Police warn drivers to take precautions after rash of fatal accidents near Ann Arbor
Police are urging drivers to be cautious after a rash of fatal accidents like this one in Pittsfield Township Monday.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
Be careful on the roads.
That’s the message police are sending to motorists after four fatal crashes have left five dead in Washtenaw County since the beginning of July, including one crash in Pittsfield Township Monday and one in Ann Arbor on Sunday.
“Yes, we have noticed there’s (been) a rash of fatal accidents in Washtenaw County,” said Michigan State Police Sgt. Mark Thompson.
Law enforcement authorities said distracted driving has played some part in some of the fatal crashes since the year began. It's unclear whether it was a factor in the most recent crashes.
However, all drivers need to recognize the potential danger, police said.
“This is a call to drivers as an example of what happens when you don’t pay attention to your driving," Thompson said.
Derrick Jackson of the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office said deputies have noticed the common theme of distracted driving in many of the crashes.
Jackson said the sheriff's office has responded to roughly as many fatal or serious injury crashes in seven months this year as they did all of last year. He said in 2012, there were 23 calls to these types of crashes. There have been 22 such calls already in 2013, according to Jackson.
In 2013, there have been 15 fatal crashes with 16 deaths, according to previous AnnArbor.com coverage. There are no official statistics released from the state police for the year yet.
This could put the number of fatal accidents on par with previous years. According to MichiganTrafficCrashFacts.org in 2012 there were 22 fatal crashes with 23 deaths; in 2011 there were 33 fatal crashes with 35 deaths; in 2010 there were 20 fatal crashes with 20 deaths and in 2009 there were 25 fatal crashes with 26 deaths.
In the last five years, 913 people were either killed or suffered incapacitating injuries in Washtenaw County, making it the sixth in the state, according to the website.
Thompson urges drivers to “put down their phones and pay attention.” State police also warn against tailgating, drowsy driving and aggressive driving.
On Monday, two men -- Benjamin Arthur Alden, 28, and Neil Nelson Stierle, 81 -- died after a head-on collision in Pittsfield Township. The crash occurred around 8:29 a.m. on Michigan Avenue. It remains under investigation, with no cause released.
A day before, 43 year-old Bonnie Brush, of Grand Rapids, was killed after rolling her vehicle several times while traveling on U.S.-23 in Ann Arbor.
View Fatal crashes in July 2013 in a larger map
John Counts covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at johncounts@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Einsteinsoulmate
Sat, Aug 17, 2013 : 5:26 a.m.
If the driver had taken 5 more seconds to check for pedestrians, bikes, mopeds or even other drivers it would have saved a life. Everyone is in such a hurry to be somewhere. Stronger penalties need to be enacted to take away a drivers license if you hit a pedestrian, bike, etc. I have a close friend who was in a near fatal accident recently and though he survived, he has no say in his life including keeping his friends, his home and car, keeping his phone and even having $2.25 a day paid for a phone in his nursing home, let alone a haircut. Meanwhile the guardian who is blocking his voice in decisions (blocking friends in Ann Arbor from visiting) is being paid by you the taxpayer $5,000 so far @ about $80 a day for a hotel courtesy of University of Michigan. It is a shame they do not spend that money on tuition, research to prevent accidents or even a phone for the patient. If you agree and want to stop this free handout before it reaches $10,000, call U of M risk management regarding U of M truck accident.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : midnight
Oh, so now we should be careful ? What going on in drivers ed today. Is it all just wearing your safety belts and don't drink and drive ? We were told to ALWAYS be careful and to look out for the other driver and not let things get to you. Remain clam and if not, pull off the road till you clam down.
Katherine
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 8:31 p.m.
I've seen LOTS of people texting while driving which is a huge factor as well.
kindred spirit
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
I'm sorry for all of those who have died and their family members. It's nothing I want to experience. I too have noticed that driving has become more dangerous on our freeways. Speed, texting, and / or reckless lane switching, have been involved in all of the near-misses I have witnessed. Traffic volume is also up. I have simply wanted to get off of the road during some of my drives on errands while seeing these near-misses, and I love driving a car. I've been surprised at my reaction to driving on the road. What are we going to do?
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 6:23 p.m.
Apparently, you should not be driving a train while talking on the phone, either. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23507348
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:02 a.m.
Yeah, he went into the curve at 118 mph..a wee bit too fast ,ha ha.
Julius
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
I can't put everyone in the same box. Texting, dialing, taking eyes away from the road some other way -- with all these I can agree. Before phones, it was adjusting the radio. Now, because of hands-free devices, I can't agree about talking. What's the difference between talking to your passenger and talking on your bluetooth? You don't even have to look away to operate it. Steering wheel-mounted controls prevent you from having to move your hands at all.
PillowRock
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 7:28 p.m.
JSS - The thing that I haven't seen is a study that explicitly differentiates hands-free phone according to whether they are headsets or speaker phones. Hearing something (a conversation) in only one ear, as in a headset, forces your brain to compartmentalize the different sensory input to focus on the one ear at the expense of the other ear (and, I think, at the expense of other senses like vision). A speaker phone, on the other hand, makes the other person's speech just a piece of your overall environment, just like a passenger (but without the temptation that some seem to feel to periodically glance at a conversation partner sitting next to them) or listening to radio news. I would be interested to see the results of a study that specifically differentiated between those two categories of hands free devices. None of the studies that I've seen cited have done so. Maybe such a study has been done, but I haven't seen it.
JSS
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 6:13 p.m.
Julius: As I understand it, studies have shown that there is indeed a difference between talking with someone in the car and with someone who is not. Among other reasons for the difference, the other person is in the car, and is another set of eyes. Also, a person in the car is aware, at least generally, of the issues the driver is dealing with. I would think that hands free is better than holding a phone, but apparently it's not as safe as one would think.
A2NativeGirl
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:11 p.m.
I frequently drive down Wagner Road and happen to see the memorial for the woman who was killed texting and driving last year. That is a reminder that any call or text can wait. Be careful out there.
sesomai
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:04 p.m.
Whenever I am tempted to text and drive at the same time, I think of what my father's teacher used to tell his students caught passing notes or chatting in class: "Not even the mighty Caesar could do two things at once. Are you greater than the mighty Caesar?" I am not greater than the mighty Caesar and that's cool.
GoNavy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:41 p.m.
Here's a hint: If you regularly talk on the phone while driving, they are talking to you.. For our sake, concentrate on driving and not on your conversation. You are *not* smarter, more able, or more capable of multitasking on the road than everybody else is. Remember: You aren't the only car on the road, and your business is not so important that it cannot wait.
chapmaja
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:35 p.m.
There are so many poorly designed (for 2013 traffic levels) roadways in this area it is sickening. The only thing that will help AA area traffic will be a complete and total overhaul of all roadways/expressways in the AA area. Every expressway around AA needs to be widened. Many of the main roads need to be widened. The area needs more highway across points. AA has only 7 highway access points servicing it. Jackson Rd, AA-Saline Rd, State St. Washtenaw, Geddis, Plymouth Rd, and the Main St/ Barton complex at the Huron River. All of the substantial traffic from UofM and the other multitude of employers in AA, plus the large number of people who reside in town, must use on of these access points to reach the expressway system. The Ann Arbor area needs more highway access to allow for an easier traffic flow to and from the expressway system. My personal opinion is tow roads are the most needed additional access points. Liberty and Nixon Rd. One may seem like a great idea, while the other is often overlooked. Liberty is a main road coming out from Ann Arbor toward Stadium Blvd. At stadium is basically does to a secondary street status. A large volume of traffic that could come out of downtown AA to I-94 via Liberty has to use an alternate route which is normally Jackson Rd. Widening Liberty from downtown AA all the way to I-94 and putting a ramp in at I-94 would lessen traffic at the entire Maple, Jackson, Stadium, I-94 mess. Nixon Rd isn't as thought of, but it could lessen traffic at two major bottleneck ramp complexes in AA, as well as lessen traffic on US-23 and M-14's bottlenecks. If a ramp was put in at Nixon, it could fairly easily be used by traffic coming from the north campus area, which often goes Plymouth Rd US-23. This is most true for traffic going NB on US-23 or WB M-14 to I-94 and beyond. Nixon Road already connects with Plymouth Rd and with Huron Parkway. No number of access points would do any good without fixing the highways.
chapmaja
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.
Fixing the highway system is another major problem. We need wider roads with better existing access points. The #1 and #1a priorities have to be the US-23 segment between M-14 and I-96 in Brighton and I-94 between AA Saline Rd and US-23 where it goes to 3 lanes. US-23 needs to be widened only because of the pure volume of traffic that travels this section of roadway each and every day. It is just like a pipe draining a bathtub. Now matter how hard you try, you can not force more water through the same sized tube. I you widen the pipe, you allow more water out and drain the tub faster. AA is that bath-tub and US-23 NB is the pipe. My opinion is that US-23 NB should be 3 lanes each direction from I-96 to Warren Rd. From Warren Rd south to the M-14 interchange it should be 4 lanes each direction. It should remain 4 lanes each direction from the M-14 to US-23 (west side) connector to the other M-14/US23 connector. There should also be a ramp complex installed at Nixon Rd for traffic going on each expressway (more on this later). From US-23 to at least Michigan Ave along the east side of town should be 3 lanes each direction. I would likely keep US-23 widened all the way to the Willis Road exit personally, just to get traffic away from the I-94 US-23 interchange before narrowing the roadway. I would also widen M-14 east of AA for a distance of several miles, likely past Ford Rd, if not all the way to where it is 3 lanes through Plymouth. The other expressway that must be widened is I-94. This needs to be done from M-14 to US-23. It should be 3 lanes wide from M-14 to State St, and 4 lanes wide from State St to US-23. This would also include a new ramp complex at Liberty, and a complete rebuild of the ramps at State St.
JSS
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:24 p.m.
I couldn't agree more with the comments about the need for us ALL to stop using the phones while driving. None of us are immune to the dangers of distracted driving. But I also need to add, having driven all over the US: NEVER have I seen more drivers running red lights and failing to use directional signals than in the Ann Arbor area! It's remarkable. A yellow light should be a signal to stop if you safely can, NOT to speed up. And that little lever on your steering wheel column? That's know as a directional signal - handy and required (in most states, at least) for signaling turns and lane-changes.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
Here are Michigan crash statistics for the last decade. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/DecadeGlanceFatals_382744_7.pdf Both fatalities and accidents are down significantly over the last ten years. Facts are stubborn things.
SonnyDog09
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
The state's population did decline, but the percent decline in population was far less than the percent declines in both crashes and fatalities. 2002 10.05 million 2012 9.88 million The arithmetic is left as an exercise for the reader.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:04 a.m.
Oh they are never happy. Problem is too, there are less cars-people on the roads. People moved out of state to find work.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.
Since the link got cut off, here are the numbers from 2002 and 2012: 2002 Total crashes: 395,515 2002 Total Fatalities: 1,279 2012 Total crashes: 273,891 2012 Total Fatalities: 936
KateT
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
Texting and driving is morally wrong because it is more dangerous than driving under the influence. http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/site/14081545. See Car and Driver magazine study, for example. But people just cannot or will not see that unnecessarily risking people's lives by texting is wrong. So, when people's consciences just won't "kick in", the ramifications have to be huge: big fines, loss of driver's license, hefty insurance rates later, etc. Consequences should be the same or worse than DWI. They'll get it then. I am NOT asserting which recent accidents, if any, were caused by this.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:06 a.m.
Yeah we are told that but it doesn't make sense. A cell phone driver can just hang out and "sober" up in seconds.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
I think the legislature should make the texting while driving law a primary offense. Then, law enforcement could drive around in SUVs or vans and snap pictures of people texting while driving. Tickets would be written, fines imposed, insurance fees raised and like drunk driving stepped up enforcement would reduce the number of people willing to risk being caught, so they might not do it.
Major
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
Yesterday, driving on Eisenhower, a car was drifting over the lines and bouncing off the curb. As I drove past to get by them, I noticed the person was very focused on their cell phone...texting! When stopped at the light, they were totally oblivious to me waving, honking to get their attention. I wanted to give them some "stuff" about bouncing off curbs and driving into my lane. What I'd like to know is, can we call 911 to report this situation, like one can for reporting suspected drunk driving? When riding with someone and I look around at other drivers, I am amazed at the number of people who text and drive! They are not hard to spot either..driving all over the road, hitting curbs, sharp corrections...bad situation out there!
chapmaja
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:21 p.m.
I would say yes, given the fact that the driver is committing a serious moving violation, reckless driving. If they were just texting and driving, but were maintaining their lane of travel, then no. When they start cross lines, and driving in a very unsafe and dangerous manner 911 should be called, as they are putting themselves and everyone else at risk. This is no different than seeing someone who might be drunk driving. Would you not call 911 in that case? I certainly would.
KateT
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.
Whojix, few things constitute a greater emergency that a projectile weighing thousands of pounds, wandering around aimlessly, bouncing off of curbs; somebody could die!
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.
YES!!! You most certainly CAN call the police since they've already committed a major violation with careless or reckless driving from the weaving and curb jumping. Don't let people get away with this stuff. Enough reports against them and they can lose their license. I could care less about the "inconvenience" it might cause them....it's nothing compared to the inconvenience of them killing or injuring someone with their irresponsible behavior.
whojix
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3 p.m.
Road rage and wasting 911 resources with non-emergencies won't solve the problem of distracted driving.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
It is a secondary offense, so no you can't. See my post above your post once it gets passed committee.
grimmk
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.
I just want to say how very sorry I am to the woman I nearly hit while making a right turn. I thought you were stopped at the light. I am so very glad nothing happened. I deserved that bad look and much more. I will use this as a wake up call. Being a few minutes late to work is OK.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:07 a.m.
Well some cars go so slow, you think they are stopping. Don't put the blame sorely on you.
dexterreader
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.
I am one of those "hated" freeway drivers who actually sets my cruise control on 72 or 73 AND who actually slows down to 60 (or whatever is posted) within construction zones. People zip past me like I'm going 20 mph. The majority of drivers NEVER even slow down in a posted construction zone, especially if they don't see any "activity" at the time. I guess people just figure they are special and the rules don't apply to them. Distracted drivers not only risk their own life, they risk the lives of everyone around them. People need to put their busy lives "away" while they are behind the wheel and concentrate on keeping themselves, and everyone around them, as safe as possible.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:10 a.m.
Everybody knows you don't get pulled over for 72-73 and 70 is the around speed. In bad weather you drive slower and when traffic and roads allow, you can drive a little faster. Least I wished everybody knew that.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.
Why not just drive how traffic is moving ? If you really want to be a safe driver ?
Brad
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.
Those trucks should just stay in the right lane - they have no reason to move to allow "merging" - it's the responsibility of the merger to fit into the flow of traffic. All they do is cause the exact problems you're discussing.
chapmaja
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
I personally don't drive the speed limit on the expressway because of fuel economy and cost reasons. I find my car gets roughly 20% higher fuel economy driving at 60-65 mph than the customary 70-75 mph. That 20% better economy is 20% less fuel costs for me to pay. Given that I drive several thousand miles per month, every little bit helps. I will almost always be in the right lane, unless I am passing a another vehicle. Too many people either don't know or don't care about the law. Michigan law actually says that on an expressway, traffic shall stay in the right lane except to pass. This means people should not be simply driving in the left lane to drive in that lane. Too often we see people just driving in the left lane at a slow speed, which angers other drivers, forcing them to weave into the right lane and attempt to pass them. One other problem I often see is how drivers treat semi's. There are several on ramps in the AA areas where trucks will regularly move to the left lane, allowing merging traffic onto the expressway. Often these trucks get stuck in the left lane because drivers will dive to the right and attempt to pass these trucks on the right because they are in a hurry. It is much safer, and a much better idea to simple slow down, let the semi get back to the right lane, then pass them on the left when that lane is clear. It is not uncommon for a semi driver to pull over to the left lane where the on ramp to EB I-94 is at Jackson road is, and for them not to be able to get back to the right lane until Ann Arbor Saline Rd because people keep undercutting them passing in the right lane. They legally pulled out to pass merging traffic, but too many people keep passing on the right so they can't safely get over.
Little Patience
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
@dexterreader, I am one of those "hated" drivers too. I also drive 25 mph during the restricted times in the school zone on Whittaker & Willis on school days. People regularly tailgate me, pass me (even on a double yellow line), honk, flash lights, etc. Sure wish the police would enforce that zone. I NEVER see police in that area during the school zone times.
whojix
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
The speed limit is 70, not 72 or 73. Or do the rules not apply to you?
Brad
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.
I'm with Bob - please keep to the right. That's what that lane is for. Especially you big RV drivers.
Arieswoman
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
Like you, I am also hated! So be it. I use my cruise control all the time. Let 'em be mad.
Basic Bob
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
As long as you stay to the right, I have no problem with that.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.
"All of the accidents also have another thing in common - they are all on known severe bottlenecks in our highway system." I would suggest they have a more significant thing in common: Drivers who think the law does not apply to them, and that their haste is more important than everyone else's. A bigger, faster race track is not going to solve these issues.
PillowRock
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 7:48 p.m.
One of the markers on that map is on M-14 on the north side of town. In that case, it's not a case of having "a bigger, faster race track". It's a matter of not having the road spring booby-traps on unsuspecting non-locals (such as the woman in that accident, as I recall from that story) who don't know that one very short stretch of a long, limited access highway will suddenly be a whole lot different than the other 50 miles (or whatever it actually is) of that same road. The vast majority of M-14 is very safe at 70 mph (weather and traffic density permitting), and then suddenly there's that one stretch of just a couple miles where the curves are much tighter and the entrance ramps and acceleration lanes are completely insufficient to allow the merging traffic to get remotely close even to the reduced 55 mph limit of that stretch. That kind of inconsistency in road conditions, and the forced high differential in speed between the merging traffic and through traffic, is a recipe for periodic tragedies. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one other stretch of an actual freeway that is *that* bad for those specific issues: I-68 in Cumberland, MD (in that case the speed limit first drops from 65 to 55, and then drops again to 40 right around the worst entrance ramps).
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 7:48 p.m.
No way, chapmaja. A bigger road still backs up. And it only encourages higher speeds. The many people who ignore the current laws would still ignore the laws on the bigger and "faster" road. Paved shoulders encourage faster passing on shoulders, just as paved roads raise speeds vs. gravel. For many, it's a death race to buy fast food, or some similarly worthless endeavor.
chapmaja
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:42 p.m.
I am going to disagree to an extent. Much of the time the issue isn't "a bigger faster racetrack", it is allowing traffic the time to get into the lane they need to be in to avoid bottlenecks on the expressways. There is an optimal number of cars be unit of space on a roadway. When more cars get crammed into that space safety decreases. This is what brings out the second point you make, the drivers who don't think the law applies to them. Unfortunately this is the reason for some local fatal crashes. The lady who died on M-14 while talking on her phone and trying to pass a semi on the shoulder is an example. A better designed roadway might have prevented the bottle neck that lead her to make a very stupid decision which ultimately killed her. A better faster racetrack isn't going to stop stupid driving, but it does have the potential to limit the problems these people causes to others. Speaking of racetracks, do you know why racetracks limit the number of cars in races? They have often determined the optimal number of cars the particular track can safely hold in racing conditions. The Indy 500's 33 car starting field was determined by taking the amount of safe racing space available and dividing it by the space each car needs to race safely. That was determined to be a field of 33 cars. Transportation planners can't limit the number of cars on a given roadway, or change the safe amount of space needed per car, so the only option is to increase the amount of driving space available to driver, ie, builder a batter faster racetrack. A bigger faster ractrack, or a better highway system, will hopefully limit the amount of overly aggressive driving and the accidents that result.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.
Most of them could use a brain transplant! I attribute it to laziness. TOO lazy to get ready 3 minutes sooner.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.
but it sure makes driving more fun ;)
TryingToBeObjective
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:27 p.m.
Agreed. So any people drive like they're late- for a brain transplant.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.
There's really only ONE thing that needs to be taught in drivers ed...and unfortunately it's the one thing that is never taught. YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY VEHICLE ON THE ROAD. If everyone drove with the understanding that they are SHARING the road with other people, a ton of these "accidents" and other problems would lessen. Well that and take away the license of every single person that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to pace traffic while cruising in the left lane....that IS a civil infraction in Michigan BTW....cruising in the left lane and not passing.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.
257.634 Driving on right half of roadway; exceptions; driving on roadway having 2 or more lanes for travel in 1 direction; traveling on freeway having 3 or more lanes for travel in same direction; ordinance regulating same subject matter prohibited; violation as civil infraction. (2) Upon a roadway having 2 or more lanes for travel in 1 direction, the driver of a vehicle shall drive the vehicle in the extreme right-hand lane available for travel except as otherwise provided in this section. However, the driver of a vehicle may drive the vehicle in any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction of travel when the lanes are occupied by vehicles moving in substantially continuous lanes of traffic and in any left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction of travel for a reasonable distance before making a left turn. Basically the only time you're suppose to be in the left lane is when you are planning on turning left (and only for a reasonable distance....not a mile), when traffic is thick, or when you are passing. This applies to normal roadways such as Stadium too, as long as they are 2 lanes in one direction. 3 lanes in one direction have no restrictions like that....but you should still be courteous to your fellow drivers.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:08 p.m.
Could you post the MCL citation for that? I've never seen it.
murphthesurf
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.
these type of accidents are not going to stop happening because theres far too many drivers who continue to text and play games and heaven knows what else while their behind the wheel of a 2-3 ton automobile! some day,after causing a fatal injury to some innocent person they will get the message that a DISTRACTED DRIVER is as bad as a drunk driver!
CroseW
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.
Teats have shown that distracted drivers are worse than drunk drivers.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.
Yet on my way to work, I still see people talking on the phone, texting while driving in traffic. I guess some people feel they are so important, the world cannot get along without them for 15-20 minutes!
Unknown
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.
Yep! I have had too many close calls on the highway and busy streets like Washtenaw etc when a driver was coming into my lane while they were either texting or dialing a number on their phone. All of my young children were in the car with me. Getting sick of it!
justcurious
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:45 p.m.
Don't think drivers are more distracted now? Look around you and notice how many people are on the phone, how many people are throwing their hands in the air while "conversing" with a passenger, how many people are actually reading while driving, how many applying make up, how many are on your rear bumper trying to intimidate you, how many are nodding off....the list goes on and on. Observe how many are on the phone while turning in front of you at a stop light...a high percentage.
63Townie
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.
I feel bad for the families who recently lost loved ones, especially if they read these comments. One split second bad decision, one instant of distraction, perhaps not, but all will be putting a loved one to rest. We are all so eager to point fingers and assign blame when sometimes it's just an accident, but an accident that cost someone their life. Driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity but we easily forget that. Instead of finger pointing, let's take a lesson away from these tragedies and commit as individuals to becoming better, more aware and more courteous drivers.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.
Bcar According to your earlier post, a properly trained driver would be able to miss the thing that was dropped no matter what their speed is!
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
accident not equal to negligence. Accident is when your tire blows from hitting something the truck in front of you drops....
neel125
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
Driving is part of my job and this summer, other drivers have been horrible. I see more aggressive drivers than distracted drivers. Just this morning on the way to work, I had a motorcylist pass a car in the left turn lane on Platt just south of MI Ave. Of course, he ended up stopped at the light and then flipped the bird to someone once the light turned green. Then on Golfside just north of Ellsworth, a guy passed me on double yellow lines, of course he got stopped at the light at Golfside and Packard. This aggressive driving sure didn't get these fellas too far. What's the rush?
djacks24
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
I agree. Distracted driving is a problem, but aggressive driving seems to be more prevalent. Actually, likely a combination of both.
JRW
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:41 p.m.
The lack of clarity for determining whether cell phone use is a factor in accidents is bogus. Just check the cell and text records to see if drivers were on a call or texting at the time of the accidents. This needs to be dealt with in the same way as alcohol and drug use when accidents happen, immediate checking of cell records. The laws also need to change re: cell phone use while driving, which should be illegal.
Paul
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 12:13 a.m.
Not true, just cause you are on the phone and crash, doesn't mean for sure the phone caused the accident. Sure myths about radios in cars were going around 50 years ago, yet who today blames the radio for an accident ?
thecompound
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.
Reading texts/emails is just as bad. Just because you hear that little "ding" noise on your phone doesn't mean you have to look at IMMEDIATELY.
chapmaja
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:51 p.m.
It really is not that simple, and certainly not as simple as you seem to think it is. As an example. I send a text at 1:21 and 33 seconds. At 1:21 and 55 seconds, I run a read light and cause a fatal accident. It could be that I was distracted by texting, or that 22 seconds difference between when I sent the text and when I was in the accident was me just not paying attention. There simply is not enough accuracy in most cases to say beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was or was not texting while driving. I was pulled over a few years ago and while I was sitting waiting for the cop to pull up, I got a text message. The cop saw the text appear on my phone while I was sitting pulled over. Was this texting while driving? No, but he could not be sure. There flat out is not enough technology at this point to be accurate enough in most cases to say someone was or was not texting. Certainly when the phone is being used and goes dead in an accident, the person likely was on the phone, or when the half written text was still unsent on the phone, they likely were texting. You simply can not tell right now if they were texting or not text when something occurred. The time the phone company may have is different then the time reported for the accident. Unless a time stamped camera records the accident, so some other way to determined the exact time it occurred is present, the technology is not good enough to say with 100% accuracy that texting or phones were or were not involved.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
The cops can just ask the NSA whether you were talking on your phone or texting when the collision occurred.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
I don't know why people are voting Bob down. All of these accidents have indeed happened in congested areas with poor traffic flow.
Basic Bob
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.
I'm in favor of public transportation but that is no panacea. The existing road network needs some strategic improvements in a few key areas which will remain unreachable by bus or train or bicycle.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
I voted that comment up but I was considering voting it down because although I agree with him that these accidents all happened in congested areas, I happen to think that things like asphalt paths and rail projects are really good solutions for easing congestion.
CroseW
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
He lost me with the comment about transit and bike paths. We need alternative transit options. Serving the entire area costs less than upgrading roadways. We need to afford maintenance on our existing roads and bridges.
CLX
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.
I guess because they don't believe that congestion is the problem -- congestion means people should pay more attention, not less. There are always going to be some roads that are more congested than others; congestion does not mean dangerous. I agree that some roads/intersections seem poorly planned from a safety point of view, but congestion is a different issue. And of course there are plenty of folks who are interested in alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles on the road, instead of just every-widening and more and more roads.
JRW
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
There is a group of commenters who play games and vote down posts that are obviously good sensible comments that are not opinions. I don't know if it's kids with too much time on their hands or what, but it's consistent across all articles.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
(This was meant as a response to the first post. Unfortunately, I can't delete or move it.)
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
Do the police collect statistics on cell phone use as a factor? I know they always report seat belts, but do they report whether phones were in use?
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.
Then why aren't we consistently seeing it in these reports, annarbor.com? Can you guys make sure you include it as soon as you have it, like the seatbelt thing is included?
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.
They do now, and they will cite it in charges against the driver.
a2cents
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.
Probably a good idea to stay home until the idiots get it sorted. I'm sure higher speed limits have reduced the slaughter... just has to.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
Yeah. They actually can, believe it or not.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
Actually every single place they raised speed limits saw a reduction in both traffic accidents and deaths.
HONDO
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:19 p.m.
Society is full of entitled drivers, whose cars are usually unsafe to begin with. Think about this, "well mom and dad speed and run stop signs, so whats the problem?" at least for the new young drivers. Shoot the other day a biker no helmet mind you had no intention at stopping at the stop sign, he just blew threw it and I had the right of way(no stop sign). I watch people speed past MSP on the highway all day they dont care.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
I would submit that most of the "entitled " drivers have cars that would be perfectly safe if THEY were not behind the wheel!
Candy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:17 p.m.
Yet when I made a comment about speed being a factor in fatal accidents, it got deleted! People DO drive like speed demons around here! Very few respect the speed limit! I routinely drive 5 mph over the speed limit (conditions permitting), and everyone blows right by me!
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 9:32 p.m.
Bcar Too bad you had to spend thousands of dollars to learn how to drive! I have been driving about 50 years without an accident and it did not cost me anything but time behind the wheel.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
It's not the speed. It's the sudden stop.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
Jcj, look out for deer... Easy123, who said anything about racing or NASCAR?? Or speeding for that matter... speeders not going the flow of traffic? You must not drive 94 or 14 very often when the flow of TRAFFIC IS doing 75-80...so maybe you should speed up? I know people that cruise at 85 or more, and they do not cut people off. Bad driver does not always equal fast driver, but often does. road conditions also include traffic if you read my posts. If people would get over except to pass, they wouldnt be cut off all the time...hmmm...what a concept.
easy123
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:47 p.m.
Bcar - This is not NASCAR. We will get there maybe 2-3 mins after you race there - more likely even faster. The problem with the speeders is - they are not going with the flow of the traffic. so their lack of patience results in a lot of brake lights - because others are cut off. You are also assuming the road conditions and car can handle the speed- Remember other people are driving at a slower speed - you are creating a lot of consternation with them - when they trying to change lanes etc
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:42 p.m.
Bcar Yep and I fly a plane to work every day!
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:23 p.m.
jcj, my theory still holds true. if you're in an area with driveways or forrests, then the possibility exists for wildlife, thus applies to "road conditions" and road access. p.s. given said situation, I would easily be able to slow down and swerve in MY car, with MY driving ability... ;-P But I dont drive a minivan and have spent years and many thousands of dollars on advanced driver's ed, for work and play.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.
Bcar That is a comment I have heard before, but it is just as ridiculous now as then! Lets suppose you are driving down the road at 35 mph, a deer jumps out and stops in the road 50 ft in front of you. You are able to stop and avoid the deer. Now lets suppose you are driving 75. Enough said. Stop being foolish.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
Speed doesnt cause accidents. When people exceed one of the following limits accidents hcan appen. 1. limit of the car (minivans dont take 25mph curves at 50). 2. limit of the driver, not everyone is mario. 3. limit of conditions (rain, snow, traffic, etc.)
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
Speed is not always a factor in fatal accidents. It is in some, but not all. Period.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : noon
"Derrick Jackson of the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office said deputies have noticed the common theme of distracted driving in many of the crashes." Really sir? I disagree with that assertion. The lady that tried to pass the semi on the shoulder was not distracted...she was being extremely negligent. In the other accidents I don't believe the police have released any official causes either. Just because "distracted driving" is all the buzz now doesn't mean that is the cause.
Brad
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
Billy - it isn't a "buzz phrase", it's a scientific fact that certain activities like talking/texting on cell phones are highly distractive. Any you have no better idea than anyone else of what "caused" the crash.
A2NativeGirl
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.
@a2cents - Thank you. I meant to say left shoulder.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
@Billy I believe Mr Jackson's common theme referred to all crashes this year. ANY assertion that texting or talking on the phone does not reduce someones ability to react to different situations is foolish at best.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:17 p.m.
"Had she not been talking on the phone, it's possible she would have been able to maintain control of her car." And that is where you are wrong. Her being on the phone had very little to NO affect whatsoever on the accident....her passing a semi where there not only wasn't enough room, but in an area absolutely LITTERED with loose sand and gravel is what caused the accident. That is obvious and evidenced. Her usage of the cellphone at the time however, is NOT evidenced as being a cause of the accident...it's pure speculation. Yet why has it become the PRIMARY cause of the accident, or at least it's being discussed as the primary cause? Because "distracted driving" is the buzz phrase today, and all it takes is someone mentioning it to make it the primary cause. The overwhelming cause of the accident was the negligent actions she took while driving, and NOT her simply being on the phone. The phone usage could be mentioned...but certainly not as a primary factor. We need to stop calling this "distracted driving" and call it what it really is.....NEGLIGENT driving.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
No, I'm not, because while a 6-pack in the truck doesn't increase the chance of an accident, talking on the phone WHILE doing something reckless does. Had she not been talking on the phone, it's possible she would have been able to maintain control of her car. Still doesn't change the fact that passing on the shoulder at speed is extremely risky even if you aren't simultaneously talking on the phone, but it does make the phone thing a secondary causative factor.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.
Dd NOT do that. The 'distraction' of talking on the phone did NOT cause the accident....passing a semi on a shoulder is what caused the accident. This accident was caused by hubris and nothing else. What you are doing is the same as the NHTSA marking an accident as "alcohol related" because someone had a 6 pack in the trunk of ONE of the vehicles (not even the one at fault) involved in the accident even though both drivers were stone cold sober.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
If she was talking to her husband at the time she passed on the shoulder, I'd argue that constitutes distracted driving - as well as whatever driving on the shoulder constitutes. You can have multiple factors.
Billy
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
None of that classifies as "distracted." What she did was INTENTIONAL, as she even told her husband over the phone that she was going to try to pass the semi on the shoulder. That is NOT distracted driving...
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
She was both extremely negligent AND distracted.
a2cents
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
on the shoulder
A2NativeGirl
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:10 p.m.
She was using her phone while passing the semi on the left.
snark12
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:46 a.m.
John, in your second paragraph you say one man died in Pittsfield on Monday but it was two, as you say later in the story.
snark12
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:10 p.m.
Sorry, that's clear now. Somehow it wasn't clear 30 minutes ago. Not enough coffee, I guess.
Kyle Feldscher
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : noon
snark12- John is referring to the number of crashes, not the number of people who died.
Linda Peck
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:45 a.m.
I am amazed that the statistics are not worse. Driving is the most dangerous thing we do in a day, but we take it for granted, this hurling ourselves through space at high speeds in flimsy metal transport. All of us obviously cannot think fast enough or well enough to do it safely.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
+234326 Im a big fan of what a lot of people would call "extreme" sports, and the most dangerous thing I do in my life is drive to work...
Martha Cojelona Gratis
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:42 a.m.
Alot of people from Washtenaw County do not know how to drive. I do not know if it is poor drivers education or what. Most of the precautions I take when on the road is to avoid these drivers because one thing is certain, getting into an automobile accident does not have to be your fault when so many other factors come into play.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:30 a.m.
Here's a thought... Maybe driving should be a privilege and NOT a RIGHT. You know, actually have GOOD driver education (re: Germany)? And let the driver's pay for it. If you cant afford better Driver Ed classes, how are you going to afford a car, INSURANCE, maintenance, and gas? Everyone loves to point at guns these days, pop quiz: what kills more people per year, guns or cars?? Vehicle inspections would also be great!! I don't want to be driving in front of someone in the rain while they have bald tires and bad brakes. I don't care if they say they "cant afford it" tough!! life is worth more... Oh, lets add DRIVING AND VISION tests for people over 65...
Crono
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:15 p.m.
Tano, your premise is invalid. Just because you choose to live in the suburbs or in a rural area, does not mean that you should be granted the RIGHT to an automobile. If you can live in the suburbs, you can afford to high costs of automobile ownership and the associated costs of driving on the roadways. As those have mentioned before, the United States needs significantly more investment in public transportation systems. Study after study has shown that America's population is getting older and older and not only that, but more young people today are choosing not to drive. Even young adults want to live in areas near transit. If we want to lower traffic fatalities at the same time as encourage economic development, we will demand more public transportation instead of spending all transportation dollars on car-only roadways.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.
Jcj, im not talking about the $69 special that sears driving school offers. And make the tests harder (written and driving). Nsider, well, ive seen people over 65 text, and also 18yr olds NOT text, your point? Your blinder idea is actually a good one! Tano, my life is more of a necessity that someone getting to work because they chose to live far away.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
If you can pass the test you have the right to drive. Period! That does not mean that everyone that has a license should be driving.
Tano
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:41 p.m.
Whereas driving is not a right, the truth is that a relatively normal life in modern America (outside of a few big cities) is nearly impossible to sustain with a car and the right to drive it. What percentage of jobs are outside the pool of possibilities for a working-class person without a car? How many housing possibilities are precluded because of their distance from basic amenities like supermarkets or doctors offices? In a big city, you can rely on mass transit. Everywhere else, you need a car. In this context, making loud proclamations about how driving is not a right is utterly besides the point. It is a necessity - which is something even more urgent than a right.
NSider
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:55 p.m.
As others have noted, driving is NOT a right. You have no right to a license, you must earn it (by passing tests and paying fees) and you must then attempt to keep it (by obeying the laws and in general be a good driver). Since you mention Vision tests for those of us over 65... I can assure you, none of us are texting. While most of us can see very well, we do use reading glasses which are incompatible for distance (driving). I'll tell you what, I'll take all the vision and driving tests you want, how about we institute blinders for under 40s? So they can't see anything closer than the dashboard.
PhillyCheeseSteak
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.
Bcar - new drivers in Michigan DO pay for their own drivers education program. Drivers education has not been part of the school curriculum for many years.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
Bcar I will support driving and vision test for those over 64, if you will support IQ test for those under 65! And if those under 65 will submit to a test that will tell us if they talk or text while driving!
Bcar
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.
sorry, but driving is not a RIGHT. And if someone doesnt have the proper training and testing, why should they be in command of a DEADLY weapon that puts all of us at risk?? We're not talking about a lot of $$$ for better education, <$500-1000... Same with making sure ones car is safe to operate... (im sure someone is going to say it, so yes, I agree more training is needed for gun owners as well, including police).
63Townie
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.
Your premise would be great if southeast Michigan (especially Detroit) had an adequate public transportation system (and no, I'm NOT including a new train station for UM). Are you saying people who are down on their luck, poor, out of a job or otherwise can't afford very expensive driver's training don't have a right to be able to move freely? Sounds pretty elitist to me.
snoopdog
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:14 a.m.
I am amazed there are not more fatalities on our roadways. Driver training/education is a complete joke. Getting a license in this country is far to easy. And then look at the rolling pieces of junk going down the road. Cars with bald tires, bad brakes, lights out, worn out shocks and on top of that drivers that were never given proper instruction when they first got their license. Good Day
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 8:02 p.m.
Nick Just in case it was over your head. My point is you can't cherry pick what makes a safe driver. Talking or texting while you drive eliminates you from being a safe driver!
Crono
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:09 p.m.
Very true, snoopdog. I'm a firm believer that driver's training should occur once every so many years. People begin to get lazy with their driving and that's when aggression sets on. So many people take driving for granted and forget about the rules of the road.
Nick Treeville
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
I agree with snoopdog, driver education, training, knowledge and courtesy in this country is a complete joke. Our system should be as rigorous as the system in Germany not on par with third world countries. As we can see the seemingly simple act of driving a car can be fatal. jcj: A properly trained, conscientious driver would not use their hands and eyes to talk or text when they should be using them to drive. You're out to lunch on your point.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.
@snoopdog I am assuming you consider yourself a good driver. (or how could you judge others). I also then have to assume you never text or talk on the phone while driving. My point is you can be the best trained driver on the road, but if you are not willing to stop texting and talking you are a danger to yourself and others!
NSider
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:13 a.m.
Sure wish the MSP were busy at work. This morning a fellow passed me on the left, I was going about 73 in the rh lane, and proceeded to take the off-ram immediately to my right. Just after that another car passed me on the right, only he didn't even bother to get out of my lane to go around me. Yesterday evening I watched a fellow coming up from about a mile back, he was clearly going in excess of both the limit and the prevailing traffic, weaving in and out of lanes and traffic. When he blew by me I was between 70-75 and he barely went around me. His vehicle had NY plates. Aggressive driving is out there and IS going on. Where or where are the MSP?
easy123
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.
Mr Salberg - It may be legal - but the driver was way past the speed limit. If this gentleman wished to change lanes, the upcoming driver would be coming in too fast. Common sense has to prevail.
Jon Saalberg
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:23 a.m.
Just an FYI - if you are on any three-lane stretch of highway, in Michigan it is legal to pass in any lane, not just on the left.
Arieswoman
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 10:43 a.m.
There are going to be more accidents unless people decide to put down their cell phones. I see so many distracted drivers. They think it will not happen to them. Well guess again! There is no phone call worth your life.
Crono
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:05 p.m.
There are many forms of distracted driving: texting, talking on the phone, playing with the radio, yelling at screaming kids in the backseat, or just plain roadrage. So many people on the road get very angry, very quickly.
Brad
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
I'm still thinking that cell phone use is going to be far worse than the "poodle effect". Cell phone use occupies the same part of your brain that you need for driving. THAT is the problem.
jcj
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
People can blame the roads all they want! When all is said and done almost without exception accidents are caused by human error. @usual suspect I could not agree more! I am amazed at the number of numbskulls that drive with Fido in their lap!
Usual Suspect
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
Or worse, driving with a poodle in your lap. I'm amazed this isn't illegal.
seldon
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.
I would really like to know whether this has been a factor in these accidents.
snark12
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
I think this is very true.
Fat Bill
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 10:42 a.m.
I believe there are more vehicles on the road this year than there were in 2009-2012. While many were fleeing Michigan or not working, it seemed to me that commutes, especially on fair weather days, were not all that bad. Now the both the morning and afternoon rushes are starting to feel like they did in the late 90s/early 2000s. More cars on the road equals more opportunities for collisions.
Basic Bob
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 10:33 a.m.
All of the accidents also have another thing in common - they are all on known severe bottlenecks in our highway system. Congestion and high speed contribute to the likelihood and severity of the accidents. For now we will pay attention and slow down, but we are in dire need of these long-delayed upgrades to the highway system. Our *representatives* at WATS and SEMCOG need to focus their effort in these areas instead of infrequently-used asphalt paths and demonstration rail projects.
Crono
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:02 p.m.
Congestion does not lead to severe accidents. High speed does. Roads don't need to be expanded: that would only encourage more reckless and aggressive driving. Alternative forms of transportation need to be invested in, to not only ease congestion on roadways, but give more people the option of an alternative mode. There's no reason why we should have to force 81-year old people into automobiles because that is the "only way" of moving around. Tell your representatives and those in power that we need more alternatives and to focus on maintaining existing infrastructure.
Joe Hood
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.
easy123: You must be mistaken, those are all out-of-towners, Ann Arborites are perfect.
easy123
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 3:35 p.m.
Not at all - The people are driving recklessly on an 696,275, M14 and 23. If you have not see that - you must be blind. I have see people do over 60 mph on main st. Somone passed me doing over 90-100 mph on the m14 stretch. The exit merging into M23 into mainstreet becomes a race te rack for the wonderful A2 citizens who want to get to the main st exit one sec before you. The so called upgrades are just going to lead to people speeding up some more
Frank Lee
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
@Snoopdog – "all the way"? You are talking about roughly 100 yards of road. I do agree with the original post in regards to long overdue road improvement and bottlenecks, although I would be willing to bet this particular accident has nothing to do with congestion. If it's so congested, how does a driver manage to gain enough speed to cause such a severe accident? I'm speculating that a medical issue was to blame
snoopdog
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 11:09 a.m.
Well said Basic Bob. Michigan Ave gets horribly backed up from Textile Road all the way to us-23, even on weekends. Good Day
Chip Reed
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 10:43 a.m.
Well, there are two ways of looking at that. If more people used alternatives, there might be less severe bottlenecks...