Speeding is not inherently dangerous

[jeyen]

Looks like today's my day to post driving-related threads.

In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57612), I posted about draconian DUI laws.

The subject of speeding promptly came up.

I consider speeding to be an issue, but not one that's equivalent to driving drunk.

And it's an issue because I think that neither speeding (driving over the posted speed limit) nor speed (driving what some consider fast) in and of themselves cause accidents, fatal or otherwise.

People who can drive well at faster speeds should be able to do so.

Caveats:
I believe that to safely drive at any speed, you need training and experience. Some people simply don't have the training and experience to drive as fast as they like.
I believe that your car must be in proper condition for you to drive as fast as you like. That means the usual maintenance, as well as things that are more strongly affected by faster speeds, like tires.


There are several organizations trying to get the message out about unreasonable speed limits. Take a look if you like:

Reasonable Drivers Unanimous (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/home2.html)
National Motorists Association (http://www.motorists.org/)
National Coalition for the Abolition of Speed Limits (http://web.missouri.edu/~c669885/ncasl/) (Yes, I know that will never happen.)
An article (http://www.therune.com/therune/hutchins/speed/speed.htm) from Car and Driver magazine about how the statistics on speeding are collected


Do you think that exceeding the posted speed limit is inherently dangerous? If so, why?

Do you disinguish between speeding in residential areas and speeding on highways? If not, why not?

Also, do you agree or disagree that some people, via experience and ability of vehicle, can drive faster more safely than other people?

Jeyen

[Crusoe]

Do you think that exceeding the posted speed limit is inherently dangerous? If so, why?

Do you disinguish between speeding in residential areas and speeding on highways? If not, why not?

Also, do you agree or disagree that some people, via experience and ability of vehicle, can drive faster more safely than other people?

1. Not in itself, subject to the caveats you've already outlined.

2. Yes, I distinguish between them in the amount and type of distractions requiring either faster reflexes or a slower speed.

3. Agreed.

But -- I don't believe it is practical to have variable speed limits. I don't believe that people who are generally better drivers will always be better drivers (anyone can be tired, or ill, or distracted). I don't believe that you can apply laws inconsistently, however rational the basis, without risking a host of costly and time-wasting court challenges to every speeding fine issued ("Hey, I think I'm a better driver...") and I'm not sure how you could effectively assess a driver's ability at speed. What if they change vehicles? Would a retest be required?

[drachillix]

Well I agree that speed is not inherently a problem, I spent 2 years driving ambulance and I believe that via my training and experience I can safely drive faster than other people. However I do not because the same people who cannot handle the decision making at high speeds cannot properly react to MY higher speeds.

BUT assuming that the defensive issues were irrelevant, how would these things be regulated? Would you apply and test for an "advanced license", DOT exams required? driving tests at every licence renewal? Vehicle inspections for "proper maintenance", would we really want that much additional attention from big brother to get them off our case about getting to work 2-3 minutes faster?

[PlanMan]

Given the conditions in which a fast driver must operate, yes, speeding is dangerous. Among those conditions are:
1. Many US highways, even parts of the Interstate, are not designed for high speeds - among the shortcomings: sight distances, vertical curves (hills, overpasses) and horizontal curves, obstructions close to the road.
2. There are many drivers out there who don't drive fast, thus "getting in the way" of faster drivers. A traffic engineer once told me that it isn't speed that is the problem, but the difference in speed between the fast driver and slower drivers (or trees).

Perhaps a solution would be highways, or physically separate lanes on highways, that the fast crowd could pay a toll to use, then they could go as fast as they want. The fast-road would have signs, before the toll plaza, announcing it is for high speed drivers, so any slow-pokes who got on would be warned (course, they'd still be a hazard).

Speeding in residential areas is very bad. Many pedestrians, especially children.

[wring]

Do you know anyone who doesn't consider themselves a good driver??

The problem that you don't seem to see is that there's often a number of factors that go into 'causing' accidents. Some we have control over (how fast we drive, how much alcohol we consume, how much rest we've had), others we have little to no control over (distractions, the weather, current emotional issues etc). Some times, you know, the posted speed is way to fast (I had my car totalled by a guy going the posted speed limit - course, the road was covered in ice - he was cited as being the cause of the accident). THe idea is that we should minimize those factors we do have control over, to minimize the number of potential accidents.

So, you would have us 'allow' good drivers the right to go faster than posted limits. Apparently, there'd be some system by which the police could ascertain who was driving and their own individual acceptable posted speed? Would we have little charts personally made out for us? ("well, ms. wring, with your driving history, you can exceed the speed limit by 10% as long as you've not had more than 2 beers in the prior 3 hours, had adequate rest and are not driving on ice or in the mountains, since you have little experience in mountainous driving")

The roads are for all of our benefit. Some of us have earned the privelege to drive. some have had it taken away-generally for things that they had control over.

We have laws regarding the road's proper use to benefit all. I have no problem with that.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by drachillix
the same people who cannot handle the decision making at high speeds cannot properly react to MY higher speeds.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!

The driving laws exist as they do because we all are out there together, and we need rules that help everybody drive together. If you are alone, that's one thing. But you aren't. You are out there with stupid kids, blind grandmas, drunks and plain fools.

I have a theory about how to drive the safest way possible: imagine that you are completely invisible to almost everyone around you, and act accordingly. There are a few other people who CAN see you, but they are all cops.

stoid

[David B]

Jeyen said:
Do you think that exceeding the posted speed limit is inherently dangerous? If so, why? No. At least not on the highways.
Do you disinguish between speeding in residential areas and speeding on highways? If not, why not? Yes. Residential areas have a lot more possibilities that things could go wrong: the kid who runs in the street, the car pulling out of its driveway, the stoplight that turns red, etc. That said, there are still some ridiculously low speed limits in some "residential" areas.
Also, do you agree or disagree that some people, via experience and ability of vehicle, can drive faster more safely than other people? Yes, of course.

Stoid said:
You are out there with stupid kids, blind grandmas, drunks and plain fools. Um, okay. Then get the stupid kids, blind grandmas, drunks, and other plain fools off the roads and let those of us who know how to drive, drive.

[Freyr]

jeyen wrote:

And it's an issue because I think that neither speeding (driving over the posted speed limit) nor speed (driving what some consider fast) in and of themselves cause accidents, fatal or otherwise.

I think that depends on the situation, where would you be driving over the speed limit? The freeway or on surface streets, especially in suburban neighborhoods?

Also there are road conditions to consider; will you be speeding in bad weather (heavy rain, snow, ice, fog, etc?)

Finally, why the need to speed? Are you speeding because you're late getting somewhere or do you simply like to go fast, enjoying the rush?

[Tsugumo]

Originally posted by jeyen
People who can drive well at faster speeds should be able to do so.

I haven't seen many people who can drive well at NORMAL speeds.

Most people speeding decide that signaling, slowing down at yellow lights, not riding everyone's ass, and so on are all things that slow them down so they skip on those, which is what screws everyone over. I have no problem if you're scooting along twice as fast as me (hey, if you lose control and hit a tree, I'll be nice and safe way behind you going the speed limit) if they'd have the courtesy and intelligence to at least signal when they're going to cut in front of me so they can shave off that all-important 12 seconds. If I know what you're going to do, I can get the hell out of the way, but if your speeding along randomly shifting through the crowd of cars playing a big game of Frogger, then you're going to irritate the hell out of me.

If you're in that big a hurry, leave your house sooner...If your wife is having her baby or a friend is threatening to commit suicide or something, I can understand it, but if you're just too dumb to set your alarm 10 minutes earlier, then don't expect a whole lot of sympathy. :)

- Tsugumo

[Adventurious82]

Are we doing your homework for you?

[jeyen]

Adventurious82, if your question is directed to me, I ask: What in the world are you talking about? If your question is directed to someone else, you may want to elaborate.

Freyr, you ask:

Also there are road conditions to consider; will you be speeding in bad weather (heavy rain, snow, ice, fog, etc?)

Good point. I meant to include that in the OP. My bad. Speed limits are set based on the assumption of good weather. Part of driving responsibly is adapting to road conditions. I think most people would agree that driving 80 on a dry, sunny day is different from driving (or trying to drive) 80 on a snowy night.

You also ask:

Why the need to speed? Are you speeding because you're late getting somewhere or do you simply like to go fast, enjoying the rush?

Sigh. It's not an answer, but my immediate response to this question is: Why the need to drive slowly? Driving has a purpose: to get from one place to another. Get on with it already. If you want to drive slower, fine, but get out of the way of those who don't.

Also, this question assumes a lot about speeding and who's doing it. If the speed limit is 60, but most people are driving 70, they're all "speeding". Are they all running late? Do they all simply like to go fast? Or are they more comfortable going 70 than going 60? It's a matter of what you're comfortable with.

Jeyen

[Stoid]

Originally posted by David B
Um, okay. Then get the stupid kids, blind grandmas, drunks, and other plain fools off the roads and let those of us who know how to drive, drive.



And how do you suggest that be achieved?

You know, most of the time when I've heard people say "I know how to drive! (fast)" I'm talking to someone who has had a few accidents, or probably caused a few.

Driving fast IS inherently dangerous. Shit happens, and the faster you are going, the less reaction time you have and the more likely it is that any accident that happens will be fatal. Speed kills. It especially kills when there are only one or two people speeding while everyone else is following the limits.

I get so damned irritated at this kind of whining... "Why should I have to follow the law? I wanna go 100 MPH! WAH! I can handle the car after I've had a couple of beers! WAH! I know how to move in and out of traffic, WAH! I'm special " Bullshit. You wanna go drive fast? Go to a racetrack. The rest of us are simply trying to get from point A to point B in one piece, we shouldn't have to worry about speeders and drunks and people who think they are so slick that it's not a problem to shoot beack and forth between cars when they feel like it. Your need to speed is meaningless next to everyone else's need to be safe.

stoid

[bobo]

I personally think the US needs roads like the autoban... where entering those roads means you know that other drivers are going to moving fast... but that 'unlimited' speed limit is still patrolled and the speed is limited by what is 'reasonable'

again, I have a an admitted lack of knowledge... I know you can get a speeding ticket on the autoban, but you have to demonstrate that you were driving in an unreasonable way...

ofcourse do we really trust our pigs (err, umm, cops, I mean officers) to judge what is reasonable?

ugh such questions

[Amazing Tiki God]

If you think speeding isn't inherently dangerous tell that to the family of deceased State Trooper Winzenread. There was a state trooper that regularly patrolled an area of interstate where I live that was killed by a speeder in broad daylight. The officer was helping a stranded motorist with their car and someone came flying down the interstate too fast to stop or swerve and hit the officer and killed him immeadetly(sp). I'm sure the driver of that car thought before that that nothing bad was going to happen. Some poor lady was widowed and a child was left fatherless because of this incident. So yes speeding IS inherently dangerous in my book and nothing will change that.

[kabbes]

I think that the inherent danger of speed can be well summed up by the current anti-speeding adverts in the UK:

In an accident involving pedestrian childred...

...at 40mph nineteen out of twenty children will DIE
...at 30mph ten (I think) out of twenty children will DIE
...at 20mph nineteen out of twenty children will LIVE

You can have an accident at any of those speeds alright. But the consequences won't be the same.

And yes there is a difference between speeding on the autobahn/mortorway/freeway and in a residential area. The difference is that you don't get many children wondering out from between two parked cars on the a/m/f. You don't get much traffic attempting to turn right or left on the a/m/f. You don't get much traffic driving in the opposite direction to you attempting to manoever between parked cars on the a/m/f. Accidents are rare on the a/m/f (although spectacular when they happen). Accidents are all too common in residential areas, even ALLOWING for the lower speed limits.

m'kay?

pan

[David B]

Freyr said:
why the need to speed? Are you speeding because you're late getting somewhere or do you simply like to go fast, enjoying the rush? Personally, it's because I don't really like driving. As jeyen indicated, driving is to get you from Point A to Point B. So when I'm heading up on the interstate to visit family, and I can cut off a half hour or more from my time, I'm going to do it.

I had said to Stoid: "Um, okay. Then get the stupid kids, blind grandmas, drunks, and other plain fools off the roads and let those of us who know how to drive, drive." She replied:
And how do you suggest that be achieved? Gosh, I dunno. Maybe through enforcing traffic laws that actually endanger people rather than worrying about speed violations.

The blind grandma one is the most obvious, since they shouldn't even have a driver's license. As far as the other, let me give you an example. I was driving to the Homecoming football game for the university I went to. Set up midway between where I (and many other fans) live was a speed trap that nailed a bunch of us. This was on the way TO the game. They got a lot of people and raked in some dough. But did it really improve the safety of the road? Or would a trap on way HOME from the game, after a lot of people had quaffed a few beers, have been the more sensible way to protect public safety?

You know, most of the time when I've heard people say "I know how to drive! (fast)" I'm talking to someone who has had a few accidents, or probably caused a few. Great generalization. It really helps the discussion.
Driving fast IS inherently dangerous.Oh, well, since you say so, then it's obviously true.
Shit happens, and the faster you are going, the less reaction time you have and the more likely it is that any accident that happens will be fatal. Speed kills.Speed doesn't kill -- an inability to drive well kills. On the highway, in the open road during normal weather, there is not nearly as much chance that shit will happen such that you can't avoid it.
It especially kills when there are only one or two people speeding while everyone else is following the limits. I have to ask: Have you ever actually driven on a highway? If so, I can't imagine where you got the idea that "only one or two people" speed "while everyone else is following the limits."
I get so damned irritated at this kind of whining... "Why should I have to follow the law? I wanna go 100 MPH! WAH! I can handle the car after I've had a couple of beers! WAH! I know how to move in and out of traffic, WAH! I'm special " Bullshit.I'm thrilled to hear it. But since it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I have to wonder why you are bringing up such a straw man.
You wanna go drive fast? Go to a racetrack. The rest of us are simply trying to get from point A to point B in one piece, we shouldn't have to worry about speeders and drunks and people who think they are so slick that it's not a problem to shoot beack and forth between cars when they feel like it.Earth to Stoid: We are talking about speeding. Not drunk driving. Not weaving. Speeding. Please try to keep that in mind and not argue against something that nobody here is arguing for.

[David B]

Tiki God said:
If you think speeding isn't inherently dangerous tell that to the family of deceased State Trooper Winzenread. There was a state trooper that regularly patrolled an area of interstate where I live that was killed by a speeder in broad daylight. The officer was helping a stranded motorist with their car and someone came flying down the interstate too fast to stop or swerve and hit the officer and killed him immeadetly(sp).Can you provide a bit more detail? Where was the officer? Where was his car (with the flashing lights)? Was it flat or hilly? Straight or curvy? Was the driver drunk or sober? Did he stick around or flee the scene? Better yet, do you have a link to a news story about this?

[kabbes]

In response to "speed kills", David saidSpeed doesn't kill -- an inability to drive well kills. On the highway, in the open road during normal weather, there is not nearly as much chance that shit will happen such that you can't avoid itI'd claim that this is disingenuous. The speed a car is traveling is very closely correlated with the probability of death in the case of an accident. How do you answer my statistic above concerning children's deaths at various speeds David?

pan

[kabbes]

Various British government websites have more statistics on this than you can shake a rather large stick at, but for example this one (http://www.hants.gov.uk/roadsafety/campaigns/killspeed.html) says that Even in good conditions, the difference between 30mph and 35mph is an extra stopping distance of around six and a half metres, about the length of three hospital beds.

Should a pedestrian or cyclist be hit at that extra speed, the force of the impact increases by over a third, making injuries far more serious and death more likely.

At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph.whilst this one ("") gives results in a little more detail, for instance that Some key findings were that speed reductions on links would reduce pedestrian accidents: the speed distribution is an important determinant of accident risk with the highest speeders having the greatest effect; casualty reduction was consistent with changes in the 85th percentile speed, and with the previously established relationship of 1mph average speed reduction equalling 5% casualty reduction. This is why I suggest that saying "speed doesn't kill, drivers kill" is more than a little disingenuous.

pan

[Nurlman]

Nice try, DavidB, but Stoid is more right than you are on the "speed kills" one. Not only is it pithy, but it's more or less accurate.

You accuse her of putting up strawmen, but how about your own scarecrow here:
Speed doesn't kill -- an inability to drive well kills. On the highway, in the open road during normal weather, there is not nearly as much chance that shit will happen such that you can't avoid it.

Put in other words, your statement is "It's ok to drive fast because it's unlikely something unusual will happen." That's a nice way to duck Stoid's premise that if something unusual happens on the roadway, the driver going faster has less reaction time to cope with it. Interestingly, the faster driver also has more inertial forces to deal with in stopping or swerving her vehicle, which means she needs more distance than a slower driver to do so. So you need more distance to take evasive action, and you have less time to appraise and avoid the risk the faster you're going.

This "inability to drive well" canard is just bullshit. Your argument that it is the "inability to drive well," not speed, that increases risk suggests to me that you are a candidate for that category. A good driver would readily acknowledge that increased speed equals increased risk. The ability to "drive well" implies that you are able to ascertain numerous variables about the road, traffic, your vehicle, the weather, yourself, and so on, and to maintain a speed and distance from other vehicles that minimizes the risks to others and maximizes your ability to respond to unexpected situations. It is not some sort of magic skill that allows you to dilate time and swerve like Mario Andretti when a deer runs onto the roadway.

[Helen's Eidolon]

A person is smart. People are stupid.

Raising the speed limit would be great for all of those rational, responsible people. Unfortunately, not everyone is like that.

A lot of things would be better if we were allowed to take things in our own hands and make rational decisions for ourselves, except I don't think we can trust everyone.

To paraphrase: Works in theory.

[Edward The Head]

Yes and No. Speeding has it's places, only on the highway where there maybe other drivers around, but not pedestrians etc.

I do travel above the speed limit while I'm on the highway, I normally travel 75-80. Why because going 65 is 10-15 mph slower and over the long haul I will get there much quicker. When I'm going though town or where there maybe other hazards I DO NOT go above the speed limit by much, maybe 5mph.

I feel that the reason the police give more tickets for speeding is because it's easier to get convictions, hence more money. Ohio and Virginia are really bad for this. I took a trip last July though Ohio and for the 400 or so miles I saw a good 20 cops on the road.

Last month, I think, Motorcycle Consumer News did a piece on speeding and accidents and showed a DOT study that showed that keeping up with traffice regardless of speed reduces the amount of accidents on the highway. Going 10 mph above or below everyone else greatly increases your chances of an accident.

I think that there should be limits in towns, near schools etc, but on the highway we should let the majority of traffic dictate how fast we should go.

[xenophon41]

Hey, you'll get no argument from me about speed traps; in my town (Gainesville, GA; just north of Atlanta), there is a beautiful stretch of divided four lane with no pedestrian traffic on either side and big, wide breakdown lanes. It's marked 35 mph, and is a top revenue generator for the city.

However, I strongly disagree with the OP. Driving a car is, in and of itself, an activity which carries a degree of risk. Driving a car really fast carries a larger degree of risk. Any experienced driver should readily understand that speed is a very important factor in the time required to swerve or stop, and is the single most important factor in the severity of any accident.

Certainly the maximum safe speed anyone can drive will differ depending on the ability of the driver (vision, reflexes, experience, judgement), the characteristics of the vehicle (suspension, steering, tires), the weather conditions, the construction and state of repair of the road, etc. Does it surprise anyone that in general the posted speed limit is somewhat below the maximum safe speed for the average driver / vehicle? To put it succinctly, DUH! I would certainly hope that this is the case; to post limits which are at or above the average maximum safe speeds would be incredibly irresponsible, don't you think?

Now, a good case could be made for raising or even eliminating the speed limits on Interstates in rural areas (they've already been raised to 70 mph in many places). But let's admit the pragmatic necessity of having limits in the first place. As LaurAnge said, a person is smart; people are stupid. In most high traffic areas, a speed limit is essential, and reduced speed limits can be shown to correlate directly with reduced fatalities.

[Jackmannii]

Less speeding also = less fuel wastage (more available for us slowpokes to get from point A to point B) and less pollution. I also like the thought of fewer accidents involving speed demons, so that there are fewer monster tieups keeping me stuck in traffic.

[Amazing Tiki God]

Originally posted by David B
Tiki God said:
If you think speeding isn't inherently dangerous tell that to the family of deceased State Trooper Winzenread. There was a state trooper that regularly patrolled an area of interstate where I live that was killed by a speeder in broad daylight. The officer was helping a stranded motorist with their car and someone came flying down the interstate too fast to stop or swerve and hit the officer and killed him immeadetly(sp).
Can you provide a bit more detail? Where was the officer? Where was his car (with the flashing lights)? Was it flat or hilly? Straight or curvy? Was the driver drunk or sober? Did he stick around or flee the scene? Better yet, do you have a link to a news story about this?

I have no problem with providing more detail and yes I'll look for a link for everyone. This happened 3 years ago so I'm not exactly sure but I think a local site where I live still has it somewhere. It was on a straight piece of highway, driver wasn't drunk, and yes he did stick around after the scene of the accident. I'm not sure but I think his car wasn't drivable after it happened. Well I am off to look for that link.

[msmith537]

It really shouldn't even be a debate that speeding is inherently MORE dangerous than just putting along with traffic. Im sure most of us can handle a reasonably roadworthy car at 70-80 even over 100mph. Thats not the point. Its simple physics. The faster you're car is going, the less time you have to react to things. Your car also takes longer to safely stop because of both your shorter reaction time and the whole Isaac Newton inertia thing.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone already knew that.

One concept I heard somewhere was actually pretty interesting. It went a little something like this:

We want to reduce speeding yet we keep developing cars that reduce the perception of speed. Cars are bigger (well SUVs are), they handle much better at high speeds, and they ride much smoother. Combined with highways with design speeds of over 80 mph, the average car today handles better at 80mph than a car 30 years ago handled at 40mph (or something like that). Problem is that if something gets in your way at that speed (ice, deer, grandma) most people don't realize how long the car takes to stop. Especially if it skids or goes out of control.

Anyway, I think the recomendation was to build cars that were safe at 80mph but gave a greater perception of speed so you don't feel like your standing still at 50mph.

[rjung]

Y'know, I like to drive fast too (largely because I'd rather be at my destination instead of wasting time getting there), but even I think that raising or eliminating speed limits is a bad idea.

Like most people, I consider myself a better-than-average driver, and feel confident that I can maintain control of my vehicle at higher speeds. However, also like most people, I consider the other drivers on the rod to be frickin' idiots. Giving those guys a higher speed limit is just begging for trouble.

So, to summarize: unlimited speeds for me, strict speed limits for everyone else. Sounds great! :)

[salreus]

Tiki God said:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
If you think speeding isn't inherently dangerous tell that to the family of deceased State Trooper Winzenread. There was a state trooper that regularly patrolled an area of interstate where I live that was killed by a speeder in broad daylight. The officer was helping a stranded motorist with their car and someone came flying down the interstate too fast to stop or swerve and hit the officer and killed him immeadetly(sp).
------------------------------------------------------------

umm, I do not think speeding had anything to do with the result. Some states have speed limits at 75 mph. I am pretty sure if someone is hit by someone going the speed limit or ever 10 less then the speed limit. The same result would result. You do not need to go above the posted speed limit to kill someone.

A lot of these posts are dealing with different speeds not speeding, which is the question. Yes there is greater stoping distance between 35 and 30 mph. But, what if the speed limit is 35, then you are not speeding.

Planman said "that it isn't speed that is the problem, but the difference in speed between the fast driver and slower drivers"

This is true and can be proven without speeding. If the legal speed limit is 75 and somone driving 55 on the highway changes lanes into someone dringing 75 (not speeding), the ending result would not be plesent. And this is without speeding.

Do you disinguish between speeding in residential areas and speeding on highways? If not, why not?

Yes, I think there is a difference. In theory, nobody should be stopping on the freeway. Everyone is going a relatively constant speed and going the same direction. Sure, there is people that go overboard. But, in general, everyone is the same. The difference between someone going 55 and someone going 60 is still only 5 mph. If you drive 60 and tap into someone going 55, the damage is not very hight, unless the other person loses control.

Residential is a whole different issue. First, not everyone is going in the same direction. Second, as stated before, pedestrians. Being a child does not matter. A death is a death. Third, everyone could be going vastly different speeds. Example, someone traveling at 50 mph and hits a guy stoped at a stop sign or light.

[wring]

salreus you got the one point, that damage to humans from cars increases with speeds (by the way, most of that discussion was relative to damage to humans in cars, not necessarily out of them)

But, the other point, which explained why the Troopers' death was brought up, is that highways/streets are designed with a certain speed limit in mind - the curves of the road, the hills/valleys etc all come into play. that's why on some exit ramps from the highway, the speed limit is about 45, others it's 35 or even slower - the bank of the curve may make it more dangerous to go faster.

The Trooper was killed while standing on the side of the road, assisting a motorist. (I did find some links, but they weren't very descriptive of the accident). The point that was being made was that, even on the highway, where you don't really worry so much about a stray child chasing a ball, stuff does happen that you need to react to quickly. And if you're going faster than the posted speed limit, you may not have sufficient time to both see and react to the obstruction.

[Kimstu]

David B: I had said to Stoid: "Um, okay. Then get the stupid kids, blind grandmas, drunks, and other plain fools off the roads and let those of us who know how to drive, drive." She replied: "And how do you suggest that be achieved?" Gosh, I dunno. Maybe through enforcing traffic laws that actually endanger people rather than worrying about speed violations.

I'm gonna read that last sentence as "...enforcing traffic laws against motorist behaviors that actually endanger people...", 'mkay?*

The blind grandma one is the most obvious, since they shouldn't even have a driver's license.

No argument on that one, but Kimstu the Broken Record still has to chime in with her perennial observation on the inevitable problem of road safety in a heavily automobile-dependent society: to wit, you're always going to get a lot of people driving cars who really shouldn't be doing so because the way our lives and communities are set up makes most people perceive driving as an absolute necessity. If we want to get the bad drivers off the road, we have to do more than just enforce the laws that forbid them to be there: we have to provide them with enough alternatives to driving so that their tremendous resistance to relinquishing their driving privileges will be lessened.

Otherwise, there will always be more grandmas (and grandpas) refusing to consider the possibility that they don't see well enough to drive anymore, and teenagers who are sure that they can still handle the car, and partygoers who dismiss the notion that they might have had a few too many to be safe. Giving people basically only one transportation option is simply begging them to go into denial when they have to evaluate whether they're currently competent to use that option. In other words,

- Stoid is right: shit happens on the highways;

- I'm right: the drivers who cause the worst of the shit are not going to be eradicated as things are now set up;

- and msmith and Nurlman and xenophon and kabbes etc. are right: when shit does happen on the highways, it's a lot more dangerous if you're going very fast.


*Is anybody else wondering a little bit whether the "David B" posts in this thread were actually even written by David B? He is usually both entirely coherent and extremely cogent about the facts, IMHO.

[David B]

kabbes said:
I'd claim that this is disingenuous. The speed a car is traveling is very closely correlated with the probability of death in the case of an accident. How do you answer my statistic above concerning children's deaths at various speeds David? Actually, I'd say that you're the one being a bit disingenuous here. I don't answer your statistic about children because you're talking about pedestrians. As you, yourself, noted in an earlier message: "And yes there is a difference between speeding on the autobahn/mortorway/freeway and in a residential area. The difference is that you don't get many children wondering out from between two parked cars on the a/m/f." So, since I'm very clearly talking about speeding on the highway, I'm not sure why you're even bringing this up.

For some of the rest of you (since many of you said the same thing, there is little point in replying to each), yes, obviously increased speed carries an increased risk. However, this does not equate to "speed kills." The question is how much "risk" is involved. There is more risk when you go 35 than when you go 30. What about 25? Maybe we should all go 20 on the highway?

Why is it safe to go 65 in one state but only 55 in another?Most speed limits on highways have been arbitrarily assigned by the government and have little to do with what is actually safe there. That is why I clearly said that there is a difference between the highway and local roads, where the limits make more sense (this is also true for exit ramps, where you ignore the posted limit at your own peril of flying off the curve).

But using pithy little slogans like "speed kills" adds nothing to the discussion.

[Amazing Tiki God]

I infact agree with David B on this one. He's got a very good point. I never said speed kills I just mentioned that IMHO it carried a risk with it. I think the whole differentiating speed limit in states is an odd thing. Should we have one set speed limit for all of the nations highways? That is a tricky question. It seems a bit odd to restrict people that can drive at that speed to say the speed of a complete moron behind the wheel of the car because we all know that intelligent drivers can drive safely at higher speeds than the posted limit. There is no way to restrict one persons speed while letting another drive 10mph faster. I just think there are too many variables that can be thrown into this equation to get a really good answer on it.

[jeyen]

I'm not seeing much indication in these discussions that posters have read the articles I linked to in the OP.

Would those of you who follow the "speed kills" school of thought please read the Car and Driver article I linked to in the OP?

That article discusses the statistics that are used to back up that claim. Those statistics are sloppily collected and ambiguously reported. If pharmaceutical manufacturers collected and reported test data that sloppily, drugs would never get approved by the FDA -- too many questions, too many blank spots.

After you read the article, you may be willing to reconsider, even briefly, whether that "speed kills" argument is as valid as you think.

Jeyen

[kabbes]

jeyen - my statistics are based on studies by the British government. Visit http://www.detr.gov.uk to read more. Personally as someone for whome statistics is a profession, I believe them.

David B - so just for the poor Englishman here, are "highways" not just the same thing as "roads"? In the UK at least the words are synonymous.

The fastest roads are known as "motorways" over here so I think I'll stick with that for this post at least to avoid further mistakes.

Just to throw something else into the mix - I've noticed that often on the motorways the most egregious speeders are the exact same people who will drive about 2 yards from the driver in front. This because the driver in front is only going at 90mph rather than the 110mph that they want to drive. Need I point out that the faster you drive, the more space you need to leave? So in this case faster speeds are causing more danger - that 2 yard clearance would be a lot safer at 50mph than 90mph.

pan

[kabbes]

That said, there are still some ridiculously low speed limits in some "residential" areas.I'm interested as to what these "ridiculously low speed limits" are. I'm presuming that some research went into the decision to choose that limit, so claiming that it is ridiculously low is quite an interesting argument from your point of view.

Given that at 20mph the survival rate for children is 19 in 20, whereas at 30mph it is more like 10 in 20, do you think that 20mph just outside a school is "ridiculously low"? What about in a residential area where it is known that children play regularly?

In words I've so often seen you employ to others, I'd like a cite please.

pan

[David B]

kabbes said:
David B - so just for the poor Englishman here, are "highways" not just the same thing as "roads"? In the UK at least the words are synonymous.

The fastest roads are known as "motorways" over here so I think I'll stick with that for this post at least to avoid further mistakes. That is correct.
Just to throw something else into the mix - I've noticed that often on the motorways the most egregious speeders are the exact same people who will drive about 2 yards from the driver in front. This because the driver in front is only going at 90mph rather than the 110mph that they want to drive. Need I point out that the faster you drive, the more space you need to leave? So in this case faster speeds are causing more danger - that 2 yard clearance would be a lot safer at 50mph than 90mph. As with other examples given, this does not really pertain to a discussion about speeding, per se, but about bad driving habits in general. I have been tailgated when going 70; I have been tailgated when going 50; I have been tailgated when going 30. I generally use my left foot to push gently on the brake pedal (enough to make my brake lights go on, but not enough to make the brakes actually go into effect), and this usually causes the tailgater to back off.

In an earlier message, I had said: "That said, there are still some ridiculously low speed limits in some 'residential' areas."

Kabbes responded:
I'm interested as to what these "ridiculously low speed limits" are.I should clarify what I said. I was not so much complaining that the limits, themselves, were any lower than in other residential areas. My complaint was with the designation of "residential" when they obviously were not. For example, in the city where I live now, there are stretches of four-lane road that are designated as residential and marked with a speed limit of 30 even though there aren't any residences (or schools, or whatever) around. This is the part that I called ridiculous. Another example is a stretch of road (including a bridge over a motorway) in the city where my wife used to live, where the limit is 25 for, apparently, one reason: It's a speed trap, and the cops nail quite a few people there.

[kabbes]

So it turns out in the end that I don't have much argument with what David B said. For this I am grateful - I've always found his position enlightened and thoughtful before and reading what I perceived to be his speed-freak message shook my foundations.

Kimstu seemed to sum it up really - David B, were you feeling less than coherent that day? ;)

Just for my interest though, is there a difference between a freeway, a highway and an interstate?

Over here we have, in order, motorways, A-roads and B-roads which I'm guessing correspond. Can anyone enlighten me?

pan

[kabbes]

Re: the tailgating thing. I too have been tailgated at all manner of speeds. The point is that the tailgating is fundamentally more dangerous at higher speeds, since more thinking distance is required to stop. From this point of view, the speed itself is dangerous. Should a fatal accident result from tailgating in this manner, one could indeed say that "speed kills", whilst at the same time also noting that "tailgating kills".

Furthermore, encouraging speeders by tacitly accepting that 100mph+ is acceptable is to encourage tailgating. I say this since a driver will feel that it is their right to drive at the higher speed and feel frustrated to be stuck behind a "slow" 80mph driver. By their nature, 100mph+ drivers tend to be more aggresive drivers and hence more prone to tailgating. I don't see that you can isolate the speed alone and suggest that if it wasn't for everything else, the speed would be fine - psychology is a little trickier than that.

Nothing exists in isolation. Sure, dangerous driving is the true villain. But dangerous driving in the context of speed is even more dangerous. And speeding can itself be dangerous driving, if for no other reason that it makes consequences more severe.

[salreus]

Just for my interest though, is there a difference between a freeway, a highway and an interstate?

Well, I looked up, and found out a interstate is the same as a freeway but connects states together. This I do not agree with. In Ohio, our outer belt (I270) is a circle, and does not connect two or more states. So, here is my definition.

Freeway and interstate are the same type of road. You enter through intrance and exit ramps.

A highway is a streach of road that has no stops. But, it has intersecting roads for turn offs. I say "has no stops" I know of one road (35) that is a highway and has signs that say highway ends in 1 mile. The road continues for several miles then becomes a highway again. The only thing different in the stretch of roadway that it is not a highway is that it has stop lights.

[PlanMan]

From anecdotal observation, it seems that drivers who smoke are more likely to be speeders, and have other bad driving behaviors. I had been thinking about this for some time, noticing that when I'm tail-gated or cut-off, the driver usually has a ciggy in their hand or lips, and a really intense look on their face. This applies to both men and women. It was really brought home when I took my daughter to Driving School for an accident (non-smoker, don't know if the driver who ran into her was, or not - she was a brand new driver at the time) - most of the class was clustered outside puffing away, right up to class time.

Don't know if it is the distraction of smoking, or the personality type that chooses one risky behavior - smoking - despite overwhelming evidence, will also choose another risky behavior - bad/fast driving. My guess goes with the second choice.


I hope this is not straying too far from the thread, if so, ship it off, and accept my humble apologies.

[Feynn]

I live at the north end of Highway two in Alberta, Canada. It's a wonderful, nearly straight, 300km stretch of 6 lanes that runs south to Calgary. This is our autobahn.

The posted limit is 110kmh or 70mph for our metrically impaired members. Very few people follow the posted speed limit and even the police generally don't ticket people unless they are exceeding 120kmh (80mph). Things go pretty smoothly when everyone is moving in the same direction at relatively similar speeds. Problems arise when you have people driving well above or well below the limit because it changes the relative speeds between drivers. Another problem is people who drive faster than their cars design allows for. Porches are designed to go fast, minivans are not.

When many people check their rear view mirror before changing lanes they don't expect that speck in the distance to be coming up behind them at 200kmh. So they change lanes. Carnage can ensue if the approaching driver can't avoid the slower moving vehicle. I always take an extra long look at whoever is coming up behind me as I have experienced this exact scenario with me being the "slower" vehicle moving along at a leisurly 120kmh.

I used to ride my motorcycle at extremely high speed as long as I was the only one on the road. 220kmh wasn't an uncommon speed for me but I would never drive like this in any traffic. Slamming into the back of another car at this speed wouldn't have been pretty at all.

Speed can kill.

There are good reasons for speed limits.

[PlanMan]

salreus - (nearly) all Interstates are freeways (some segments have tolls), but not all freeways are Interstates. The Interstate system is designed to connect the states - and started out in the 1950's as the Interstate and Defense Highway System - the logic being the Pentagon needed unobstructed paths to move troops from place to place, I guess in case the Russkies invaded. Over time the "defense" has dropped out. Now, the big distinction is with funding, I-states are eligible for 90% Federal funds, other highways and roads, lower percents. Also, there are minimum design standards.

Regarding numbering - Most have 2 digits, even #s going E-W, odd going N-S; those with three digits either go around a metro area (1st digit even), or provide a spur into the city (1st digit odd). As with anything, there are exceptions, Fla. has I-4 running from Tampa to Daytona Beach (one digit, one state), and the west coast has I-5, running thru Calif., Ore., and (?) Wash. Then there is the "Interstate" on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

[DeskMonkey]

Originally posted by jeyen
People who can drive well at faster speeds should be able to do so.


My problem with your logic in both this thread and the one about DUI laws is that you seem to think laws should be written for each individual citizen. Everyone has to play by the same rules, end of story. If there's a speed limit, driving skill has nothing to do with how fast you should be driving. Accidents happen to EVERYONE, and just because you think you can hold more liquor or drive better than other poeple doesn't make you above the law.

If you just gotta be you and break these laws, then you should be prepared to pay the consequences of being so superior.