2009). "Spatial and temporal limits of motion perception across variations in speed, eccentricity, and low vision". Journal of Vision. 9 (30): 30.1–14. doi:10.1167/9.1.30. PMID 19271900. Displacement thresholds for peripheral motion were affected by acuity limits for speeds below 0.5 degrees/s.
  131. ^ Paul R. Schrater; David C. Knill; Eero P. Simoncelli (April 12, 2001). "Perceiving visual expansion without optic flow". Nature. 410 (6830): 816–819. Bibcode:2001Natur.410..816S. doi:10.1038/35071075. PMID 11298449. S2CID 4406675. When an observer moves forward in the environment, the image on his or her retina expands. The rate of this expansion conveys information about the observer's speed and the time to collision...this rate might also be estimated from changes in the size (or scale) of image features...we show,...observers can estimate expansion rates from scale-change information alone, and that pure scale changes can produce motion after-effects. These two findings suggest that the visual system contains mechanisms that are explicitly sensitive to changes in scale.
  132. ^ Melvyn A. Goodale (July 1, 2011). "Transforming vision into action". Vision Research. 51 (13): 1567–1587. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.027. ISSN 0042-6989. PMID 20691202.
  133. ^ "Section 13: On-Road Driving" (PDF). California Commercial Driver Handbook (2014-2015) (PDF). California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2015. pp. 2–19, 13–2. Archived from the original on April 14, 2016. Retrieved March 15, 2016. [pg 2-19] 2.6.4 – Speed and Distance Ahead[:] You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. Fog, rain, or other conditions may require that you slow down to be able to stop in the distance you can see. ... [pg 13-2]13.1.2 – Intersections As you approach an intersection: • Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. • Decelerate gently.Brake smoothly and, if necessary, change gears. • If necessary, come to a complete stop (no coasting) behind any stop signs, signals, sidewalks, or stop lines maintaining a safe gap behind any vehicle in front of you. • Your vehicle must not roll forward or backward. Note: Do not enter the intersection if there is insufficient space to clear it. When driving through an intersection: •Check traffic thoroughly in all directions. •Decelerate and yield to any pedestrians and traffic in the intersection. •Do not change lanes while proceeding through the intersection. •Keep your hands on the wheel.
  134. ^ a b c "Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603". US Government Publishing Office. The MUTCD approved by the Federal Highway Administrator is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a)...Where State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or supplements are required, they shall be in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD.
  135. ^ "3B.16.10". California MUTCD 2014. California Department of Transportation. p. 681. Chapter 3B.16.10: If used, stop and yield lines should be placed a minimum of 4 feet in advance of the nearest crosswalk line at controlled intersections...In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the stop line or yield line should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point, but should not be placed more than 30 feet or less than 4 feet from the nearest edge of the intersecting traveled way.
  136. ^ "405.1". California Highway Design Manual. California Department of Transportation. 2012. pp. 400–14. Chapter 405.1: Set back for the driver of the vehicle on the crossroad shall be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 15 feet.
  137. ^ a b A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways. American Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials. 1969. p. 394. Where an obstruction, which cannot be removed except at prohibitive cost, fixes the vertices of the sight triangle at points that are less than the safe stopping distances from the intersection, vehicles may be brought to a stop (after sighting other vehicles on the intersecting road) only if they are traveling at a speed appropriate to the available sight distance.
  138. ^ a b c d e "Geometric Design And Structure Standards" (PDF). Highway Design Manual. California Department of Transportation. pp. 200–1, 200–2, 200–3, 200–4, 200–7, 200–10, 200–11, 200–20.
  139. ^ Geoff Manaugh (November 15, 2015). "Sightlines/The Dream Life of Driverless Cars". The New York Times. p. MM68. One of the most significant uses of 3-D scanning in the years to come will not be by humans at all but by autonomous vehicles.
  140. ^ a b Matt Richtel; Conor Dougherty (September 2, 2015). "Google's Driverless Cars Run Into Problem: Cars With Drivers". The New York Times. p. A1. Google's fleet of autonomous test cars is programmed to follow the letter of the law. But it can be tough to get around if you are a stickler for the rules. ... One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn't get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward, looking for the advantage—paralyzing Google's robot. ... "It's always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like 'Why is the car doing that?'" said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google's Silicon Valley headquarters. ...the technology, like Google's car, drives by the book. It leaves what is considered the safe distance between itself and the car ahead. ...Dmitri Dolgov, head of software for Google's Self-Driving Car Project, said that one thing he had learned from the project was that human drivers needed to be "less idiotic." ... The laser system mounted on top of the driverless car sensed that a vehicle coming the other direction was approaching the red light at higher-than-safe speeds. The Google car immediately jerked to the right in case it had to avoid a collision.
  141. ^ a b Fox v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal.App.3d 164, 47 Official California Appellate Reports, 3rd Series 164 (California Appellate Court April 14, 1975) ("drivers with mental disabilities are required to exercise the ordinary care required of an adult without such disability. See Official Reports Online.").
  142. ^ a b c d James J. Gibson; Laurence E. Crooks (July 1938). "A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile-Driving". The American Journal of Psychology. 51 (3): 453–471. doi:10.2307/1416145. ISSN 0002-9556. JSTOR 1416145. OCLC 473102987.
  143. ^ "Common Core State Standard for Mathematics" (PDF). Common Core State Standards Initiative. p. 27. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 19, 2013. Retrieved February 22, 2016. See 4th grade math level
  144. ^ a b United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 Federal Reporter, Second Series 169, 173 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit January 9, 1947) ("Since there are occasions when every vessel will break from her moorings, and since, if she does, she becomes a menace to those about her; the owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i. e., whether B > PL. See ruling here").
  145. ^ a b Taoka, George T. (March 1989). "Brake Reaction Times of Unalerted Drivers" (PDF). ITE Journal. 59 (3): 19–21.[permanent dead link]
  146. ^ a b Paul L. Olson; Michael Sivak (February 1986). "Perception-response time to unexpected roadway hazards". Human Factors. 28 (1): 91–96. doi:10.1177/001872088602800110. PMID 3710489. S2CID 13632058. Perception-response (PR) time, the time from the first sighting of an obstacle until the driver applies the brakes, is an important component of stopping sight distance. ... The results indicate a 95th percentile PR time of about 1.6 s for both age groups.
  147. ^ Booth v. Columbia Casualty Company, 227 La. 932 (Supreme Court of Louisiana April 25, 1955) ("The plaintiff having pre-empted the intersection had the right to proceed and under the wellsettled jurisprudence the automobile which first enters an intersection has the right of way over an approaching automobile and the driver who does not respect this legal right of the automobile which first entered the intersection to proceed through in safety, is negligent, even though the car thereafter entering the intersection is being driven on a right of way street.").
  148. ^ a b c d John C. Glennon; Paul F. Hill (2004). Roadway Safety and Tort Liability (2 ed.). Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc. p. 293. ISBN 9781930056947.
  149. ^ "Critical Speed Calculator". The CAD Zone. Inc. 2015.
  150. ^ State of Montana v. Rudy Stanko (Supreme Court of Montana 23 December 1998) ("the road was narrow, there were hills and curves which presented some degree of obstruction to the view ahead, and there was an occasional frost heave on the surface of the road.   A reasonable speed under these circumstances would require a calculation of sight distances and stopping distances for the particular vehicle.... The arresting officer described in detail the roadway where Stanko was operating his vehicle at 85 miles per hour.   The roadway was very narrow with no shoulders.   There were frost heaves on the road which caused the officer's vehicle to bounce.   The highway had steep hills, sharp curves, and multiple no-passing zones.   There were numerous ranch and field access roads in the area which ranchers use for bringing hay to their cattle.   The officer testified that at 85 miles per hour, there was no way for Stanko to stop in the event there had been an obstruction on the road beyond the crest of a hill.   In the officer's judgment, driving a vehicle at the speed of 85 miles per hour on the stretch of road in question posed a danger to the rest of the driving public."), Text.
  151. ^ "Speed Concepts: Informational Guide". US Department of Transportation. Operating speed - the speeds at which vehicles are observed operating during free flow conditions. Free flow speeds are those observed from vehicles whose operations are unimpeded by traffic control devices (e.g., traffic signals) or by other vehicles in the traffic stream. The 85th percentile of the distribution of observed speeds is the most frequently used measure of the operating speed.
  152. ^ a b "Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 625.4". U.S. Government Printing Office.
  153. ^ a b c "2009 Edition Chapter 2B. Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates". Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Federal Highway Administration. [Page 21] Sect.1A.13 —214. Speed—speed is defined based on the following classifications: (a) Average Speed—the summation of the instantaneous or spot-measured speeds at a specific location of vehicles divided by the number of vehicles observed. (b) Design Speed—a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway. (c) 85th-Percentile Speed—the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel. (d) Operating Speed—a speed at which a typical vehicle or the overall traffic operates. Operating speed might be defined with speed values such as the average, pace, or 85th-percentile speeds. (e) Pace—the 10 mph speed range representing the speeds of the largest percentage of vehicles in the traffic stream. [page 58] Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1) Standard: 01 Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles. ...12 When a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic
  154. ^ a b Maev Kennedy (September 6, 2013). "'All you could hear was cars crashing': 120-car pile-up on Sheppey bridge". The Guardian. the probable cause of the accident was "stupid driving". ... "It's really bad to travel too close to the car in front in good conditions and if you do it in foggy conditions it's an absolute recipe for disaster."
  155. ^ Reinders v. Olsen, 60 Cal. App. 764, 60 California Appellate Reports 764 (California Appellate Court February 13, 1923) ("the fact of knowledge on the part of plaintiff relating to the "custom" or, rather, practice, of automobile drivers ... no such practice could be binding on plaintiff so as to excuse defendant from violating the statute in that regard, provided that such act was the proximate cause of the accident. See Official Reports Opinions").
  156. ^ Iain A. McCormick; Frank H. Walkey; Dianne E. Green (June 1986). "Comparative perceptions of driver ability–A confirmation and expansion". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 18 (3): 205–208. doi:10.1016/0001-4575(86)90004-7. ISSN 0001-4575. PMID 3730094. a substantial majority of drivers, up to 80%, would rate themselves above average on a number of important characteristics
  157. ^ "Speed Concepts: Informational Guide". US Department of Transportation. Inferred design speed – the maximum speed for which all critical design-speed-related criteria are met at a particular location.
  158. ^ Kahneman, Daniel (December 2003). "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics". American Economic Review. 93 (5): 1449–1475. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.194.6554. doi:10.1257/000282803322655392. ISSN 0002-8282. S2CID 15131441.
  159. ^ "National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD)". Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  160. ^ "61-8-303(1)(b)&(3) - Speed restrictions". Montana Code Annotated. State of Montana. Retrieved July 4, 2018. the speed limit for vehicles traveling...on any other public highway of this state is 70 miles an hour during the daytime and 65 miles an hour during the nighttime...Subject to the maximum speed limits set forth [above] a person shall operate a vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a reduced rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of traffic, visibility, weather, and roadway conditions.
  161. ^ "CA Civil Code §3333". The State of California. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016. Retrieved December 15, 2015. For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code, is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.
  162. ^ Cordova v. Ford, 46 Cal. App. 2d 180, 46 California Appellate Reports, Second Series 180 (California Appellate Court 7 November 1966) (""All courts are agreed that the mere fact of a collision of two automobiles gives rise to no inference of negligence against either driver in an action brought by the other. ...When a vehicle operated by A collides with a vehicle operated by B, there are four possibilities. A alone was negligent; B alone was negligent; both were negligent; or neither. Of these four only the first will result in liability of A to B. The bare fact of a collision affords no basis on which to conclude that it is the preponderant probability. The odds are against it.""). See Official Reports Opinions Online
  163. ^ Peri v. L. A. Junction Railway, 22 Cal.2d 111, 22 Official California Reports, Second Series 111 (Supreme Court of California 3 May 1943) ("Today it is a matter of common knowledge that automobiles are driven at night on our great, wide, straight highways at speeds which do not allow adequate time or space in which to stop for unusual objects such as freight trains completely obstructing the highway unless some warning of the possible or probable presence thereof is given, especially where, as in the case of such trains, the bodies of the cars are apt to be above the direct beams of the automobile lights which the law requires to be projected below 42 inches at 75 feet from the vehicle. Recognizing this, our counties and state highway department place conspicuous warnings of all variations from the normal road. Drivers of ordinary prudence have grown to rely on the presence of such warnings. See Official Reports Opinions Online").
  164. ^ Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles, 38 Cal.App.4th 1187, 38 Official California Appellate Reports, 4th Series 1187 (California Appellate Court September 5, 1995) (""A public entity does not create a dangerous condition on its property 'merely because of the failure to provide regulatory traffic control signals, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, or speed restriction signs . . . .' (§ 830.4.) If, on the other hand, the government installs traffic signals and invites the public to justifiably rely on them, liability will attach if the signals malfunction, confusing or misleading motorists, and causing an accident to occur. See Official Reports Opinions Online").
  165. ^ a b c National Center for Statistics and Analysis (July 2015). "Overview: 2013 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 169)" (PDF). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. motor vehicle crashes in 2013 were the leading cause of death for children age 4 and every age from 16 to 24. ... In 2013, there were 32,719 people killed in the estimated 5,687,000 police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes; an estimated 2,313,000 people were injured; and an estimated 4,066,000 crashes resulted in property damage only. An average of 90 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes in 2013, one fatality every 16 minutes. ... The estimated economic cost of all motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States in 2010 (the most recent year for which cost data is available) was $242 billion. ... When quality of life valuations are considered, the total value of societal harm from motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2010 was an estimated $836 billion. ... Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.
  166. ^ a b Leighton Walter Kille (October 5, 2014). "Transportation safety over time: Cars, planes, trains, walking, cycling". Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center and the Carnegie-Knight Initiative. Since 1980 the average horsepower of U.S. cars more than doubled, and speed limits have risen significantly, greatly increasing the potential for damage, loss of life and injuries. ... "One might argue that transportation equipment, and in particular the motor vehicle, must be the most dangerous machines that we interact with on a daily basis," the researcher states. "The annual toll in motor vehicle crashes exceeds the deaths resulting from the next most dangerous mechanical device, firearms, by about 40%."
  167. ^ Herbert William Heinrich (1931). Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. McGraw-Hill insurance series. McGraw-Hill. LCCN 31004075. OCLC 571338960. for every accident that causes a major injury, there are 29 accidents that cause minor injuries and 300 accidents that cause no injuries
  168. ^ Binyamin Appelbaum (February 16, 2011). "As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret". The New York Times. The Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a life at $9.1 million...
  169. ^ a b Frank Partnoy (July 21, 2012). "The Cost of a Human Life, Statistically Speaking". The Globalist. when the U.S. government permitted states to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour, many states did so, and drivers saved time by driving about two miles per hour faster on average. However, fatality rates rose by about one-third. Overall, people in the United States saved about 125,000 hours of driving [or about $1.5 million] per lost life. ... researchers have reached a consensus that $1.5 million is much too low [to trade-off for a life]. ... The Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a human life at $9.1 million. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration put it at $7.9 million...
  170. ^ Self v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 183 So. 2d 68, 183 So.2d 68 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit February 15, 1966) ("The law imposes upon a following motorist a duty to exercise great care, sometimes referred to as extraordinary care. ... As a rule, when a following vehicle collides with the rear of the lead car, the following driver is considered to be at fault.").
  171. ^ "Connected Vehicle Pilot Program". US Department of Transportation. The U.S. DOT connected vehicle research program is a multimodal initiative that aims to enable safe, interoperable networked wireless communications among vehicles, infrastructure, and personal communications devices.
  172. ^ Sam Peltzman (August 1975). "The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation". Journal of Political Economy. 83 (4): 677–726. doi:10.1086/260352. JSTOR 1830396. S2CID 153473566.
  173. ^ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (2009 ed.). US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2012. pp. 117, 119, 127. ISBN 978-1598045369. The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum as the unnecessary use of warning signs tends to breed disrespect for all signs.(2C.02.02)...Vehicular Traffic Warning signs should be used only at locations where the road user's sight distance is restricted, or the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected.(2C.49.03)
  174. ^ National Center for Statistics and Analysis (September 2015). "State traffic data: 2013 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 196)" (PDF). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Montana had the highest fatality rate per 100 million VMT (1.90) in the United States, while Massachusetts and the District of Columbia had the lowest (0.58 and 0.57) in 2013.
  175. ^ "General statistics". Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The fatality rate per 100,000 people ranged from a low of 3.1 in the District of Columbia to a high of 22.6 in Montana. The death rates per 100 million vehicle miles traveled ranged from 0.56 in the District of Columbia to 1.96 in Montana.
  176. ^ Herbert v. Southern Pac. Co., 121 Cal. 227, 121 Official California Reports 227 (Supreme Court of California June 20, 1898) ("the cases arising from injuries suffered at railroad crossings have been so numerous, and upon certain points there has been such absolute accord, that what will constitute ordinary care in such a case had been precisely defined, and, if any element is wanting, the courts will hold as matter of law that the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence. And, when injury results which might have been avoided by the use of proper care, ... the amount of care, as well as the nature of it, has been settled.").
  177. ^ Healthcare at Home Limited v. The Common Services Agency, [2014] UKSC 49 (Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 30 July 2014) ("It follows from the nature of the reasonable man, as a means of describing a standard applied by the court, that it would be misconceived for a party to seek to lead evidence from actual passengers [i.e. "the right-thinking member of society," "the officious bystander," "the reasonable parent," "the reasonable landlord," "the fair-minded and informed observer,"...] on the Clapham omnibus as to how they would have acted in a given situation or what they would have foreseen, in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. Even if the party offered to prove that his witnesses were reasonable men, the evidence would be beside the point. The behaviour of the reasonable man is not established by the evidence of witnesses, but by the application of a legal standard by the court. The court may require to be informed by evidence of circumstances which bear on its application of the standard of the reasonable man in any particular case; but it is then for the court to determine the outcome, in those circumstances, of applying that impersonal standard."), Text.
  178. ^ Newton N. Minow; Fred H. Cate (Winter 1991). "Issue on the Selection and Function of the Modern Jury: Article: Who is an Impartial Juror in an Age of Mass Media?, 40 Am. U.L. Rev. 631". American University Law Review. 40: 631. Archived from the original on January 31, 2016. Retrieved January 5, 2016. We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any other in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve every day men who don't know anything and can't read.
  179. ^ Amos Tversky; Daniel Kahneman (August 1971). "Belief in the law of small numbers". Psychological Bulletin. 76 (2): 105–110. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.592.3838. doi:10.1037/h0031322. S2CID 5883140. people have erroneous intuitions about the laws of chance. In particular, they regard a sample randomly drawn from a population as highly representative, I.e., similar to the population in all essential characteristics.
  180. ^ "US Civil Aviation Accident Statistics". National Transportation Safety Board.
  181. ^ Francesca Racioppi; Lars Eriksson; Claes Tingvall; Andres Villaveces (2004). Preventing road traffic injury: a public health perspective for Europe. World Health Organization. p. 47. ISBN 978-9289010931. See Figure 5.2 (Chapter 5, page 47)
  182. ^ Aaron Claverie (August 13, 2015). "TEMECULA: Inquiries prompt new speed survey". The Press Enterprise. the city took a look at the speed limit after Kelly, with support from the Automobile Club of Southern California, presented a detailed breakdown of why he feels the survey was incorrect.
  183. ^ Lora Warshawsky-Livne; David Shinar (Spring 2000). "Effects of uncertainty, transmission type, driver age and gender on brake reaction and movement time". Journal of Safety Research. 33 (1): 117–128. doi:10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00006-3. ISSN 0022-4375. PMID 11979633. Perception-reaction time increased significantly from 0.32 to 0.42 s (P<.05) as uncertainty increased but brake-movement time did not change. Perception-reaction time increased (from 0.35 to 0.43 s) with age but brake-movement time did not change with age. Gender did not affect perception-reaction time but did affect brake-movement time (males 0.19 s vs. females 0.16 s).
  184. ^ FC Donders (January 1969). "On the speed of mental processes". Acta Psychologica. 30: 412–31. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90065-1. ISSN 0001-6918. OCLC 1447968. PMID 5811531.
  185. ^ National Cooperative Highway Research Program (1997). "2" (PDF). NCHRP Report 400: Determination of Stopping Sight Distances. Transportation Research Board (National Academy Press). p. 24. ISBN 978-0-309-06073-8.
  186. ^ J.Y. Wong (1993). Theory of ground vehicles (2 ed.). Wiley. p. 26. ISBN 9780471524960.
  187. ^ C. Proctor; W. Grimes; et al. (1995). "Analysis of Acceleration in Passenger Cars and Heavy Trucks". SAE Technical Paper. SAE Technical Paper Series. 1. doi:10.4271/950136. Based on the time and distance measurements for the 219 trucks, calculated average accelerations were 0.085, 0.106, and 0.138 g's over the first 50 ft for the flatbed, box, and bobtail configurations, respectively.
  188. ^ Browning, R. C.; Baker, E. A.; Herron, J. A.; Kram, R. (2006). "Effects of obesity and sex on the energetic cost and preferred speed of walking". Journal of Applied Physiology. 100 (2): 390–398. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00767.2005. PMID 16210434.
  189. ^ "CAMUTCD". California Department of Transportation. p. 984. a bicyclist riding a bicycle 6 feet long to clear the last conflicting lane at a speed of 14.7 feet/sec
  190. ^ "European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation Standards Manual 2010 G6" (PDF). The European Tire and Rim Technical Organization.[permanent dead link]
  191. ^ "Urban Street Design Guide: Lane Width". National Association of City Transportation Officials. July 11, 2013. as the width of the lane increased, the speed of the roadway increased
  192. ^ "CAHDM" (PDF). pp. 300–25. 309.1 Horizontal Clearances for Highways: The horizontal clearance to all roadside objects should be based on engineering judgment with the objective of maximizing the distance between roadside objects and the edge of traveled way.
  193. ^ "405.1". California Highway Design Manual. California Department of Transportation. 2012. pp. 400–14. Set back for the driver of the vehicle on the crossroad shall be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 15 feet.
  194. ^ a b Markkula, Gustav; Engström, Johan; Lodin, Johan; Bärgman, Jonas; Victor, Trent (October 2016). "A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies" (PDF). Accident Analysis & Prevention. 95 (A): 209–226. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.007. PMID 27450793. The data show that drivers do not reliably respond to looming until it reaches .02 rad/sec
  195. ^ "The complete Catalog of Cars, car specs database". Archived from the original on May 18, 2016. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

Further reading: tertiary sources

Other printed resources

Web resources