"Speeding doesn't get you there any faster"

[Gunkata]

As already stated, it was with regard to past conversations and echoing Troy's observations about this current argument.

Per your request, I will now cease trolling and exit this thread in a calm and peaceful manner.

 

[thedude4bides]

Who said anything about me? I purposely left all of that out of the equation and made it some person driving some car.

I'm trying to make it specific, you're trying to make it general. Your general argument is true, but that does not mean it applies to this specific situation. In general solids are more dense than liquids, that does not make solid ice more dense than liquid water. You have provided no reasoning to support the application of your general argument to the specific scenario.

Making it me personally in my personal car would just move the risk down even further, though, if you want to start swinging at that stuff. More capable car than average + more capable driver than average = fewer accidents than average...

ugh... do you see the contradiction? Hence on average means the average driver...

Also, you said this:

The point is to have a conclusion that is at least semi-applicable to real life.

Your original analysis was for 1 year, does one years worth of driving not require looking at more than one specific scenario?

This also baffled me:

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.

I mean, something is REALLY getting lost in translation if you thought I meant this.

Bottom line, and the crux of my argument is:

Regardless of whether or not you are driving with traffic, being a defensive driver, or being an offensive driver both of these statement apply:
1.) Frequency is increased due to limited time to react at higher speed, and limitations to a car handling/braking ability as speed increase.

2.) Severity is increased due to simple physics. More speed equals more momentum equals more damage to both car and driver.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether it is with traffic or without traffic, higher speed equals higher risk.

 

[CadMan]

Don't know if petitions like this really work but I hope it is passed.

Stop100.ca

Lots of interesting information on site don't know how true it is.

 

[aj_law]

 

[troyguitar]

You are ignoring everything that doesn't support your idea and concluding that you are correct. You have 2 valid points. They are not sufficient for your conclusion - there is no way to say based on those 2 things alone that risk is increased at all, let alone how much it is increased.

Insurance mitigates the increased cost added by the increased severity - possibly mitigating it entirely. This has not been explored at all.

... and it still has not been shown that accident frequency is increased in this scenario. You continue to side-step this one at every turn and stick to your "driving at higher speeds, on average, across all drivers/all driving scenarios over the course of a year" argument and just assert that this scenario follows the average.

Why does it follow the average? You have hinted multiple times that it -might- not follow the average, then continued on assuming that it does. How do you support this?

Is the driving instructor right or wrong when he says that following the speed of traffic makes one less likely to be in an accident than driving at the speed limit? You previously agreed with him, now you are back to disagreeing. Pick one and support it.

 

[Do Work Son]

If I drove the speed limit every day to work I would need to shave again when I got there.

 

[thedude4bides]

You are ignoring everything that doesn't support your idea and concluding that you are correct. You have 2 valid points. They are not sufficient for your conclusion - there is no way to say based on those 2 things alone that risk is increased at all, let alone how much it is increased.

what am I ignoring?

how are my points not sufficient for my conclusion? Those things are the primary components of risk, which is deviation from expectation.

Insurance mitigates the increased cost added by the increased severity - possibly mitigating it entirely. This has not been explored at all.

I get your point here, and insurance is hedge for severity but won't cover cost of tickets incurred, give you back any time spent dealing with legal court issues, and insurance is not going to unparalize you or unbreak your bones. The price of insurance will likely go up due to accidents.

... and it still has not been shown that accident frequency is increased in this scenario. You continue to side-step this one at every turn and stick to your "driving at higher speeds, on average, across all drivers/all driving scenarios over the course of a year" argument and just assert that this scenario follows the average.

I'm not side-tepping a damn thing. YOU need to tell me:
1.) How does the fact that you may be driving with traffic give back your lost time to react from traveling at a higher speed?
2.) How does the fact that you may be driving with traffic give your back it's reduced braking ability from traveling at a higher speed?
.

Why does it follow the average? You have hinted multiple times that it -might- not follow the average, then continued on assuming that it does. How do you support this?

Is the driving instructor right or wrong when he says that following the speed of traffic makes one less likely to be in an accident than driving at the speed limit? You previously agreed with him, now you are back to disagreeing. Pick one and support it.

yeah, I thought about last night in a two hour commute... I noted that while "driving with traffic" people play leap frog and jockey for position when openings in the right occur and people are cutting others off and the people being cut off are braking and the people following them are braking even harder because they were traveling at too close a distance..etc. etc. Nothing safer about being in the fast lane driving with traffic.

 

[troyguitar]

I'm not side-tepping a damn thing. YOU need to tell me:
1.) How does the fact that you may be driving with traffic give back your lost time to react from traveling at a higher speed?
2.) How does the fact that you may be driving with traffic give your back it's reduced braking ability from traveling at a higher speed?
.


yeah, I thought about last night in a two hour commute... I noted that while "driving with traffic" people play leap frog and jockey for position when openings in the right occur and people are cutting others off and the people being cut off are braking and the people following them are braking even harder because they were traveling at too close a distance..etc. etc. Nothing safer about being in the fast lane driving with traffic.

The point was there are more factors than time to react and distance to brake. The general idea is that going the same speed as everyone else will result in fewer things happening that require a reaction at all, which mitigates the reduced ability to react at higher speeds.

The first tested idea is that bigger speed differentials result in more accidents - that part has been proven and you ignore it.

A second untested idea is that people expect other people to drive at the same speed as most people. Accidents happen when people encounter unexpected things. Driving at the speed limit is an unexpected behavior and increases the chances of someone hitting you. You ignore this.

A third untested idea is that driving at the speed of traffic requires a driver to pay more attention to traffic than just setting cruise control at the speed limit and turning on Rush Limbaugh while combing his mohawk. A more attentive driver is less likely to be in an accident. You ignore this.

There are many reasons why one might be less likely to be in an accident by going the same (changing) speed as everyone else instead of cruising at the speed limit regardless of surroundings, all of which contribute to risk.

I also think your traffic is worse than mine, making your thoughts different. I can travel the entire way to and from work with cruise control set at 75 indicated (more like 70 actual) without touching the brake more than maybe 3 times. That's what I call moderate traffic because I still have to change lanes frequently to pass or be passed and that's what I have in mind here.

 

[thedude4bides]

The point was there are more factors than time to react and distance to brake. The general idea is that going the same speed as everyone else will result in fewer things happening that require a reaction at all, which mitigates the reduced ability to react at higher speeds.

A-holes on the road don't care what lane you are in or whether or not you are driving with traffic. Events due to a-holes are not reduced by driving with traffic, but severity in these events and the frequency of occurrence will increase due to my 2 points.

The first tested idea is that bigger speed differentials result in more accidents - that part has been proven and you ignore it.

What? How is going 65 in the slow lane not also going with traffic in that lane? I don't get it....I mean, going 65 in the slow lane (which btw I never see trucks going 45 in, but whatever... pass them and get back in slow in:iono gives you more time to react and better ability to handle if something like a tire shredding on said trucks than if you were 75 in fast lane.

A second untested idea is that people expect other people to drive at the same speed as most people. Accidents happen when people encounter unexpected things. Driving at the speed limit is an unexpected behavior and increases the chances of someone hitting you. You ignore this.

What? Maybe driving the speed limit in the fast lane... but anywhere else? People encounter unexpected things no matter what. If you don't expect to go out for a drive and encounter someone driving the speed limit, then I just don't know what to say. This is silly. You are reaching a bit on this. This argument does not imply lower risk at all by driving faster.

A third untested idea is that driving at the speed of traffic requires a driver to pay more attention to traffic than just setting cruise control at the speed limit and turning on Rush Limbaugh while combing his mohawk. A more attentive driver is less likely to be in an accident. You ignore this.

Attentive driving does not impact my statements at all. Unattentive driving and the FACT that unattentive drivers exist in ALL lanes of traffic only bolsters my two points.

There are many reasons why one might be less likely to be in an accident by going the same (changing) speed as everyone else instead of cruising at the speed limit regardless of surroundings, all of which contribute to risk.

Just as many reasons why risk is increased with speed. You seem to assume that people just jump in line and drive. Not in my commute.

I also think your traffic is worse than mine, making your thoughts different. I can travel the entire way to and from work with cruise control set at 75 indicated (more like 70 actual) without touching the brake more than maybe 3 times. That's what I call moderate traffic because I still have to change lanes frequently to pass or be passed and that's what I have in mind here.

Probably.

 

[troyguitar]

I don't think it's reaching to assume that no one drives the speed limit on the interstate. When I park the cruise control on the speed limit I get passed by EVERYONE including trucks if it's not an uphill section. It makes me extremely uncomfortable and nervous. It does not feel safe at all to me. Do you not get this same feeling? Try it sometime, drive for at least an hour on the interstate without exceeding the speed limit at all, not even to pass people, and see how safe you feel compared to driving like a normal person.

People passing trucks or getting annoyed with trucks trying to pass each other while going uphill are 95% of the dangerous situations I see out here, and the 45mph truck is something I see roughly 2-4 times per day.

 

[BAM its mitch]

Yeah but what if a deer jumps out in front of you on the interstate?

 

[troyguitar]

Yeah but what if a deer jumps out in front of you on the interstate?

Obvious answer is obvious.

 

[thedude4bides]

I don't think it's reaching to assume that no one drives the speed limit on the interstate. When I park the cruise control on the speed limit I get passed by EVERYONE including trucks if it's not an uphill section. It makes me extremely uncomfortable and nervous. It does not feel safe at all to me. Do you not get this same feeling? Try it sometime, drive for at least an hour on the interstate without exceeding the speed limit at all, not even to pass people, and see how safe you feel compared to driving like a normal person.

People passing trucks or getting annoyed with trucks trying to pass each other while going uphill are 95% of the dangerous situations I see out here, and the 45mph truck is something I see roughly 2-4 times per day.

First, I rarely use cruise control. Even on 4-6 hour trips. Second, I give no fucks about people passing me in that situation. The only reason that ever get's to me is my primal urges to drive faster than everyone else. It goes against my nature. Trucks can be just as scary passing them as they are passing you.

I have experimented with this in rush hour traffic many times. With a commute like mine sometime I play games... like whats the worst/best gas mileage I can get. What's the fastest time I can get there?

The hypermiling commute days are no less safe than my speed racer commute days. Hypermiling isn't scary to me either and yes there are time when I dip below the speed limit to beat my previous record. In my experience, my normal just get in line and drive with traffic days (in the fast lane) is definitely riskier than the hypermiling days. Several close calls. Never had a close call hypermiling yet.

Edit- just to put your post into context of the discussion, 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.

 

[troyguitar]

I mean stay at or below the limit the entire time no matter what - that makes me uncomfortable. Traffic stacking up behind me while I take 2 miles to pass someone does not feel safe, but that must be just me. I worry more about things happening behind me than in front of me.

Do you live in bizarro world where people actually treat the limits as limits and not the absolute minimum speed?

 

[thedude4bides]

I mean stay at or below the limit the entire time no matter what - that makes me uncomfortable. Traffic stacking up behind me while I take 2 miles to pass someone does not feel safe, but that must be just me. I worry more about things happening behind me than in front of me.

Do you live in bizarro world where people actually treat the limits as limits and not the absolute minimum speed?

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.