"Speeding doesn't get you there any faster"

[thedude4bides]

"High speed reduces the possibility to respond in time when necessary. People need time to process information, to decide whether or not to react and, finally to execute a reaction. At high speed the distance covered in this period is longer. At high speeds the distance between starting to brake and a complete stand still is longer as well. The braking distance is proportional to the square of speed (v2). Therefore, the possibility to avoid a collision becomes smaller as speed increases. "
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/r.../Content/20_speed/speed_and_accident_risk.htm

"The resulting predictive relationship for total injury accidents shows that accident frequency rises rapidly with the mean traffic speed on a given road, and quantifies this effect. The relationship can be used to estimate the change in accident frequency resulting from a change in mean speed on a given road and, if applied to local or national accident statistics, to estimate the effects of different speed management strategies."
http://apivir.org/acrobatpdf/taylorvoiesetrisques.pdf

"Speed has been found to have a very large effect on road safety, probably larger than any other known risk factor. Speed is a risk factor for absolutely all accidents, ranging from the smallest fender-bender to fatal accidents. The effect of speed is greater for serious injury accidents and fatal accidents than for property- damage-only accidents."
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/TØI rapporter/2004/740-2004/740-2004.pdf

For those that like pictures:
http://visual.ly/car-accident-statistics-infographic

 

[troyguitar]

I said this in my edit so you may have missed it...

"you being afraid affects your state as a driver, and does increase your personal risk by ultimately affecting your decision making ability. So for you in particular, that situation may be riskier, but that is hardly blip on the radar when statistically looking at SPEEDS correlation to RISK for the average driver in the average car."

And, no, I don't live in bizarro world... but what you are describing there sounds a LOT like driving in Virginia, for example. Remember, we are talking about risk and correlation of risk to speed. Typical drivers in any given area may have an up or down impact on this correlation relative to the total, but that will never change it from a positive correlation to a negative correlation.

We are not looking at speeds independently. You are the one trying to shoehorn a general fact about increased speeds carrying increased risk into one specific scenario: driving the average speed of traffic versus driving the speed limit 5-10 mph below the average speed of traffic. The only research I have seen points toward your conclusion being wrong.

http://www.ohiomemory.org/cdm/ref/collection/p267401ccp2/id/55

 

[thedude4bides]

We are not looking at speeds independently. You are the one trying to shoehorn a general fact about increased speeds carrying increased risk into one specific scenario: driving the average speed of traffic versus driving the speed limit 5-10 mph below the average speed of traffic. The only research I have seen points toward your conclusion being wrong.

Sorry man, the roads I drive on the speed of traffic in the slow lane is not usually anywhere near 10mph over the speed limit. So I NEVER said it's safer to drive 10 below the speed of traffic and this has NOTHING to do with my argument. All my points in this discussion are referring to the right of the 0 in the x-axis of that graph.

In my world you have two choices.
1.) Fast lane typically 5-10mph over the limit
2.) Slow lane typically the speed limit.

In fact, on 22/78 fast lane is typically closer to 5mph over the limit.

Clearly the roads you drive on are having WAY to big of an impact on this discussion.

Again, if you take the average driver in an average car over all driving scenarios over the course of a year, a higher mean speed is higher risk. End of story.

 

[troyguitar]

So I NEVER said it's safer to drive 10 below the speed of traffic and this has NOTHING to do with my argument.

So you just ignored the 50 times that the scenario was clarified to be Speed Limit versus Traffic Speed = Speed Limit + 5-10?

I'm claiming it's safer to drive the speed of traffic than 5-10 mph below it, which happens to be the speed limit and have been doing so the entire time.

You are now claiming that you never disagreed with me? What exactly were you trying to say then?

 

[thedude4bides]

So you just ignored the 50 times that the scenario was clarified to be Speed Limit versus Traffic Speed = Speed Limit + 5-10?

I'm claiming it's safer to drive the speed of traffic than 5-10 mph below it, which happens to be the speed limit and have been doing so the entire time.

You are now claiming that you never disagreed with me? What exactly were you trying to say then?

There is one thing I have been saying: the average driver in an average car over all driving scenarios over the course of a year, with a higher mean speed is higher risk.

Your Pennsyltuckian commute where driving the speed limit in the slow lane is significantly less than the speed of traffic may be an anomaly...

This point has been beaten to death. Let's end it with a funny

 

[troyguitar]

There is one thing I have been saying: the average driver in an average car over all driving scenarios over the course of a year, with a higher mean speed is higher risk.

Your Pennsyltuckian commute where driving the speed limit in the slow lane is significantly less than the speed of traffic may be an anomaly...

So we're back to the beginning. Your argument is in general and does not apply to this specific scenario and you are unwilling to actually discuss the specific scenario. Instead you ignore repeated requests to stop the generalities and address the specific scenario, for pages and pages...

Good job on the epic trolling, bro. I am now going to sub all of your threads and act like a moron too. Eye for an eye.

 

[thedude4bides]

So we're back to the beginning. Your argument is in general and does not apply to this specific scenario and you are unwilling to actually discuss the specific scenario. Instead you ignore repeated requests to stop the generalities and address the specific scenario, for pages and pages...

Good job on the epic trolling, bro. I am now going to sub all of your threads and act like a moron too. Eye for an eye.

weak sauce bro:thumbdown:

 

[BAM its mitch]

:laugh:

I can't believe this continued for as long as it did.

 

[troyguitar]

No way, on average sauce is strong.

 

[chc29]

:laugh:

I can't believe this continued for as long as it did.

Me either but the crazy thing is I AGREE with both sides. How can I agree with both sides yet both sides disagree so hard with each other?!?

Not to stir it up again but I don't think you can argue about this specific situation and at the same time say "not me driving personally". All you can really say is:

Is it safer for Troy? Yes it probably is (one end of the spectrum of risk).

Is it safer for experienced drivers who are accustomed to driving with the flow of traffic and who always pay attention to what's coming behind (leap froggers, liter bikes, etc)? Yes it probably is.

Is it safer for the grandmas and grandpas to drive above the speed limit to try and go with the flow of traffic (other end of spectrum)? No probably not.

What does all that average out to? Who the hell knows and that's why you guys can't agree.

 

[troyguitar]

liter bikes

I almost killed one of those bastards a month or so ago. Passing 2 lanes of 70 mph traffic by going flat out down the dotted line in the middle at around 140 is clearly the safest way to get to work. Half the time on the road = half the accidents.

 

[chc29]

I've never ridden a motorcycle before but I get the feeling that the faster you go, the more it seems like the other people are not moving. It shouldn't be hard dodging stationary cars right?! Needless to say I shouldn't buy a motorcycle.

 

[thedude4bides]

I'm trying to make it specific, you're trying to make it general.

This is the problem right here. I entered this thread with a general assertion regarding speed/risk. Why you are so caught up in one specific scenario, I don't know. It should be clear from reading my posts that it is my understanding that driving the speed limit in the right lane IS the speed of traffic in that lane. I rarely see otherwise.

I've made very clear arguments that you consistently have not addressed directly and continually insisted on bringing up driving slower than the speed of traffic. I agree that driving slower than the speed of traffic carries risk.

For the record, and I have said this before, I am typically in the fast lane driving with traffic, just like you Troyboy:thumbsup:

 

[BAM its mitch]

This is the problem right here. I entered this thread with a general assertion regarding speed/risk. Why you are so caught up in one specific scenario, I don't know. It should be clear from reading my posts that it is my understanding that driving the speed limit in the right lane IS the speed of traffic in that lane. I rarely see otherwise.

I've made very clear arguments that you consistently have not addressed directly and continually insisted on bringing up driving slower than the speed of traffic. I agree that driving slower than the speed of traffic carries risk.

For the record, and I have said this before, I am typically in the fast lane driving with traffic, just like you Troyboy:thumbsup:

You are an idiot. Probably because it is HIS thread about HIS commute.

But to address something you have been trying to say for a few pages. I don't know where this magical place is that has 2 lanes that just both flow smoothly at separate speeds. Around here it doesn't exist. It only takes 1 asshole doing 10 under to fuck that up and thus I rarely if ever see it.

 

[thedude4bides]

You are an idiot. Probably because it is HIS thread about HIS commute.

But to address something you have been trying to say for a few pages. I don't know where this magical place is that has 2 lanes that just both flow smoothly at separate speeds. Around here it doesn't exist. It only takes 1 asshole doing 10 under to fuck that up and thus I rarely if ever see it.

Fine, I'm an idiot. And talking to me makes YOU an idiot, then. Welcome to the club:thumbsup:

Hold on a sec tho, Mitchy... I never said "smoothly". The fast lane where I travel daily does move faster than the slow lane, and yes, assholes are prevalent EVERYWHERE, fast ones AND slow ones, hence my assertion that it is not any safer to move with traffic in the fast vs moving with traffic in the slow.

I mean... What IS moving with traffic anyway? It is simply following the guy ahead of you at their speed. You don't like their speed you pass them or let them fly on. What if all of a sudden 10 ricer flyby's happen and now you have a choice move to with that traffic or stay with the traffic you are currently in? Is it safer to stay at 69 with the guy you are currently following or safer to follow the ricers that just flew by at 85? According to Troy, it either wouldn't make a difference or it would be safer to move with the faster traffic.