Not is was in your response to faster is MORE dangerous mantra. So it is NOT an "always" thing. Again the NHSTA statistics show that per capital interstates at FASTER speeds have less fatalities than say rural roads with LOWER speeds.
It there more potential for catastrophic energy release? Absolutely! An almost virtual no brainer.
Again the NHSTA statistics show that per capital interstates at FASTER speeds have less fatalities than say rural roads with LOWER speeds.
This is apples and oranges. Can't compare interstate to rural. Rural roads have many, many obstacles and dangers that don't even exist on interstates. Interstates should probably have much lower fatality rates given their good design. That they don't is due in large part to excessive speed.
It is the drive-faster type drivers that are many times inconsiderate to those drivers that just want to obey the posted limits.
So yes, going faster, even under controlled circumstances, tends to produce crashes, even with the best trained drivers.
Agreed, and best illustration of this is pace laps of races or laps under caution when crashes are rare. However, there are rare instances of driver not warming up tires correctly on pace lap and then spinning out. But during race and at ten-tenths driving at max speed, sometimes they misjudge own capability/cars limits or other driver's intent and crash. Similarly, when drivers going well over limit on interstate (or rural), they are ratcheting up toward their own and car's capabilities and are increasing their risks and risks for those around them.
Again the NHSTA statistics show that per capital interstates at FASTER speeds have less fatalities than say rural roads with LOWER speeds.
A grave misuse of statistics. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Someone mentions that increasing speeds increases risk and we get stuff like this. You are dismissing that fact by stating a certain type of road is more dangerous than another, it has nothing to do with what is being said.
You are comparing apples to oranges and it is an unfair example. If we looked at different speeds on THE SAME ROAD you will see that the lower speeds will result in a lower death rate. Granted doing 80 on a flat interstate is safer than doing 70 on a winding country road, but it is NOT safer than doing 70 on that same flat interstate. Why some people have a hard time with that simple concept is beyond me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
..."A grave misuse of statistics. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Someone mentions that increasing speeds increases risk and we get stuff like this. You are dismissing that fact by stating a certain type of road is more dangerous than another, it has nothing to do with what is being said."...
No missuse at all. If anything the statistics do not bear out your theories. What you are missing is the reality component. Does this keep you from going over 55 mpg on an interstate? I doubt it. So no, I am dismissing nothing. The concept of which you speak is simple and all, if not most folks do not have a hard time with it. You just need to stop playing it like a broken record, or more up to day get it off the continous replay mode. It really conveys no information. Yes, speed has risks! So what?
Apples and oranges...But yet we compare race car driving to driving on the interstate. I don't get it.
But if you do want to compare driving at the very fringe of the performance envelope, I drive a car that can do over 140 mph. And I have personally taken it over 120 mph. So I am well below my maximum capabilities at a leisurely 85-90 mph on the interstate. I should be a very safe driver at those speeds since I'm nowhere near my maximum capability with my car. The "oh my god, race cars still crash" analogy is silly.
We all know that hitting stuff at higher speeds has greater kinetic energy. That's obvious. But where does the risk start to become excessive? I don't think it's at 65 or even 70.
As far as the speed limit being about "safety". I think that's hogwash. If that were the case, there would be more uniformity in limits nationwide. Rather than the hodgepodge of limits we currenty have. Personally I feel the "safety" mantra is nearly as worthless as the efficiency wave that brought us the double nickel.
It sure is simply because you are comparing two unlike items and making a determination on one based on the caparison. Others have pointed that one out.
What you are missing is the reality component.
No I am not I including the reality of the situation.
Does this keep you from going over 55 mpg on an interstate?
Really misses the point. Just because one recognizes the risks involved in an activity does not mean one automatically avoids that activity. Sky divers, mountain climbers, spelunkers and hollywood stunt men all recognize the risk involved in their activities, that doesn't stop them from doing it. What they do is work to minimize that risk, they practice drill and work in the safest manner possible. Its the ones that don't recognize the risk or dismiss it that get hurt the most.
Yes, speed has risks! So what?
Then don't try to minimize such risk by saying that going faster on a wide open interstate is safer than on a more closed rural road.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But where does the risk start to become excessive? I don't think it's at 65 or even 70.
That totally depends on the road, the car the driver the weather and a few other things. 85 with your high performance car might not be excessive but in a yugo it would be. Then again I have been on empty interstates in flat wide open countrysides where 35 was excessive.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Then don't try to minimize such risk by saying that going faster on a wide open interstate is safer than on a more closed rural road. "
Don't mind you misreading what I wrote/said, but I take umbrage when you say I am saying something that I didn't but in fact, YOU said.
Again, I did not say your above quote, I said the statistics (NHSTA) say it is safer on interestates (higher speeds) than it is on rural roads (lower speeds). THAT clearly is not minimizing risks. That is telling it like it is!!!
So as a practical decision making tie breaker, if you want to take a back road aka rural road when you can take a much safer and usually more direct interstate, nothing keeps you from doing that. YOU might be convinced that it is FAR SAFER on the rural road because your speed is far less.
However given that choice, I will select the interstate over the rural road. But I got to tell you I mentally drive rural roads FAR differently than an interstate.
I said the statistics (NHSTA) say it is safer on interestates (higher speeds) than it is on rural roads (lower speeds). THAT clearly is not minimizing risks. That is telling it like it is!!!
If interstates are safer than rural roads, it is because the interstates have much better design. It is not due to higher speed limits. Safety decreases as speed rises. That is a fact.
Let me ask a reality based question. Are you arquing for say a speed limit of 35 mph on an 80 mph interstate because as you put it ..."Safety decreases as speed rises". "That is a fact"?
But if you do want to compare driving at the very fringe of the performance envelope, I drive a car that can do over 140 mph. And I have personally taken it over 120 mph. So I am well below my maximum capabilities at a leisurely 85-90 mph on the interstate.
Driving 120 on a public road is inconsiderate, dangerous and highly unlawful. It deserves a high fine and jail time.
Let me ask a reality based question. Are you arquing for say a speed limit of 35 mph on an 80 mph interstate because as you put it ..."Safety decreases as speed rises". "That is a fact"?
Duh.... That's why you are very careful when you do it. I don't want to go to jail. But I choose to take that risk. Just as I choose to take the risk of getting a smaller ticket when I set my cruise to 85 mph. In fact I just got one last month. First one in years when I had slowed to 84 in a 70 after doing 90+. Most traffic was going about 80 or so and I got singled out. $160 richer for that county. Oh well. If I actually had to go to work to earn my money I'd be miffed. Ga doesn't start assessing points or recording til 15 over. So the ticket doesn't even matter in the larger scheme of things.
Considering the variables of capability, attentiveness, and maintenance history, just saying "going faster is more dangerous" simplifies a very complex situation.
Even if you look at the "statistics" you have to look at the level of experience of the driver, whether they had other distractions, and even the driver's health at the time of the accident. "Speed was A factor" doesn't mean it was THE factor.
..."No he is trying to deflect the conversation. For someone who sits there complaining about people misreading his posts he sure does a lot on his own. "...
May I call your attention to a prior post. #8360
If that is not clear to either snakeweasel or youself please let me know.
snakeweasel: Your missing my point. As you increase your speed you increase your risk of an accident and a serious one at that.
The problem with this statement is that increased speeds on limited access highways have not brought about increased accidents or fatalities.
Here in Pennsylvania the fatality rate on limited access highways has dropped again this year...despite average speeds of about 75-80 mph on the roads I use.
Interestingly, I've been tracking local fatalities on the interstates when they do occur (which isn't often). Speed is rarely mentioned as a cause, but failure to use safety belts regularly is.
And when speed is mentioned, it is conjunction with drunk driving.
So, the "increased speed=increased fatalities" equation does not play out in the real world on limited access highways. Now on two-lane country roads, yes.
The problem with this statement is that increased speeds on limited access highways have not brought about increased accidents or fatalities.
The problem with that statement is that other factors are contributing to that decline in fatalities, You cannot use that statistic since it doesn't involve speed in a vacuum. In other words part of the reduced fatalities results from more seat belt use, part is a result of cars that are designed safer, part is better medical car, all which are improving constantly. This is why traffic fatalities have been dropping almost every year since 1925.
Back in the 70's when the the introduced the 55 MPH speed limit there was a large drop in traffic fatalities. Those opposed the 55 MPH speed limit said you cannot use that statistic simply because traffic deaths have been dropping before because of the things I have stated before. Now that the tables are turned those who said you can't go by that statistic now swear by it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
snakeweasel: The problem with that statement is that other factors are contributing to that decline in fatalities, You cannot use that statistic since it doesn't involve speed in a vacuum. In other words part of the reduced fatalities results from more seat belt use, part is a result of cars that are designed safer, part is better medical car, all which are improving constantly. This is why traffic fatalities have been dropping almost every year since 1925.
But, in the end, people are driving faster, and dying less frequently in accidents. Safer cars, better road design and safety belts allow us to drive 80 mph safely...so why not do it?
Your contention was that driving faster means more deaths on limited access interstate highways.
This has not happened in Pennsylvania...or the rest of the country, for that matter.
I still see no reason to drive slower on limited access highways, support increased patrols to nab people exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways, or change my view that police need to focus their (limited) resources on two-lane country roads.
I've had FAR too many close calls on those kinds of roads to think otherwise.
People driving 80 mph on limited access highways do not worry me.
People barreling down two-lane roads at 65 mph DO worry me.
snakeweasel: Back in the 70's when the the introduced the 55 MPH speed limit there was a large drop in traffic fatalities. Those opposed the 55 MPH speed limit said you cannot use that statistic simply because traffic deaths have been dropping before because of the things I have stated before. Now that the tables are turned those who said you can't go by that statistic now swear by it.
And, as I noted before, the big drop occurred BEFORE the 55 mph speed limit was enacted. Fatalities then ROSE after the limit was enacted.
And opposition to the 55 mph speed limit stemmed from the fact that it was at best unenforceable and a waste of law enforcement resources, and, at worst, the dumbest law since Prohibition.
The CB craze that it sparked, however, was fun for awhile.
Safer cars, better road design and safety belts allow us to drive 80 mph safely...so why not do it?
Thats not the point of the conversation. Fact is that it still remains that the risk increases as your speed increases.
This has not happened in Pennsylvania...or the rest of the country, for that matter.
That is due to things other than the raising of the speed limit. The question one should ask is what would the fatality rate had been if it wasn't raised? I wish I still had my spreadsheet (I may still have it somewhere) where I backed out the estimated lives saved by seat belts and safer cars from highway fatalities. Once I did that there was no reduction in traffic fatalities. In reality it seemed that lives saved by other factors were actually equal to or greater than the number that traffic fatalities went down during those periods.
Fatalities then ROSE after the limit was enacted.
the facts do not support that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
People barreling down two-lane roads at 65 mph DO worry me.
You should go to Romania!! :surprise:
There are no interstate highways in Romania. Only 2 lane country type roads that form a sort of web across the country.
These country roads are traversed by horse drawn wagons piled high with hay or watermelons with usually two to four people teetering on top of the pile "steering" the wagon. There is also a myriad of bizarre (to American eyes) trucks hauling goods across the country. They don't have semi-trucks as we know them here. Then you have the ancient Dacia cars that are held together by rubberbands and superglue puttering along with the occassional BMW or Audi, and lots of compact sedans of a more modern vintage. All these compete for space on these bumpy two lane roads; some going the 35 km/hr speed limit, some trotting along merrily as cows and horses graze in the ditches, and some (like my brother-in-law) speeding on by at about 120 km/hr weaving between everyone else going slower. I had my eyes closed almost the entire trip! :sick:
All these compete for space on these bumpy two lane roads; some going the 35 km/hr speed limit, some trotting along merrily as cows and horses graze in the ditches, and some (like my brother-in-law) speeding on by at about 120 km/hr
But, this Romanian exp might still be safer than a guy on an Edmunds board who said he goes 80-90 mph in his BMW on interstates to save time so that he can enjoy a Starbucks coffee break.
I drove up to and into San Francisco in my girlfriend's RSX.
There was one Mustang guy in San Jose that made a point to not let me get into the street lane I needed (the left, where the turn onto the freeway onramp was). Dude... the Mustang vs. Civic/Integra battles are over (in his favor, though the war's not going so great). Made me wonder if I should be more judicious about using my turn signals.
But the freeway driving was smooth and pretty well behaved.
Then I got to the city and a bunch of taxis tried to kill us. Did it just look that way? Maybe they knew exactly what they were doing? I don't know, but I engaged ABS two times as taxis entered my lane when they had plenty of space ahead or behind me. And it's not like they drive quickly once they're in front of you!
If interstates are safer than rural roads, it is because the interstates have much better design. It is not due to higher speed limits. Safety decreases as speed rises.
I think some distinctions are being severely blurred here. Safety is a perception: "Do you feel safe?" It is not measurable, except in terms of perception. "I do not feel very safe." "I feel extremely safe. Thank you." Risk is measurable. In general, risk increases as speed rises. In particular, how much the risk increases per given situation per unit of speed depends on all those other factors splashed throughout the conversation now and again. Does safety decrease? Ask the driver... or, better yet, ask the passengers! Now, if you want to respect the answer you receive, then ask whether risk increases with speed....
For a random example (my specialty!), my wife often asks me why I do not swerve for dogs when I am driving, and I tell her that I feel safe not swerving around the dogs and that swerving only serves to encourage the dogs' unacceptable behavior. If the dog does not want to get hit, it will move - it can see my path of movement. She says, "what if you hit one?" and I respond that I am confident we will not be injured. She comes back with asking whether or not I think I would hurt the dog. I say, "that is irrelevant - I feel safe and if the dog dies or not has nothing to do with my safety. My preference would be for the dog to not be hit because it might damage the car, but, if it is, for it either to not be hurt badly or do die outright. However, if it will make you feel better, I promise to kill the dog quickly if it is injured badly and I can do so safely." Our opinions on the subject differ... but for her, she feel less safe when I do not swerve even though the risk to us actually goes up if I do - and this is speed independent so let us just assume a constant speed here in the swerve-no swerve scenarios.
So please, do not use the words "risk" and "safety" interchangably as they have distinctly different applications.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Today I was driving on a 4 lane 40mph suburban road... verylight traffic, perfect visibility, etc. I'm watching everything around me, and I notice a late 90s Civic coupe is behind me, driving normal, keeping a safe distance etc. Then from out of nowhere from an obscured side street comes a first gen Chrysler Concorde driven by a teenaged girl, apparently without looking. It almost pulls right into the Civic, which had to veer into the oncoming lane (it was alreadsy in the left lane) to avoid it. The Honda must have been moving faster, as it zipped around the Chrysler and regained position. What is it with a certain demographic and blindly pulling into traffic?
I was cruising around the long curve onto I675 where it begins at 55 mph and an SUV runs up fast behind me as if it's a 65 zone. He tailgates, flashes his lights, etc., but there's only one lane until the lane from Northbound I75 merges with our lane to form the new interstate. Where was I supposed to go? The ditch?
On return a lady in a years old Honda (what else) tailgates me down the ramp onto the interstate and jumps the ramp into the lane trying to block me from my merge. I don't get it. I just keep on coming over. Mine's old enough I'd like to replace it at her expense.
Just about 20 mins ago, right outside my window a young blonde in a Jeep Liberty rear-ended a middle aged woman in a maybe early 90s Volvo 240 wagon. I couldn't see any damage on the Volvo, but the Liberty had a messed up bumper. Crunch!
Drivers who come flying down the center lane until 30 feet from my [non-permissible content removed] and then swerve (no time to signal) into the (been) completely open left lane. For all the 'pull to the righters**,' the right lane was where the semis were merging.
The general inability to see more than a few dozen feet ahead seems to be of epidemic proportions. The red light 200 feet ahead with the cars already stopped - not seen. The semi I'm 100 feet behind so I don't get the windshield rocked -again-, not seen. The pedestrian; the fact the cars in my lane on the other side of the intersection have not moved and so I can wait, or move forward and block cross traffic; any number of situations where force won't help - invisible.
And a form of color blindness, peculiar to drivers, is also widespread. Only green and red lights are visible. Yellow is completely invisible and when it is on, forces the entire light fixture to also disappear.
Won't photo-radar and red-light cams be nice? Maybe half the drivers will be forced into the remaining 10% of taxi cabs.
** AKA Yield to those behind and to the right, as often, when given the choice it is a coin flip as to whether they will pass on the left or the right.
Drivers who come flying down the center lane until 30 feet from my [non-permissible content removed] and then swerve (no time to signal) into the (been) completely open left lane. For all the 'pull to the righters**,' the right lane was where the semis were merging.
Driving the expressways around Chicago I usually stay in the middle lane. Especially when I get close to or into Chicago. Since there are entrance and exit ramps almost continually and there is one lane and many times two more to my left it seems like the best place to be if I am not passing or getting onto or off of the expressway.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yep, it always amazes me to see someone fly past me when there's a car directly ahead of them going slower.
I say to my wife, "watch the brake lights come on," and sure enough, that's what happens, even though if they had half a brain, they would have realized traffic ahead was moving more slowly.
I try to know some of the phone numbers for the police in certain areas. I actually call them; people think I'm faking with the cellphone out but I actually report their license. Who knows there might be a Statie or local police car ahead to notice some infraction to stop the fools.
I'd still like to have an oil mist system set up under my rear bumper to slow tailgaters down. A little oil spray on the windshield from following too close?
Long ago I came up behind a clump of cars on I75 and a Dodge or Plymouth Charger type car had turned on bright rear-facing lights. There were three or four across the back of the car. I suspect that was his method of harrassing tailgaters. They were bright as landing lights. It caused a rear problem for drivers behind.
If interstates are safer than rural roads, it is because the interstates have much better design. It is not due to higher speed limits. Safety decreases as speed rises.
xwesx said:
I think some distinctions are being severely blurred here. Safety is a perception: "Do you feel safe?" It is not measurable, except in terms of perception.
Safety can be quantified. It is more than a perception.
Might want to read this from IIHS:
"In a high-speed crash, a passenger vehicle is subjected to forces so severe that the vehicle structure cannot withstand the force of the crash and maintain survival space in the occupant compartment. Likewise, as crash speeds get very high, restraint systems such as airbags and safety belts cannot keep the forces on occupants below severe injury levels.
Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways:
It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.
It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is perceived.
It increases the crash energy by the square of the speeds. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.
For practical reasons, there are limits to the amount of crash energy that can be managed by vehicles, restraint systems, and roadway hardware such as barriers and impact attenuators. The higher the speed, the more likely that these limits will be exceeded in crashes, thus limiting the protection available for vehicle occupants. To put speed into perspective, remember that government crash tests for occupant protection are conducted at speeds of 30-35 mph, and these are severe impact speeds."
But I've often wondered if it's "safer" to drive on a much less crowded 2-lane rural road than a packed interstate like I-95 where you have racers like gee35 trying to go 120 mph and semis going uphill at maybe 60 mph.
We've lately taken to traveling on the back roads, because I can't stand the frustration of some interstates, whether they back up or when you think you're part of the Indy 500 (I-95 and the PA Turnpike spring to mind).
Our recent trip to Charleston, SC was a good example. We took a mix of freeways, 4-lane divided roads, 4-lane roads with a center left turn lane, and small segments of 2-lane roads. We avoided I-95 altogether. On the whole, traffic was very manageable and almost non-existent on 60 mph, 4-lane US Route 52 in SC.
But I've often wondered if it's "safer" to drive on a much less crowded 2-lane rural road than a packed interstate like I-95 where you have racers like gee35 trying to go 120 mph and semis going uphill at maybe 60 mph.
I often wonder the same thing too. I remember one time on I-80 when the interstate was a little more crowded than usual and you had the mix of people driving SL or slightly over to gee35 weaving in and out of everyone. We evdually decided to get off and drive the two lane blacktop with very little traffic.
IMO we were much safer off the interstate and of course much less stressful.
or when you think you're part of the Indy 500 (I-95 and the PA Turnpike spring to mind).
Last time I was on that turnpike we saw 4 or 5 cars pulled over by the state police within 60 miles of the Ohio state line.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You can't drive 120 on a "crowded" interstate, but you can on many empty stretches here in the SE. But insane statements like that show me why we really can't get anywhere with this discussion. Anyone who has been a member of this forum for long enough read how you can safely drive that fast without scaring the knickers off some old dodderer.
Again we all agree that hitting something at faster speeds wil cause more damage. Where we seem to differ is in assessing the risk of hitting something or having some type of mechanical failure. Everything has risk. I don't think the risk of travelling 100 MPH vs. 70 MPH is excessive under the right conditions. Just as 70 is insane under some conditions.
Here in GA the minimum speed is 45 even in the 70 MPH sections. So they figure a 35 MPH difference in speed is reasonable. A courteous driver can easily do 100MPH if they limit the passing speeds to a modest amount. When you come up on a car slow down to pass the continue your cruise. It's really simple.
Comments
It there more potential for catastrophic energy release? Absolutely! An almost virtual no brainer.
This is apples and oranges. Can't compare interstate to rural. Rural roads have many, many obstacles and dangers that don't even exist on interstates. Interstates should probably have much lower fatality rates given their good design. That they don't is due in large part to excessive speed.
It is the drive-faster type drivers that are many times inconsiderate to those drivers that just want to obey the posted limits.
Agreed, and best illustration of this is pace laps of races or laps under caution when crashes are rare. However, there are rare instances of driver not warming up tires correctly on pace lap and then spinning out. But during race and at ten-tenths driving at max speed, sometimes they misjudge own capability/cars limits or other driver's intent and crash. Similarly, when drivers going well over limit on interstate (or rural), they are ratcheting up toward their own and car's capabilities and are increasing their risks and risks for those around them.
A grave misuse of statistics. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Someone mentions that increasing speeds increases risk and we get stuff like this. You are dismissing that fact by stating a certain type of road is more dangerous than another, it has nothing to do with what is being said.
You are comparing apples to oranges and it is an unfair example. If we looked at different speeds on THE SAME ROAD you will see that the lower speeds will result in a lower death rate. Granted doing 80 on a flat interstate is safer than doing 70 on a winding country road, but it is NOT safer than doing 70 on that same flat interstate. Why some people have a hard time with that simple concept is beyond me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No missuse at all. If anything the statistics do not bear out your theories. What you are missing is the reality component. Does this keep you from going over 55 mpg on an interstate? I doubt it. So no, I am dismissing nothing. The concept of which you speak is simple and all, if not most folks do not have a hard time with it. You just need to stop playing it like a broken record, or more up to day get it off the continous replay mode. It really conveys no information. Yes, speed has risks! So what?
But if you do want to compare driving at the very fringe of the performance envelope, I drive a car that can do over 140 mph. And I have personally taken it over 120 mph. So I am well below my maximum capabilities at a leisurely 85-90 mph on the interstate. I should be a very safe driver at those speeds since I'm nowhere near my maximum capability with my car. The "oh my god, race cars still crash" analogy is silly.
We all know that hitting stuff at higher speeds has greater kinetic energy. That's obvious. But where does the risk start to become excessive? I don't think it's at 65 or even 70.
As far as the speed limit being about "safety". I think that's hogwash. If that were the case, there would be more uniformity in limits nationwide. Rather than the hodgepodge of limits we currenty have. Personally I feel the "safety" mantra is nearly as worthless as the efficiency wave that brought us the double nickel.
It sure is simply because you are comparing two unlike items and making a determination on one based on the caparison. Others have pointed that one out.
What you are missing is the reality component.
No I am not I including the reality of the situation.
Does this keep you from going over 55 mpg on an interstate?
Really misses the point. Just because one recognizes the risks involved in an activity does not mean one automatically avoids that activity. Sky divers, mountain climbers, spelunkers and hollywood stunt men all recognize the risk involved in their activities, that doesn't stop them from doing it. What they do is work to minimize that risk, they practice drill and work in the safest manner possible. Its the ones that don't recognize the risk or dismiss it that get hurt the most.
Yes, speed has risks! So what?
Then don't try to minimize such risk by saying that going faster on a wide open interstate is safer than on a more closed rural road.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That totally depends on the road, the car the driver the weather and a few other things. 85 with your high performance car might not be excessive but in a yugo it would be. Then again I have been on empty interstates in flat wide open countrysides where 35 was excessive.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Don't mind you misreading what I wrote/said, but I take umbrage when you say I am saying something that I didn't but in fact, YOU said.
Again, I did not say your above quote, I said the statistics (NHSTA) say it is safer on interestates (higher speeds) than it is on rural roads (lower speeds). THAT clearly is not minimizing risks. That is telling it like it is!!!
So as a practical decision making tie breaker, if you want to take a back road aka rural road when you can take a much safer and usually more direct interstate, nothing keeps you from doing that. YOU might be convinced that it is FAR SAFER on the rural road because your speed is far less.
However given that choice, I will select the interstate over the rural road. But I got to tell you I mentally drive rural roads FAR differently than an interstate.
I didn't say that, you were truely minimizing that fact, otherwise why respond with your mis use of statistics?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If interstates are safer than rural roads, it is because the interstates have much better design. It is not due to higher speed limits. Safety decreases as speed rises. That is a fact.
Driving 120 on a public road is inconsiderate, dangerous and highly unlawful. It deserves a high fine and jail time.
Are you saying the converse is true?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Considering the variables of capability, attentiveness, and maintenance history, just saying "going faster is more dangerous" simplifies a very complex situation.
Even if you look at the "statistics" you have to look at the level of experience of the driver, whether they had other distractions, and even the driver's health at the time of the accident. "Speed was A factor" doesn't mean it was THE factor.
May I call your attention to a prior post. #8360
If that is not clear to either snakeweasel or youself please let me know.
The problem with this statement is that increased speeds on limited access highways have not brought about increased accidents or fatalities.
Here in Pennsylvania the fatality rate on limited access highways has dropped again this year...despite average speeds of about 75-80 mph on the roads I use.
Interestingly, I've been tracking local fatalities on the interstates when they do occur (which isn't often). Speed is rarely mentioned as a cause, but failure to use safety belts regularly is.
And when speed is mentioned, it is conjunction with drunk driving.
So, the "increased speed=increased fatalities" equation does not play out in the real world on limited access highways. Now on two-lane country roads, yes.
The problem with that statement is that other factors are contributing to that decline in fatalities, You cannot use that statistic since it doesn't involve speed in a vacuum. In other words part of the reduced fatalities results from more seat belt use, part is a result of cars that are designed safer, part is better medical car, all which are improving constantly. This is why traffic fatalities have been dropping almost every year since 1925.
Back in the 70's when the the introduced the 55 MPH speed limit there was a large drop in traffic fatalities. Those opposed the 55 MPH speed limit said you cannot use that statistic simply because traffic deaths have been dropping before because of the things I have stated before. Now that the tables are turned those who said you can't go by that statistic now swear by it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But, in the end, people are driving faster, and dying less frequently in accidents. Safer cars, better road design and safety belts allow us to drive 80 mph safely...so why not do it?
Your contention was that driving faster means more deaths on limited access interstate highways.
This has not happened in Pennsylvania...or the rest of the country, for that matter.
I still see no reason to drive slower on limited access highways, support increased patrols to nab people exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways, or change my view that police need to focus their (limited) resources on two-lane country roads.
I've had FAR too many close calls on those kinds of roads to think otherwise.
People driving 80 mph on limited access highways do not worry me.
People barreling down two-lane roads at 65 mph DO worry me.
snakeweasel: Back in the 70's when the the introduced the 55 MPH speed limit there was a large drop in traffic fatalities. Those opposed the 55 MPH speed limit said you cannot use that statistic simply because traffic deaths have been dropping before because of the things I have stated before. Now that the tables are turned those who said you can't go by that statistic now swear by it.
And, as I noted before, the big drop occurred BEFORE the 55 mph speed limit was enacted. Fatalities then ROSE after the limit was enacted.
And opposition to the 55 mph speed limit stemmed from the fact that it was at best unenforceable and a waste of law enforcement resources, and, at worst, the dumbest law since Prohibition.
The CB craze that it sparked, however, was fun for awhile.
Thats not the point of the conversation. Fact is that it still remains that the risk increases as your speed increases.
This has not happened in Pennsylvania...or the rest of the country, for that matter.
That is due to things other than the raising of the speed limit. The question one should ask is what would the fatality rate had been if it wasn't raised? I wish I still had my spreadsheet (I may still have it somewhere) where I backed out the estimated lives saved by seat belts and safer cars from highway fatalities. Once I did that there was no reduction in traffic fatalities. In reality it seemed that lives saved by other factors were actually equal to or greater than the number that traffic fatalities went down during those periods.
Fatalities then ROSE after the limit was enacted.
the facts do not support that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You should go to Romania!! :surprise:
There are no interstate highways in Romania. Only 2 lane country type roads that form a sort of web across the country.
These country roads are traversed by horse drawn wagons piled high with hay or watermelons with usually two to four people teetering on top of the pile "steering" the wagon. There is also a myriad of bizarre (to American eyes) trucks hauling goods across the country. They don't have semi-trucks as we know them here. Then you have the ancient Dacia cars that are held together by rubberbands and superglue puttering along with the occassional BMW or Audi, and lots of compact sedans of a more modern vintage. All these compete for space on these bumpy two lane roads; some going the 35 km/hr speed limit, some trotting along merrily as cows and horses graze in the ditches, and some (like my brother-in-law) speeding on by at about 120 km/hr weaving between everyone else going slower. I had my eyes closed almost the entire trip! :sick:
But, this Romanian exp might still be safer than a guy on an Edmunds board who said he goes 80-90 mph in his BMW on interstates to save time so that he can enjoy a Starbucks coffee break.
There was one Mustang guy in San Jose that made a point to not let me get into the street lane I needed (the left, where the turn onto the freeway onramp was). Dude... the Mustang vs. Civic/Integra battles are over (in his favor, though the war's not going so great). Made me wonder if I should be more judicious about using my turn signals.
But the freeway driving was smooth and pretty well behaved.
Then I got to the city and a bunch of taxis tried to kill us. Did it just look that way? Maybe they knew exactly what they were doing? I don't know, but I engaged ABS two times as taxis entered my lane when they had plenty of space ahead or behind me. And it's not like they drive quickly once they're in front of you!
I think some distinctions are being severely blurred here. Safety is a perception: "Do you feel safe?" It is not measurable, except in terms of perception. "I do not feel very safe." "I feel extremely safe. Thank you." Risk is measurable. In general, risk increases as speed rises. In particular, how much the risk increases per given situation per unit of speed depends on all those other factors splashed throughout the conversation now and again. Does safety decrease? Ask the driver... or, better yet, ask the passengers! Now, if you want to respect the answer you receive, then ask whether risk increases with speed....
For a random example (my specialty!), my wife often asks me why I do not swerve for dogs when I am driving, and I tell her that I feel safe not swerving around the dogs and that swerving only serves to encourage the dogs' unacceptable behavior. If the dog does not want to get hit, it will move - it can see my path of movement. She says, "what if you hit one?" and I respond that I am confident we will not be injured. She comes back with asking whether or not I think I would hurt the dog. I say, "that is irrelevant - I feel safe and if the dog dies or not has nothing to do with my safety. My preference would be for the dog to not be hit because it might damage the car, but, if it is, for it either to not be hurt badly or do die outright. However, if it will make you feel better, I promise to kill the dog quickly if it is injured badly and I can do so safely." Our opinions on the subject differ... but for her, she feel less safe when I do not swerve even though the risk to us actually goes up if I do - and this is speed independent so let us just assume a constant speed here in the swerve-no swerve scenarios.
So please, do not use the words "risk" and "safety" interchangably as they have distinctly different applications.
Maybe the problem is they should have gone 55 and done ok?
On return a lady in a years old Honda (what else) tailgates me down the ramp onto the interstate and jumps the ramp into the lane trying to block me from my merge. I don't get it. I just keep on coming over. Mine's old enough I'd like to replace it at her expense.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Similar situation is when you're slowing down for a one-lane work zone (with actual workers present), and you get the same treatment.
Drivers who come flying down the center lane until 30 feet from my [non-permissible content removed] and then swerve (no time to signal) into the (been) completely open left lane. For all the 'pull to the righters**,' the right lane was where the semis were merging.
The general inability to see more than a few dozen feet ahead seems to be of epidemic proportions. The red light 200 feet ahead with the cars already stopped - not seen. The semi I'm 100 feet behind so I don't get the windshield rocked -again-, not seen. The pedestrian; the fact the cars in my lane on the other side of the intersection have not moved and so I can wait, or move forward and block cross traffic; any number of situations where force won't help - invisible.
And a form of color blindness, peculiar to drivers, is also widespread. Only green and red lights are visible. Yellow is completely invisible and when it is on, forces the entire light fixture to also disappear.
Won't photo-radar and red-light cams be nice? Maybe half the drivers will be forced into the remaining 10% of taxi cabs.
** AKA Yield to those behind and to the right, as often, when given the choice it is a coin flip as to whether they will pass on the left or the right.
Driving the expressways around Chicago I usually stay in the middle lane. Especially when I get close to or into Chicago. Since there are entrance and exit ramps almost continually and there is one lane and many times two more to my left it seems like the best place to be if I am not passing or getting onto or off of the expressway.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I say to my wife, "watch the brake lights come on," and sure enough, that's what happens, even though if they had half a brain, they would have realized traffic ahead was moving more slowly.
I'd still like to have an oil mist system set up under my rear bumper to slow tailgaters down. A little oil spray on the windshield from following too close?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If interstates are safer than rural roads, it is because the interstates have much better design. It is not due to higher speed limits. Safety decreases as speed rises.
xwesx said:
I think some distinctions are being severely blurred here. Safety is a perception: "Do you feel safe?" It is not measurable, except in terms of perception.
Safety can be quantified. It is more than a perception.
Might want to read this from IIHS:
"In a high-speed crash, a passenger vehicle is subjected to forces so severe that the vehicle structure cannot withstand the force of the crash and maintain survival space in the occupant compartment. Likewise, as crash speeds get very high, restraint systems such as airbags and safety belts cannot keep the forces on occupants below severe injury levels.
Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways:
It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.
It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is perceived.
It increases the crash energy by the square of the speeds. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.
For practical reasons, there are limits to the amount of crash energy that can be managed by vehicles, restraint systems, and roadway hardware such as barriers and impact attenuators. The higher the speed, the more likely that these limits will be exceeded in crashes, thus limiting the protection available for vehicle occupants. To put speed into perspective, remember that government crash tests for occupant protection are conducted at speeds of 30-35 mph, and these are severe impact speeds."
But I've often wondered if it's "safer" to drive on a much less crowded 2-lane rural road than a packed interstate like I-95 where you have racers like gee35 trying to go 120 mph and semis going uphill at maybe 60 mph.
We've lately taken to traveling on the back roads, because I can't stand the frustration of some interstates, whether they back up or when you think you're part of the Indy 500 (I-95 and the PA Turnpike spring to mind).
Our recent trip to Charleston, SC was a good example. We took a mix of freeways, 4-lane divided roads, 4-lane roads with a center left turn lane, and small segments of 2-lane roads. We avoided I-95 altogether. On the whole, traffic was very manageable and almost non-existent on 60 mph, 4-lane US Route 52 in SC.
Much less stressful, if not "safer."
I often wonder the same thing too. I remember one time on I-80 when the interstate was a little more crowded than usual and you had the mix of people driving SL or slightly over to gee35 weaving in and out of everyone. We evdually decided to get off and drive the two lane blacktop with very little traffic.
IMO we were much safer off the interstate and of course much less stressful.
or when you think you're part of the Indy 500 (I-95 and the PA Turnpike spring to mind).
Last time I was on that turnpike we saw 4 or 5 cars pulled over by the state police within 60 miles of the Ohio state line.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Again we all agree that hitting something at faster speeds wil cause more damage. Where we seem to differ is in assessing the risk of hitting something or having some type of mechanical failure. Everything has risk. I don't think the risk of travelling 100 MPH vs. 70 MPH is excessive under the right conditions. Just as 70 is insane under some conditions.
Here in GA the minimum speed is 45 even in the 70 MPH sections. So they figure a 35 MPH difference in speed is reasonable. A courteous driver can easily do 100MPH if they limit the passing speeds to a modest amount. When you come up on a car slow down to pass the continue your cruise. It's really simple.