"Speeding doesn't get you there any faster"

[Merkle]

You guys don't get it and that's fine.

Even if it is equally likely to be in an accident going 65 or 74, would you rather be going faster or slower when you do get in one?

Will you be more prone to injury going faster or slower?

Will there be more damage to your car going faster or slower?

In the end, even if it is equally likely to be in an accident going faster on average over the course of a year, which I contend it it not and no one had shown otherwise, the expected losses increase with speed and therefore it is riskier. Period.

Many people here know that statically speaking; increases in speed increase your risks for accidents.

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/r.../Content/20_speed/speed_and_accident_risk.htm

The point is that when factoring in this increased risk due to increased speed we reach the point where the benefits out weigh the risks. With as much as many on here commute daily (let's be honest, many above the speed limit) it's safe to conclude that those risks are very low. Those risks are 1.49% over the average lifetime to be exact.

Source:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081015210636AAoQgNK

Cited in source:
http://www.nsc.org

 

[LoneWolf2774]

Thanks to all participants of this thread. I have been quite entertained.

 

[thedude4bides]

This is not sufficient. You are still making an unsupported assumption about the probability of getting in an accident. You are also ignoring insurance in your cost comparison, but I'll give you that one anyway since the chance of fatal injury does go up with speed and that has effectively infinite cost.

The driving school instructor is contending that it is safer to go faster. If that is the case, then the probability of an accident decreases at the same time as the expected cost of the accident increasing. It is not clear at all whether the overall risk is higher or lower at the higher speed.

You are strictly speaking of frequency of occurrence. The post you quoted speaks strictly of severity.

 

[thedude4bides]

Thanks to all participants of this thread. I have been quite entertained.

Agreed. Aside from learning about our awesome cars, that's why people who graduated to Audi still play here:thumbsup:

Much love to my forum brothers:wub:

 

[troyguitar]

You are strictly speaking of frequency of occurrence. The post you quoted speaks strictly of severity.

I'm speaking of the product of the two: Risk.

Severity I am giving you as being higher even though that one is not fully explored.

Frequency is not clear at all and could be lower at the higher speed.

The product of the two, Risk, is not clearly higher or lower at traffic speed versus speed limit.

 

[thedude4bides]

I'm speaking of the product of the two: Risk.

Severity I am giving you as being higher even though that one is not fully explored.

Frequency is not clear at all and could be lower at the higher speed.

The product of the two, Risk, is not clearly higher or lower at traffic speed versus speed limit.

Assuming, no change in frequency due to speed, even a small increase in severity does increase the risk. Edit: but you are right, there is a balancing act going on here.

Thresholds are key. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. 211 it doesn't boil. A small change makes a big difference. Maybe I get whiplash at 80mph but paralyzed at 81mph all else held constant.

 

[troyguitar]

Assuming, no change in frequency due to speed.

This is not a fair assumption, it is not at all clear and frequency could indeed be much lower at the speed of traffic - that's why we're still posting about this.

Now I need to go do some stuff but I'll check back in later.

 

[Gunkata]

A recent medical study confirmed that if you fall with both legs being taken out from under you in lieu of just one, you fall approx 3.5mph faster towards the ground.

While typically, the lesser fall (one leg only) results in a simple bruised knee, Pokemon band-aid, and some kisses from mom, the threshold of the two leg fall and the additional 3.5 mph increase in inertia speed towards the ground - combined with the gravitational pull of the earth, can result in the person being paralyzed from the waist down, including the nether regions which contains balls and dongs for men, or the vajajay / "special no-no place" for females.

This has been confirmed in this month's Journal of Medicine.

 

[thedude4bides]

This is not a fair assumption, it is not at all clear and frequency could indeed be much lower at the speed of traffic - that's why we're still posting about this.

Now I need to go do some stuff but I'll check back in later.

I think it is fair to assume if you isolate variables. Would you agree with that assumption if we were talking about going with traffic in the fast lane vs going with traffic in the slow lane? Negligible difference in frequency?

I agree, going the speed limit in the fast lane causes road rage and makes people erratic because they just have to get somewhere ten seconds faster.

 

[chc29]

which forums do we go to to find actuaries to settle this? Aston Martin?

 

[thedude4bides]

which forums do we go to to find actuaries to settle this? Aston Martin?

I'm an actuary formerly for health product pricing and now for enterprise risk management. I do have contacts in auto that I can bug if I need to. So yeah, it's one actuary versus a whole forum of know it alls. Tough crowd.

And no, not Aston Martin:laugh: more likely a hybrid or something...

 

[McQueen77]

Inside the Philly limits, it's either drive like an asshole or get run over.

Yep. Round here, eeryone drives 80+ regardless of 50, 55 or 65 and as long as youre not weaving in and out of traffic, cops usually leave you alone because everyone speeds. Ehere they nail you in city streets etc. speeding there is pointless because you always end up at the same light or stop sign with everyone else. Stop signs though, i creep and roll every one

 

[dragon69185]

 

[D Griff]

^ that.

 

[troyguitar]

I think it is fair to assume if you isolate variables. Would you agree with that assumption if we were talking about going with traffic in the fast lane vs going with traffic in the slow lane? Negligible difference in frequency?

I agree, going the speed limit in the fast lane causes road rage and makes people erratic because they just have to get somewhere ten seconds faster.

Out here there are two lanes. One has people going everywhere from 5-25 mph over the speed limit, and the other has trucks and old people going everywhere from 20 mph under the limit to 10 mph over the limit. Doing the speed limit means trying to pass trucks going 45 uphill while other people going 80 are coming up on you. It does not feel safer than just going whatever speed people are going in the left lane. I can't prove it.

The third alternative which I guess you are proposing as the safest is to go the speed of the people in the right lane - i.e. the speed of trucks. This means dropping down to 45 or less going up hills and picking up to 70 or more going down hills. People expect trucks to go slow up hills - they do not expect cars to follow suit. If you slow to 45 up a hill behind a truck AND leave enough distance between you and said truck to be safe regarding visibility and braking, cars coming behind you are NOT going to realize you are going that slowly. I highly doubt that is the safest option of the 3.

Bottom line according to no research IMO:

Traffic speed in left lane = worry about you and things in front of you = best option

Speed limit switching lanes = worry about you and things in front of you and things behind you and next to you = worst option

Truck speed = worry about you and things behind you = OK but slow as hell and relies on others not to hit you.

Other people are dangerous, I'll take my chances with the deer before relying on Sally Textsalot to notice that she's going 30 mph faster than me.