>See P. 63 which shows that more and more people have been speeding over the last 10 years, and then look at P. 68 and see that the fatalities on the roads have been decreasing.
Sooooo, we conclude that if we all speed up, the fatalities will go down. That's based on If p Then q
Are there any other factors? Or was this a controlled experiment with only the speed having been changed? I don't think that's the case, so the other variables don't allow a conclusion here. :P
Do you have some evidence that people in Austria are more advanced physically or genetically then in the U.S. If I post a study from WA, then you're going to say it doesn't apply to the other 49 states?
Or was this a controlled experiment with only the speed having been changed?
The main thing that has changed is auto technology which is what we've been telling you. Better technology allows us to travel faster and safer today. The other thing that has changed over the years is that the numbers of drivers has increased; and that should have made the fatalities increase. But since it decreased we can then see how great a difference better technology has made in allowing faster, safer driving.
I don't think that's the case, so the other variables don't allow a conclusion here.
Well I guess if you think it's only possible to draw a conclusion when 1 variable changes, rather then the reality that there are usually more than 1 variable - especially over years, then you have very limited mathematical and scientific skills. If we were to believe your statement as true, then we might as well say every similar (real life) statistic ever collected is useless because it was collected, with other variables changing. :P :P
kernick: The main thing that has changed is auto technology which is what we've been telling you. Better technology allows us to travel faster and safer today.
Unfortunately, I've found that those who cling to the "speed kills" nonsense tend to be disproportionately found among those who drive cars like Buicks and Mercury Grand Maquises...let's just be kind and say that improvements in automobile performance and dynamics have gone right over their heads.
kernick: The other thing that has changed over the years is that the numbers of drivers has increased; and that should have made the fatalities increase. But since it decreased we can then see how great a difference better technology has made in allowing faster, safer driving.
You're using logic and common sense based on a knowledge of the history surrounding this issue; that won't go over too well with some people.
One look at the Code of Federal Regulations reveals it is much more complicated than simply dividing the number of miles by the amount of fuel consumed.
Not really, it's complicated because they calculate fuel used based on carbon in the emissions. A complicated formula does not mean that the the concept has to be complicated. The concept for determining fuel use is a mass balance on carbon. The carbon in the exhaust comes from the carbon in the fuel and the fuel contains a certain percentage carbon, from all this you can determine the amount of fuel that was used.
In essence it is weight per mile that is then converted to distance per gallon.
Not sure why you think that is a problem. Once the weight of fuel per mile is determined, you would just take the inverse and multiply by the density of the fuel.
The paper is an interesting read but it is only publishing statistics on accidents, injuries and fatalities. It slices and dices the numbers in many ways but nowhere does it evaluate speed as acontributing factor pro or con to safety or the accident numbers.
The NHTSA publishes almost identical reports broken down by state and in aggregate.
These are all just statistical breakdowns of accidents, injuries and fatalities. Nothing more.
I have yet to get a link to a study which explicitly evaluates speed vs safety.
cdn_tch: Newsflash - driver design has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse...
Proof please...you are entitled to your opinion, but considering that the roads are safer than ever, the facts don't support it.
It is an observation. 40 years ago there was no such thing as a cup holder in a vehicle, no cell phones, very few people ate in their cars. Look around and you'll see too many distracted drivers. And are the roads safer? or are there just fewer fatalities? With new car designs that crumple and absorb energy during a crash, seat belts and airbags and better interior design all contribute to lower injury and death rates
40 years ago you'd open the glove compartment and there'd be two little indentations on the door to put your Coke on. Didn't work too good once you started moving, but the whole idea was going to the drive-in and hanging out although you sure saw lots of food packaging, beer cans and whiskey bottles on the roadsides back then. This was pre-crying Indian commercials.
Playing with the radio (my sister) and smoking (both my folks) were common distractions. And chewing. Or taking a snort from the bottle under the seat (my dad). Going a mile a minute was often cause for comment where I grew up.
Cars and roads are much better than when I got my license 41 years ago.
I have yet to get a link to a study which explicitly evaluates speed vs safety.
That's because it would be fairly expensive and as soon as you introduce "lab conditions" you change all the variables that you have on the road. So if you ran a study on a closed track, with 100 drivers, and had them drive at different speeds for 1 year and then measured the number of accidents, injuries and deaths you think that would be representative of what happens in the real-world? Do you think the lab-test would take into account the right mix of driver skills? Just by the fact that people drive a lot they get better. Though the lab-drivers would suffer from fatigue. Would they pick a spot to represent the right mix of weather and night driving? Would they drive slower in bad weather, or blindly drive in snow at their predetermined speed? Would they drink coffee while driving occassionally? ...
It is known what the speed limit was in any given year. It is known how many accidents, injuries and fatalities were in a given year. Now if you take any country or state and look at 1 year, you can assume with a fairly high degree of confidence, that the same mix of people have driven the same way in basically the same technology cars and on the same roads in basically the same condition as the year before. You can then look and say, if the speed limits were raised in this year did accidents and fatalities go up. If they didn't then an increase in speed is not a SIGNIFICANT factor accidents and fatalities. It's that simple.
You can also look at this issue that for whatever reasons driving is getting safer (These are all just statistical breakdowns of accidents, injuries and fatalities. Nothing more.
So you're saying "Let's not confuse the issue with facts" of the last 30 years? There's nothing to be learned by looking at data and statistics? Or you just know you're position is right because you've never been wrong?
The study does not need to be in a 'lab', but it does need to have controls on the variables.
Since grbeck is saying that faster drivers are PROVEN to be safer, I want to see the proof. If you are saying that that proof is impossible then grbeck's comments are also impossible.
Since there is a lot of info compiled about accidents it could be possible to look at a large enough sample and group the accidents by causality and try and normalize the variables to evaluate if speed changes would affect the total number of accidents/injuries/fatalities.
You can then look and say, if the speed limits were raised in this year did accidents and fatalities go up. If they didn't then an increase in speed is not a SIGNIFICANT factor accidents and fatalities. It's that simple. No it is not when there are so many variables in the mix. What if it was the same year as an economic downturn or much higher gas prices or ??? that reduced the number of miles driven. Since the paper does not identify accidents/1M miles it could just be that another variable masked it. I'm not saying that it is that but unless an evaluation is done on the big picture the small picture is unreliable.
You can also look at this issue that for whatever reasons driving is getting safer It is, but is it because of car design, highway design/materials, better understanding of what makes a highway 'safe'... If the hypothesis that traffic is safer at 70mph than 80 mph, but the average speed is 80mph with fatalities dropping marginally, then it might be that if the average speed was reduced to 70mph then fatalities would drop significantly more.
Emotion has to be taken out of the discussion. One person can be a safe driver at 100mph, but in the general population there could be another 80 who should never be allowed anywhere near that speed. So if you are the 1 person who can drive at 100mph safely and in full control, you still cannot insist that the speed limit be raised to 100mph because there are too many others out there that cannot/should not drive at that speed. Remember that the speed limits are for everyone not just for what 1 person can do.
Yes, people could drive below a given speed limit, but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability and 2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Yes, the concept is quite simple. The complexity is there to assure consistent procedures and results.
Not sure why you think that is a problem.
Well, it's just a conflict that occurs when the test protocols, procedures, and estimates run into reality. The tests and resulting estimates are intended to provide consumers with a means to compare different cars. That is all well and good until the consumer actually buys a car. Then those tests and estimates are transformed in the new owner's mind into a prediction of the MPG they will actually get with their new car. Not at all what the government intends. When there is a difference, and there almost invariably is a difference, the owner concludes that the EPA test sucks and the EPA testers are idiots.
Now the test doesn't suck and the testers are not idiots. Just a misunderstanding, or mistaken assumption, of what the test actually tells us. There is only passing resemblance between the test and reality.
You and I don't drive on a dynamometer. We drive on streets. We don't control and repeatedly test the fuel we put in our cars. We buy what the local station has available. We don't give weight to the various components that make up the fuel and figure that into our actual MPG. We choose regular or premium and maybe try to avoid ethanol. We don't have precision instruments connected to our cars picking up minute bits of info as we drive them around. We have a fuel gauge and an odometer. We don't follow a carefully controlled set of protocols and driving sequences. We sit in traffic jams while we take the kids to dance class. We don't measure emission from our exhaust and extrapolate the data to a class of cars for comparison. We fill up our tank and wonder what the price will be the next time we need to fill up.
Carefully controlled tests and consistent results and calculated estimates run into the chaotic and uncontrolled reality of fickle, irrational, unpredictable, and emotional drivers. Not sure I would characterize it as a problem really. It is what it is. There just is no way that test can possibly tell us what so many of us want that test to tell us.
>Emotion has to be taken out of the discussion. One person can be a safe driver at 100mph,
They might feel they are safe, but that would end when they had the one accident that occurs because of their high speed and is more damaging because of their excessive speed.
It's obvious to most people that the faster the car is going the more dangerous it is. so 65 might be a nice speed but 60 and 55 would save even more natural resources.
Since grbeck is saying that faster drivers are PROVEN to be safer, I want to see the proof.
What (I believe) grbeck is saying (saying of the report) - drivers who go with the flow of traffic - say 70-75mph in a 65mph SL zone, are safer than the slower drivers who are going 55-60mph. The reason this is so is partly due to the fact that you do not what to be on the extreme ends of the bell curve of the distribution of speed. Vehicles that are too fast or too slow from the mean are in dangerous territory. Since most people are going relatively fast - that is the mean - then it is safer to drive 70 - 75mph.
Since there is a lot of info compiled about accidents it could be possible to look at a large enough sample and group the accidents by causality
It probably wouldn't as I bet the term "speed" as a cause would group the 18 yr old driving 75 mph in a 35mph urban area, along with the person going 75mph in a 65mph on an interstate, along with the person who was driving 75mph in a downpour and hydroplaned.
What if it was the same year as an economic downturn or much higher gas prices or ??? that reduced the number of miles driven.
Well if you didn't Pooh-pooh the statistics, you would see that the reason there are so many is so that an astute reader would note that these are considered by the presentation of charts like "accidents/million miles driven". You may need to look at 5, or 10, or 20 charts to see the whole picture and this helps eliminate the very such variables you mention. The NHTSA presents data "per million miles driven", and they show much better increases in safety then just looking at total accidents!
I'm not saying that it is that but unless an evaluation is done on the big picture the small picture is unreliable.
The data's out there. It just sounds like you're not reading it all.
... then it might be that if the average speed was reduced to 70mph then fatalities would drop significantly more.
I have made this point before; but what is the goal. If the goal is to get the fatality rate as low as possible then we should set the SL to 15mph. We have been content as a society to accept about 40K fatalities/year (and decreasing some) with the SL's over the decades. So as cars get better, and we're fine around 40K, then this allows us to increase our speeds and still not break this 40K fatality/year level. What SL and associated fatality rate would you be content with?
Remember that the speed limits are for everyone not just for what 1 person can do.
The SL's were set and need to be reset because of better vehicle technology for what the average person with the average vehicle can do under ideal conditions. The SL's are not set so that the collector in a Model T, the 85 year old with cataracts, the civic worker driving the garbage truck, or the person putting on makeup all can get along. They should either not be on the interstate system, but definitely stay out of the left-lanes. The SL's should be set for the experienced driver, in a fairly new car, under light to moderate traffic conditions, on a sunny day.
The SL should be a maximum. If any of the following apply - rain, you're driving a '75 Pinto with bald tires, you just had a concussion, you've had 2 drinks, you're on the phone, then you shouldn't be driving what the SL should be set at.
but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability
No that isn't true. People will drive what is comfortable for them. And yes people do err. But if the state today set a SL of 100mph, everyone is not going to try and drive 100mph. People will still drive 70-75 mph because that is their comfort-zone, and the fact that most cars will get quite noisy and the mpg would drop too much for peoples wallets. What you'd have though is a society that is then in compliance with the law, rather then having 80-90% of the people driving illegally (speeding).
2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Those comments are about the current SL, not a higher SL. All many of us want is for everyone to drive about the same speed. And that same speed is not what is on the SL's today. Up each SL 10-15 mph and we'd all be happy, and in compliance with the laws. Make the average driver (not the racer or tailgater type) today legal - that is my position.
Sooooo, we conclude that if we all speed up, the fatalities will go down. That's based on If p Then q
Are there any other factors? Or was this a controlled experiment with only the speed having been changed? I don't think that's the case, so the other variables don't allow a conclusion here.
I just realized that I can use this over in the "Are Automobiles causing GW?" forum. Just because CO2 is going up, doesn't prove that any warming can be contributed to it, because there are many other variables, and the atmosphere is not a controlled experiment. :P
Our Straightline blogging friend Bob wrecked his Subaru last weekend. He was going about 30mph at impact. Makes me think that, if you are going to be at one end of the bell curve, it's better to be at the slower end of it. End of a WRX? (before and after pics)
Note that the NHTSA's front crash ratings are based on a car going 35 mph when it hits a wall or another car going 35 mph. That's way below typical highway speeds.
Exactly. Comparing having an accident at 55 mph as to 65 or 75 in our typical passenger vehicles, is like comparing whether you fall off a 150' cliff or a 200' or 250' cliff.
If you want to use safety as a reason to slow people down, then you had better start considering SL's under 30mph; OR to build our vehicles like NASCAR. A NASCAR stock car is probably pretty safe at 55, 65, or 85 mph.
What are you thoughts on overall US stats? We have more people, driving more cars, and we have upped speed limits at least compared to where they were ten or so years ago - yet the accident and death rates have continued to decline?
Are you comfortable drawing any trend out of that?
I had a professor in college who made an interesting point (and who knows, he may have got this elsewhere) From a safety standpoint if you want to change behavior replace the driver side air bag with a sword that deploys on impact. He figured everybody would drive safely with that kind of device in the car.
Clearly a bit extreme, but it the reduction in drivers would sure take care of traffic Jams!
What are you thoughts on overall US stats? We have more people, driving more cars, and we have upped speed limits at least compared to where they were ten or so years ago - yet the accident and death rates have continued to decline?
Are you comfortable drawing any trend out of that?
I'm not comfortable drawing any trends or conclusions from that because there are many other factors at play. - higher seat belt use - ABS on many more vehicles - stability control on many vehicles - airbags on many more vehicles, and many of those with multiple airbags - better designs of cars with respect to crush/crumple zones - highway designs (signage, lighting, materials used, much longer merge lanes, shelter belts, etc)
As I said previously, it could be that if the SL had not been raise then the death rates may have been even lower (or maybe not). Until a study is published which removes/normalizes all these other variables one cannot conclude that driving faster is safer.
Execellent points, though there are several factors that negate as well Decaying infrastructure More "toys" in the car More traffic An increase in things like road rage Not sure on better freeways - Here in the Pacific Northwest it is impossible to build almost any new road!, so we have poor merge lanes, on and off ramps on the left side of the road, carpool lanes that snake back and forth, etc.
- so is your position neutral or do you believe that slower is safer?
i'm glad 'rs is ok. he has been around here for a while and we have have posted on the same forums many times, although not lately. the loop around dc is not one of my favorite place to drive. why do you think he was going 30 mph? the car travelled way too far after the initial impact, according to the story. maybe losing the brakes is the reason. why did it lose the brakes? the tires and brakes are still on the car. there isn't much damage in the back of the car. i have seen a similar accident as is happened, a few years ago. there was somewhat of a curve in the highway involved. a car got hit in the back on a right turning curve of the highway. it made an immediate left into the jersey barrier, did a 180 and went back across all the lanes of the highway, 3 or 4, and hit the concrete on the right side after that.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Oh sorry, thought that was in the blog, but Bob talked about the wreck over in the Subaru boards:
"The traffic had slowed to a stop very quickly, and I had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of me. I then got hit by someone doing maybe 50 or 60 mph from the rear. I was pushed into the car in front of me that had slowed to a stop. I may have hit that car at maybe 30 mph or faster. I was in the fast lane, and my car then went up on to the jersey barrier that blocks oncoming traffic. Next my car then careened into the middle lane hitting another car, or two, or three. I ended up maybe 50 yards down the road as I had lost my brakes at that point."
What I should have said was that he went from 60 to standing on the brakes to 30 at impact I guess, but I'm not exactly sure how it all went down. Stuff like that happens so fast Bob may not be positive either.
See this Edmunds.com article! EPA Overhauls Fuel Economy Estimates for 2008 - As the 2008 model-year cars hit the lot, shoppers will notice a big difference — the EPA has changed its fuel economy testing methods to produce mileage estimates that reflect "real world" driving habits. - (more)
Well it got porked up. Every Senator with a pet amendment figured this is a must do bill, so why not tack on a tax break or two. I am sure we all agree that a tax break to rum producers in Puerto Rico will solve the credit crisis.
Anyway, amongst the fat is an interesting tidbit, Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions. Included a tax credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles, like the Chevy Volt. Minimum $2500 plus $417 for each kWh battery capacity above 4 kWh. Limits set by weight. Most passenger vehicles will probably get the $7500 limit on vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds. Limit is higher for larger vehicles.
- so is your position neutral or do you believe that slower is safer?
Slower is a relative term. But overall yes if people would slow down a tad then everybody would be safer for it, there would be less oil used and consequently less pollution produced.
As another poster said speed is raerly the sole factor in an accident, ususlly it takes 2 or 3 things to go wrong, but speed is one of the few variables that a driver has control over. At 60 mph a vehicle covers 88ft/sec at 80 mph it is 117ft/sec. Since it takes approx 1.5 sec for a person to react you have a ~45ft difference right there. Stopping distances (including reaction time) are 60mph: 240ft 80mph: 400ft. I've had close calls with wildlife on the highway so I am very much aware how different things could have been for me if I was driving even just 5 mph faster. Until one goes through a 'reality check' like that they don't realize how perilous speed can be.
Driving is a matter of risk management. (its been a while so lets see if I can remember it)
With risk we have several options and they are not mutually exclusive:
- risk avoidance (don't drive) - risk mitigation/reduction (drive slower, maintain your car, drive a safer vehicle etc) - risk transfer (in general terms this is insurance, but for driving it would be - send someone else so you don't have to go) - risk acceptance (you've done the things above, but the requirement to drive is greater than the amount of risk left so you choose to drive)
So let's quit with the BS of setting speed limits on the highways below 55 so it is 'safer' since that is not practical.
>As another poster said speed is raerly the sole factor in an accident, ususlly it takes 2 or 3 things to go wrong, but speed is one of the few variables that a driver has control over.
Speed is the variable over which the driver has control. But there are other factors that occur due to the "need to speed" so present in many drivers. They make lane changes excessively. They are careless in their lane changes. They tailgate. They try to find aggressive driving manners to "show" the other drivers that the other drivers aren't pleasing the ones speeding relative to other drivers and the traffic situation or the speed limit.
So let's quit with the BS of setting speed limits on the highways below 55 so it is 'safer' since that is not practical.
Why? As I've heard here before "we should just leave earlier, and not rush. Time is not important." If people get upset about 1,000 dead and thousands injured in Iraq / year, why is there no outrage that we have 40,000 dead even when the SL's were 55mph? I don't get the logic here that if you support safe-roads you don't just pick a speed that is safe.
My opinion is that there is a criminal and incompetent element in the driving population that causes most of the accidents. These people need to be banned from driving and if necessary harshly punished if they do. So eliminate that 2-4% of the driving population. Then you'll get fatality rates of about 10,000. Take that gain and allow people to drive faster. Or as our cars get better, accordingly increase the SL's, even if then the fatality rates don't come down.
Yes, people could drive below a given speed limit, but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability and 2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Incorrect, Wrong, but a common fallacy for people that don't know much about driving or traffic patterns.
The speed limit has little to absolutely no effect on the way and speed in which people drive on the road. Studies by the NMA have shown that whether the speed limit is 35 or 45, people will continue to drive the exact same speed they always do, plus or minus just a couple MPH. So if people average 75 MPH on a 65 maximum speed highway, it is logical to conclude that a 100 MPH speed limit would result in the average speed increasing only a couple MPH.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Why are speeders careless in their lane changes? Speeders would have to make lane changes if the slow drivers drove properly. If the slow pokes sped up to the so-called speeders' speeds, then they wouldn't have to change lanes excessively, and therefore that is the slow pokes fault, not the speeders. Another good reason to raise SL to more reasonable levels.
Tailgate.......obviously someone is driving too slow in front or they wouldn't have caught up to them to get close enough to tail gate!
If they would speed up the tail gater would not longer be tail gating.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Why are speeders careless in their lane changes? Speeders would have to make lane changes if the slow drivers drove properly. If the slow pokes sped up to the so-called speeders' speeds, then they wouldn't have to change lanes excessively, and therefore that is the slow pokes fault, not the speeders. Another good reason to raise SL to more reasonable levels.
Tailgate.......obviously someone is driving too slow in front or they wouldn't have caught up to them to get close enough to tail gate!
If they would speed up the tail gater would not longer be tail gating.
A typical response from someone who only thinks of themselves on the road. Take no responsibility for your own actions to take care when passing other vehicles. To drive safely to prevent accidents and not create a problem on the road.
Was it you that was driving an Escape recently that I saw ahead of me who couldn't wait a few seconds for a car to finish passing someone so they cut off the person that was being passed and then slalomed in front of the passing vehicle. All that and the Escape was leaning so much during the manouvers that the other vehicles slowed down because they thought he was going to roll it.
Ha... no, I save my offensive and aggressive moves for only those times when it is safe to do so.
The other times I just sit back and fume as I see tons of traffic slowed down and wasting extra fuel due to some idiots that dont' know how to drive or keep up with the flow. They block, impede, and hamper traffic, with no regard for efficiency or other people. I sit back and steam.
But my driving record is completely unblemished, no at-fault accidents from the age of 16 and now I'm 30!
tickets, oh yeah, I've had my share of those, but they were all non-sense. In fact, since I haven't caused any at-fault accidents ever, the score is 1 to 0 on me vs. the cops. Cops have rear ended me once, and I've never rear ended anyone, ever. Score is 1 to 0 in my favor, I wish judges would throw out the citations accordingly.
In fact, I propose a law that all citations will be thrown out unless someone has an AT-Fault accident on their record.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Dirt road, crest of hill, headon crash, both cars totaled, & during the trial one of the drivers has a clean record, the other has a bunch of tickets, " but they were all non-sense". Guess which driver is more difficult to defend?
That degree of indefendability is why you deserve to pay much more for your insurance premium. Now, the non sense makes sense doesn't it?
Why is 55 mph considered reasonable if it's just a matter of risk management?
Some manage risk better than others, therefore they can and should drive faster. Some cannot, and should not be allowed to drive at all.
If we simply enforced proper lane discipline, then those with poor risk management abilities would naturally be driving in the 'slow' lane, driving a safe, slow speed - not having to worry about all those nasty 'speed demons' that threaten their ability to drive. After all, these are the ones that tend to get nervous and afraid the faster they drive, thus preventing them from driving fast in the first place.
And those 'speed demons' can drive in the 'faster' lanes without worry of all those 'slow' drivers retarding the flow of traffic.
Thus, everyone is happy - and not in each other's way.
Yes, everyone would be happy... except those 'control freaks' that believe that everyone should do as is told.
Tailgating is part and parcel of aggressive drivers, not part of 'fast' drivers.
I've seen far too many people tailgate on empty multi-lane city streets... at speeds of 35 mph. Even though they could easily pass with no effort whatsoever, very aggressive drivers will still tailgate at any speed.
It's not about the speed, it's all about making the 'other driver' do what they want.
If you consistently go beyond 65 mph you are burning excess fuel-because oil is an elastic commodity this means that many of you will be paying more for your home heating oil (if you're lucky) or being real cold this winter (if you are not). But sme folks right to go 80 exceeds some poor ba$tard's desire to stay warm. Congrats! We are literally wasting 100-200M a day with our current practice; a lot of poential discretionary spending and saving simply going up the tailpipe. We 'waste' enough energy by driving at speeds beyond a vehicle's peak fuel efficency to pay out the current bailout in less than 1 generation. Therefore, to lawmakers 700B in the real scheme of things is simply just another number. Read Edmunds.com article on "tire pressure study." We waste 30-35B a year(est) using Edmund's data and USDOT estmates. In short, our economy needs a jumpstart and a 65 mph national speed limit is just as vitally needed as it is unpopular. And install free air machines at all interstate and other strategically located rest areas.
I suspect we waste more each day at non-synchronized lights and other non-optimized traffic controls than we do wanting to drive speeds the rest of the developed world seems to have no problem with...
But sme folks right to go 80 exceeds some poor ba$tard's desire to stay warm. Congrats!
While I wish others well, and I give enough in taxes and charity, that I'm also going to give up everything for some other people - who may or may not be working as hard as I am. I was out cutting/hauling/splitting firewood this weekend; if anyone would like to stay warm, I'm sure I can direct you to some wood cutting websites.
So if I want to "waste" fuel by taking a pleasure trip, drive a little faster, or really "waste" fuel and rent an RV and go to a game, I will. That's the whole concept of our economic system. You get paid and can spend your money as you wish. You may have a moral imperative that you can't enjoy life to the fullest, because you might be taking from others, well that's your choice.
cdn_tch: Since grbeck is saying that faster drivers are PROVEN to be safer, I want to see the proof. If you are saying that that proof is impossible then grbeck's comments are also impossible.
The information was featured on the chart...if you choose to ignore it that is your problem. Or you can prove that the Colorado Department of Transportation just makes these things up.
cdn_tch: It is, but is it because of car design, highway design/materials, better understanding of what makes a highway 'safe'... If the hypothesis that traffic is safer at 70mph than 80 mph, but the average speed is 80mph with fatalities dropping marginally, then it might be that if the average speed was reduced to 70mph then fatalities would drop significantly more.
Or, the more likely scenario, based on past experience is that if we begin targeting the slower drivers, instead of listening to whining about "speeders," the fatatities would drop even more.
cdn_tch: Emotion has to be taken out of the discussion.
That's what those who understand the relationship between speed and safety are trying to do, as the "slow is good" and "65 mph is fast enough for everyone" and "faster drivers are a danger" arguments are based on hysteria and ignorance.
cdn_tch: Yes, people could drive below a given speed limit, but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability and 2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Which provides anecdotal evidence that most speed limits are underposted.
i didn't word my post very well, but that's what i was thinking: slowing to 30 mph from a higher speed. maybe his foot came off the barke pedal when the airbag deployed. a car doesn't travel far when stopping from 30 mph. another thing about my post was i meant a 90 degree turn, not 180. it did do a 180 after the 90 into the jersey barrier. anyways. glad he's ok.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Since comments have been made that it has be 'proven' that faster drivers are safer, without providing any proof I have been hunting for it.
There have been many, many studies on speed and safety, but as with most scientific studies, you start with what others have done and add a bit of new knowledge. (This is not a slight or facetiousness. Science builds upon previous work) So any particular subject ends up looking like a pyramid. Sometimes, a new piece is added that chips away at the base and so that a lot of previous work gets re-evaluated based on those changes.
Studies done by D. Solomon (1964) and J. Cirillo (1968) showed that slower cars had a higher incidence of accidents relative to faster cars (I couldn't find these online anywhere except for sale, and I'm not going to spend the money to read them). These studies have been used as a base for most of the future studies that followed.
I found the following 2006 paper: BTS: Speed as a Risk Factor... which looked at whether the Solomon and Cirillo findings were or were not valid.
I urge those who are interested to read it as it does provide a very good discussion of elimination of variables and how they went about using other peoples research and adding their own parts to it, mostly in the form of advanced statistical modeling. When you read the paper please note their comments on how the original studies compiled their data and what was/wasn't included.
In their conclusion they state "In the introduction we indicated that a salient issue with regard to the role of speed in road crashes concerns the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk. Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved. ...we found that these data did not support the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed and crash risk, although risk did tend to increase as a function of speed."
imidazol97: BTW, do you know what "U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk" means?
It is from a chart that shows the relationship between the # of accidents (The U) across a graph of speed, listed as SL in middle with either side being + or - % to either side. The graph shows that there are more accidents at ~10% under SL than at 10% over SL.
we found that these data did not support the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed and crash risk, although risk did tend to increase as a function of speed."
Is risk the same as an accident? We all understand going faster has the potential to cause more bodily injury, just as going 8' on a ladder is riskier than going 6'. But if the risk doesn't turn into a fact the risk is not very probable (I make risk vs. probability graphs in my job to rate what issues are of importance.)
Next looking at that report - the dates of the various references; I would guess that most of the vehicles studied did not have ABS, or stability control.
Also I see the studies were from Australia(!) and Minnesota. I believe Australia has a few urban areas, and some paved highways, but thousands of miles of high-speed roads through the Outback. Hardly a place comparable to the Autobahn/European roads or U.S. highways.
So let me say the study is probably accurate for what it is, but is dated and not similar. The most accurate data is the crash data that's collected each year by the NHTSA, and it clearly shows that the roads are safer on a per-mile basis, and this despite a general disregard for the current SL's.
Is risk the same as an accident? The way I read it, risk = probability of accident
Next looking at that report - the dates of the various references; I would guess that most of the vehicles studied did not have ABS, or stability control. And the original studies were done in the 60's, and included 2 lane roads.
Also I see the studies were from Australia(!) and Minnesota. I believe Australia has a few urban areas, and some paved highways, but thousands of miles of high-speed roads through the Outback. Hardly a place comparable to the Autobahn/European roads or U.S. highways. They have about 350,000km of paved highways with a government initiative to pave much of the other 500,000km of unpaved roads.
So let me say the study is probably accurate for what it is, but is dated and not similar. The most accurate data is the crash data that's collected each year by the NHTSA, and it clearly shows that the roads are safer on a per-mile basis, and this despite a general disregard for the current SL's. The crash data collected by the NHSTA is just the raw data with NO attempt to correlate speed vs incidence of accidents.
Yes it is not an accident. It is a probability, and what is a probability based on? - someones assumptions of what the factors in the probability formula should be.
Now it seems you rather believe someone's assumptions over actual data and reality. Most everyone else would choose actual data - no matter how "raw" we consider it.
I don't consider the data raw as my experience in the world everyday, and what I read here everyday is that the typical motorist "speeds" relative to the SL's. Since 90% of the people speed, the data does not have to be separated - the data basically is only of speeders, that the NHTSA collects. And it is that way year after year thus allowing comparisions. If anything with more powerful cars and better gearing, speeds are higher than ever; but the fatality rates continue to drop with most everyone ignoring the SL's.
Yes it is not an accident. It is a probability, and what is a probability based on? - someones assumptions of what the factors in the probability formula should be. Did you read the paper in the link I gave??? Of course it is only a probability, noone will ever say if you travel at this speed you WILL have an accident. The conclusion they came to was that there is a correlation between the likelyhood of an accident and speed. And yes if you read the math they did do some probability analysis as well.
Now it seems you rather believe someone's assumptions over actual data and reality. They made an assumption and used DATA to see IF their assumption was correct. Please read the paper.
Since 90% of the people speed, the data does not have to be separated - the data basically is only of speeders, that the NHTSA collects. Huh? Unless you are looking at a different dataset from NHTSA than I have seen published they breakdown the aggregate of all accidents by age, gender, state, month, vehicle type, alcohol level, seat belt use, single/multi vehicle. Only 1 page lists speed, and it shows that 31% of fatal accidents and 32% of fatalities are speeding related. There is no study of the numbers, they are just sliced and diced in different ways.
They made an assumption and used DATA to see IF their assumption was correct. Please read the paper.
As I said before the report is too old and based partly on driving conditions in Australia. I would not waste more than 2 minutes on that - as I did to find major flaws in it, though the math is probably correct; but again based on the partial, obsolete data. You might as well do a study on how dangerous it is to cross the streets in Boise, by analyzing the daily patterns of 20 people last week.
The NHTSA data is current, accurate, and encompasses the whole driving population in the U.S.
Huh? Unless you are looking at a different dataset from NHTSA than I have seen published they breakdown the aggregate of all accidents by age, gender, state, month, vehicle type, alcohol level, seat belt use, single/multi vehicle
Huh? I never said it was in the NHTSA data. Many times you have to use data from different sources to solve any question or issue. Are you expecting them to spoon-feed you? The answer to how many people speed is right in front of your eyes, if you go on an interstate. Or if you would like to ask any cop or police force what they measure as average speeds vs. their speed limits. Or I'm sure some data is published from the state police forces on avergae vehicle speeds.
When's the last time you were on an interstate? What was the SL, and what do you think the majority of people were driving?
Comments
That's Austria. Now for the US?
>See P. 63 which shows that more and more people have been speeding over the last 10 years, and then look at P. 68 and see that the fatalities on the roads have been decreasing.
Sooooo, we conclude that if we all speed up, the fatalities will go down. That's based on
If p
Then q
Are there any other factors? Or was this a controlled experiment with only the speed having been changed? I don't think that's the case, so the other variables don't allow a conclusion here. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Do you have some evidence that people in Austria are more advanced physically or genetically then in the U.S. If I post a study from WA, then you're going to say it doesn't apply to the other 49 states?
Or was this a controlled experiment with only the speed having been changed?
The main thing that has changed is auto technology which is what we've been telling you. Better technology allows us to travel faster and safer today. The other thing that has changed over the years is that the numbers of drivers has increased; and that should have made the fatalities increase. But since it decreased we can then see how great a difference better technology has made in allowing faster, safer driving.
I don't think that's the case, so the other variables don't allow a conclusion here.
Well I guess if you think it's only possible to draw a conclusion when 1 variable changes, rather then the reality that there are usually more than 1 variable - especially over years, then you have very limited mathematical and scientific skills. If we were to believe your statement as true, then we might as well say every similar (real life) statistic ever collected is useless because it was collected, with other variables changing. :P :P
Unfortunately, I've found that those who cling to the "speed kills" nonsense tend to be disproportionately found among those who drive cars like Buicks and Mercury Grand Maquises...let's just be kind and say that improvements in automobile performance and dynamics have gone right over their heads.
kernick: The other thing that has changed over the years is that the numbers of drivers has increased; and that should have made the fatalities increase. But since it decreased we can then see how great a difference better technology has made in allowing faster, safer driving.
You're using logic and common sense based on a knowledge of the history surrounding this issue; that won't go over too well with some people.
Not really, it's complicated because they calculate fuel used based on carbon in the emissions. A complicated formula does not mean that the the concept has to be complicated. The concept for determining fuel use is a mass balance on carbon. The carbon in the exhaust comes from the carbon in the fuel and the fuel contains a certain percentage carbon, from all this you can determine the amount of fuel that was used.
In essence it is weight per mile that is then converted to distance per gallon.
Not sure why you think that is a problem. Once the weight of fuel per mile is determined, you would just take the inverse and multiply by the density of the fuel.
The NHTSA publishes almost identical reports broken down by state and in aggregate.
These are all just statistical breakdowns of accidents, injuries and fatalities. Nothing more.
I have yet to get a link to a study which explicitly evaluates speed vs safety.
cdn_tch: Newsflash - driver design has not improved, if anything it has gotten worse...
Proof please...you are entitled to your opinion, but considering that the roads are safer than ever, the facts don't support it.
It is an observation. 40 years ago there was no such thing as a cup holder in a vehicle, no cell phones, very few people ate in their cars. Look around and you'll see too many distracted drivers. And are the roads safer? or are there just fewer fatalities? With new car designs that crumple and absorb energy during a crash, seat belts and airbags and better interior design all contribute to lower injury and death rates
Playing with the radio (my sister) and smoking (both my folks) were common distractions. And chewing. Or taking a snort from the bottle under the seat (my dad). Going a mile a minute was often cause for comment where I grew up.
Cars and roads are much better than when I got my license 41 years ago.
That's because it would be fairly expensive and as soon as you introduce "lab conditions" you change all the variables that you have on the road. So if you ran a study on a closed track, with 100 drivers, and had them drive at different speeds for 1 year and then measured the number of accidents, injuries and deaths you think that would be representative of what happens in the real-world? Do you think the lab-test would take into account the right mix of driver skills? Just by the fact that people drive a lot they get better. Though the lab-drivers would suffer from fatigue. Would they pick a spot to represent the right mix of weather and night driving? Would they drive slower in bad weather, or blindly drive in snow at their predetermined speed? Would they drink coffee while driving occassionally? ...
It is known what the speed limit was in any given year. It is known how many accidents, injuries and fatalities were in a given year. Now if you take any country or state and look at 1 year, you can assume with a fairly high degree of confidence, that the same mix of people have driven the same way in basically the same technology cars and on the same roads in basically the same condition as the year before. You can then look and say, if the speed limits were raised in this year did accidents and fatalities go up. If they didn't then an increase in speed is not a SIGNIFICANT factor accidents and fatalities. It's that simple.
You can also look at this issue that for whatever reasons driving is getting safer (These are all just statistical breakdowns of accidents, injuries and fatalities. Nothing more.
So you're saying "Let's not confuse the issue with facts" of the last 30 years? There's nothing to be learned by looking at data and statistics? Or you just know you're position is right because you've never been wrong?
Since grbeck is saying that faster drivers are PROVEN to be safer, I want to see the proof. If you are saying that that proof is impossible then grbeck's comments are also impossible.
Since there is a lot of info compiled about accidents it could be possible to look at a large enough sample and group the accidents by causality and try and normalize the variables to evaluate if speed changes would affect the total number of accidents/injuries/fatalities.
You can then look and say, if the speed limits were raised in this year did accidents and fatalities go up. If they didn't then an increase in speed is not a SIGNIFICANT factor accidents and fatalities. It's that simple.
No it is not when there are so many variables in the mix. What if it was the same year as an economic downturn or much higher gas prices or ??? that reduced the number of miles driven. Since the paper does not identify accidents/1M miles it could just be that another variable masked it. I'm not saying that it is that but unless an evaluation is done on the big picture the small picture is unreliable.
You can also look at this issue that for whatever reasons driving is getting safer
It is, but is it because of car design, highway design/materials, better understanding of what makes a highway 'safe'... If the hypothesis that traffic is safer at 70mph than 80 mph, but the average speed is 80mph with fatalities dropping marginally, then it might be that if the average speed was reduced to 70mph then fatalities would drop significantly more.
Emotion has to be taken out of the discussion. One person can be a safe driver at 100mph, but in the general population there could be another 80 who should never be allowed anywhere near that speed. So if you are the 1 person who can drive at 100mph safely and in full control, you still cannot insist that the speed limit be raised to 100mph because there are too many others out there that cannot/should not drive at that speed. Remember that the speed limits are for everyone not just for what 1 person can do.
Yes, people could drive below a given speed limit, but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability and 2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Not sure why you think that is a problem.
Well, it's just a conflict that occurs when the test protocols, procedures, and estimates run into reality. The tests and resulting estimates are intended to provide consumers with a means to compare different cars. That is all well and good until the consumer actually buys a car. Then those tests and estimates are transformed in the new owner's mind into a prediction of the MPG they will actually get with their new car. Not at all what the government intends. When there is a difference, and there almost invariably is a difference, the owner concludes that the EPA test sucks and the EPA testers are idiots.
Now the test doesn't suck and the testers are not idiots. Just a misunderstanding, or mistaken assumption, of what the test actually tells us. There is only passing resemblance between the test and reality.
You and I don't drive on a dynamometer. We drive on streets. We don't control and repeatedly test the fuel we put in our cars. We buy what the local station has available. We don't give weight to the various components that make up the fuel and figure that into our actual MPG. We choose regular or premium and maybe try to avoid ethanol. We don't have precision instruments connected to our cars picking up minute bits of info as we drive them around. We have a fuel gauge and an odometer. We don't follow a carefully controlled set of protocols and driving sequences. We sit in traffic jams while we take the kids to dance class. We don't measure emission from our exhaust and extrapolate the data to a class of cars for comparison. We fill up our tank and wonder what the price will be the next time we need to fill up.
Carefully controlled tests and consistent results and calculated estimates run into the chaotic and uncontrolled reality of fickle, irrational, unpredictable, and emotional drivers. Not sure I would characterize it as a problem really. It is what it is. There just is no way that test can possibly tell us what so many of us want that test to tell us.
They might feel they are safe, but that would end when they had the one accident that occurs because of their high speed and is more damaging because of their excessive speed.
It's obvious to most people that the faster the car is going the more dangerous it is. so 65 might be a nice speed but 60 and 55 would save even more natural resources.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
What (I believe) grbeck is saying (saying of the report) - drivers who go with the flow of traffic - say 70-75mph in a 65mph SL zone, are safer than the slower drivers who are going 55-60mph. The reason this is so is partly due to the fact that you do not what to be on the extreme ends of the bell curve of the distribution of speed. Vehicles that are too fast or too slow from the mean are in dangerous territory. Since most people are going relatively fast - that is the mean - then it is safer to drive 70 - 75mph.
Since there is a lot of info compiled about accidents it could be possible to look at a large enough sample and group the accidents by causality
It probably wouldn't as I bet the term "speed" as a cause would group the 18 yr old driving 75 mph in a 35mph urban area, along with the person going 75mph in a 65mph on an interstate, along with the person who was driving 75mph in a downpour and hydroplaned.
What if it was the same year as an economic downturn or much higher gas prices or ??? that reduced the number of miles driven.
Well if you didn't Pooh-pooh the statistics, you would see that the reason there are so many is so that an astute reader would note that these are considered by the presentation of charts like "accidents/million miles driven". You may need to look at 5, or 10, or 20 charts to see the whole picture and this helps eliminate the very such variables you mention. The NHTSA presents data "per million miles driven", and they show much better increases in safety then just looking at total accidents!
I'm not saying that it is that but unless an evaluation is done on the big picture the small picture is unreliable.
The data's out there. It just sounds like you're not reading it all.
... then it might be that if the average speed was reduced to 70mph then fatalities would drop significantly more.
I have made this point before; but what is the goal. If the goal is to get the fatality rate as low as possible then we should set the SL to 15mph. We have been content as a society to accept about 40K fatalities/year (and decreasing some) with the SL's over the decades. So as cars get better, and we're fine around 40K, then this allows us to increase our speeds and still not break this 40K fatality/year level. What SL and associated fatality rate would you be content with?
Remember that the speed limits are for everyone not just for what 1 person can do.
The SL's were set and need to be reset because of better vehicle technology for what the average person with the average vehicle can do under ideal conditions. The SL's are not set so that the collector in a Model T, the 85 year old with cataracts, the civic worker driving the garbage truck, or the person putting on makeup all can get along. They should either not be on the interstate system, but definitely stay out of the left-lanes. The SL's should be set for the experienced driver, in a fairly new car, under light to moderate traffic conditions, on a sunny day.
The SL should be a maximum. If any of the following apply - rain, you're driving a '75 Pinto with bald tires, you just had a concussion, you've had 2 drinks, you're on the phone, then you shouldn't be driving what the SL should be set at.
but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability
No that isn't true. People will drive what is comfortable for them. And yes people do err. But if the state today set a SL of 100mph, everyone is not going to try and drive 100mph. People will still drive 70-75 mph because that is their comfort-zone, and the fact that most cars will get quite noisy and the mpg would drop too much for peoples wallets. What you'd have though is a society that is then in compliance with the law, rather then having 80-90% of the people driving illegally (speeding).
2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Those comments are about the current SL, not a higher SL. All many of us want is for everyone to drive about the same speed. And that same speed is not what is on the SL's today. Up each SL 10-15 mph and we'd all be happy, and in compliance with the laws.
Make the average driver (not the racer or tailgater type) today legal - that is my position.
If p
Then q
Are there any other factors? Or was this a controlled experiment with only the speed having been changed? I don't think that's the case, so the other variables don't allow a conclusion here.
I just realized that I can use this over in the "Are Automobiles causing GW?" forum. Just because CO2 is going up, doesn't prove that any warming can be contributed to it, because there are many other variables, and the atmosphere is not a controlled experiment.
End of a WRX? (before and after pics)
Note that the NHTSA's front crash ratings are based on a car going 35 mph when it hits a wall or another car going 35 mph. That's way below typical highway speeds.
Bob's fine btw.
If you want to use safety as a reason to slow people down, then you had better start considering SL's under 30mph; OR to build our vehicles like NASCAR. A NASCAR stock car is probably pretty safe at 55, 65, or 85 mph.
What are you thoughts on overall US stats? We have more people, driving more cars, and we have upped speed limits at least compared to where they were ten or so years ago - yet the accident and death rates have continued to decline?
Are you comfortable drawing any trend out of that?
I had a professor in college who made an interesting point (and who knows, he may have got this elsewhere) From a safety standpoint if you want to change behavior replace the driver side air bag with a sword that deploys on impact. He figured everybody would drive safely with that kind of device in the car.
Clearly a bit extreme, but it the reduction in drivers would sure take care of traffic Jams!
Are you comfortable drawing any trend out of that?
I'm not comfortable drawing any trends or conclusions from that because there are many other factors at play.
- higher seat belt use
- ABS on many more vehicles
- stability control on many vehicles
- airbags on many more vehicles, and many of those with multiple airbags
- better designs of cars with respect to crush/crumple zones
- highway designs (signage, lighting, materials used, much longer merge lanes, shelter belts, etc)
As I said previously, it could be that if the SL had not been raise then the death rates may have been even lower (or maybe not). Until a study is published which removes/normalizes all these other variables one cannot conclude that driving faster is safer.
Decaying infrastructure
More "toys" in the car
More traffic
An increase in things like road rage
Not sure on better freeways - Here in the Pacific Northwest it is impossible to build almost any new road!, so we have poor merge lanes, on and off ramps on the left side of the road, carpool lanes that snake back and forth, etc.
- so is your position neutral or do you believe that slower is safer?
the loop around dc is not one of my favorite place to drive.
why do you think he was going 30 mph? the car travelled way too far after the initial impact, according to the story. maybe losing the brakes is the reason. why did it lose the brakes? the tires and brakes are still on the car.
there isn't much damage in the back of the car.
i have seen a similar accident as is happened, a few years ago. there was somewhat of a curve in the highway involved.
a car got hit in the back on a right turning curve of the highway. it made an immediate left into the jersey barrier, did a 180 and went back across all the lanes of the highway, 3 or 4, and hit the concrete on the right side after that.
... so why would you drive, knowing that 'speed kills'?
:P
Oh sorry, thought that was in the blog, but Bob talked about the wreck over in the Subaru boards:
"The traffic had slowed to a stop very quickly, and I had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of me. I then got hit by someone doing maybe 50 or 60 mph from the rear. I was pushed into the car in front of me that had slowed to a stop. I may have hit that car at maybe 30 mph or faster. I was in the fast lane, and my car then went up on to the jersey barrier that blocks oncoming traffic. Next my car then careened into the middle lane hitting another car, or two, or three. I ended up maybe 50 yards down the road as I had lost my brakes at that point."
rsholland, "Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II" #30511, 28 Sep 2008 6:36 pm
More pics on his CarSpace page:
http://www.carspace.com/rsholland/?50@@.5c85a825
What I should have said was that he went from 60 to standing on the brakes to 30 at impact I guess, but I'm not exactly sure how it all went down. Stuff like that happens so fast Bob may not be positive either.
Anyway, amongst the fat is an interesting tidbit, Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provisions. Included a tax credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles, like the Chevy Volt. Minimum $2500 plus $417 for each kWh battery capacity above 4 kWh. Limits set by weight. Most passenger vehicles will probably get the $7500 limit on vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds. Limit is higher for larger vehicles.
Slower is a relative term. But overall yes if people would slow down a tad then everybody would be safer for it, there would be less oil used and consequently less pollution produced.
As another poster said speed is raerly the sole factor in an accident, ususlly it takes 2 or 3 things to go wrong, but speed is one of the few variables that a driver has control over. At 60 mph a vehicle covers 88ft/sec at 80 mph it is 117ft/sec. Since it takes approx 1.5 sec for a person to react you have a ~45ft difference right there. Stopping distances (including reaction time) are 60mph: 240ft 80mph: 400ft. I've had close calls with wildlife on the highway so I am very much aware how different things could have been for me if I was driving even just 5 mph faster. Until one goes through a 'reality check' like that they don't realize how perilous speed can be.
Driving is a matter of risk management. (its been a while so lets see if I can remember it)
With risk we have several options and they are not mutually exclusive:
- risk avoidance (don't drive)
- risk mitigation/reduction (drive slower, maintain your car, drive a safer vehicle etc)
- risk transfer (in general terms this is insurance, but for driving it would be - send someone else so you don't have to go)
- risk acceptance (you've done the things above, but the requirement to drive is greater than the amount of risk left so you choose to drive)
So let's quit with the BS of setting speed limits on the highways below 55 so it is 'safer' since that is not practical.
Speed is the variable over which the driver has control. But there are other factors that occur due to the "need to speed" so present in many drivers. They make lane changes excessively. They are careless in their lane changes. They tailgate. They try to find aggressive driving manners to "show" the other drivers that the other drivers aren't pleasing the ones speeding relative to other drivers and the traffic situation or the speed limit.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Why? As I've heard here before "we should just leave earlier, and not rush. Time is not important." If people get upset about 1,000 dead and thousands injured in Iraq / year, why is there no outrage that we have 40,000 dead even when the SL's were 55mph? I don't get the logic here that if you support safe-roads you don't just pick a speed that is safe.
My opinion is that there is a criminal and incompetent element in the driving population that causes most of the accidents. These people need to be banned from driving and if necessary harshly punished if they do. So eliminate that 2-4% of the driving population. Then you'll get fatality rates of about 10,000. Take that gain and allow people to drive faster. Or as our cars get better, accordingly increase the SL's, even if then the fatality rates don't come down.
Incorrect, Wrong, but a common fallacy for people that don't know much about driving or traffic patterns.
The speed limit has little to absolutely no effect on the way and speed in which people drive on the road. Studies by the NMA have shown that whether the speed limit is 35 or 45, people will continue to drive the exact same speed they always do, plus or minus just a couple MPH. So if people average 75 MPH on a 65 maximum speed highway, it is logical to conclude that a 100 MPH speed limit would result in the average speed increasing only a couple MPH.
Tailgate.......obviously someone is driving too slow in front or they wouldn't have caught up to them to get close enough to tail gate!
If they would speed up the tail gater would not longer be tail gating.
Tailgate.......obviously someone is driving too slow in front or they wouldn't have caught up to them to get close enough to tail gate!
If they would speed up the tail gater would not longer be tail gating.
A typical response from someone who only thinks of themselves on the road. Take no responsibility for your own actions to take care when passing other vehicles. To drive safely to prevent accidents and not create a problem on the road.
Was it you that was driving an Escape recently that I saw ahead of me who couldn't wait a few seconds for a car to finish passing someone so they cut off the person that was being passed and then slalomed in front of the passing vehicle. All that and the Escape was leaning so much during the manouvers that the other vehicles slowed down because they thought he was going to roll it.
The other times I just sit back and fume as I see tons of traffic slowed down and wasting extra fuel due to some idiots that dont' know how to drive or keep up with the flow. They block, impede, and hamper traffic, with no regard for efficiency or other people. I sit back and steam.
But my driving record is completely unblemished, no at-fault accidents from the age of 16 and now I'm 30!
tickets, oh yeah, I've had my share of those, but they were all non-sense. In fact, since I haven't caused any at-fault accidents ever, the score is 1 to 0 on me vs. the cops. Cops have rear ended me once, and I've never rear ended anyone, ever. Score is 1 to 0 in my favor, I wish judges would throw out the citations accordingly.
In fact, I propose a law that all citations will be thrown out unless someone has an AT-Fault accident on their record.
That degree of indefendability is why you deserve to pay much more for your insurance premium. Now, the non sense makes sense doesn't it?
Why is 55 mph considered reasonable if it's just a matter of risk management?
Some manage risk better than others, therefore they can and should drive faster. Some cannot, and should not be allowed to drive at all.
If we simply enforced proper lane discipline, then those with poor risk management abilities would naturally be driving in the 'slow' lane, driving a safe, slow speed - not having to worry about all those nasty 'speed demons' that threaten their ability to drive. After all, these are the ones that tend to get nervous and afraid the faster they drive, thus preventing them from driving fast in the first place.
And those 'speed demons' can drive in the 'faster' lanes without worry of all those 'slow' drivers retarding the flow of traffic.
Thus, everyone is happy - and not in each other's way.
Yes, everyone would be happy... except those 'control freaks' that believe that everyone should do as is told.
:shades:
I've seen far too many people tailgate on empty multi-lane city streets... at speeds of 35 mph. Even though they could easily pass with no effort whatsoever, very aggressive drivers will still tailgate at any speed.
It's not about the speed, it's all about making the 'other driver' do what they want.
We are literally wasting 100-200M a day with our current practice; a lot of poential discretionary spending and saving simply going up the tailpipe. We 'waste' enough energy by driving at speeds beyond a vehicle's peak fuel efficency to pay out the current bailout in less than 1 generation. Therefore, to lawmakers 700B in the real scheme of things is simply just another number. Read Edmunds.com article on "tire pressure study." We waste 30-35B a year(est) using Edmund's data and USDOT estmates.
In short, our economy needs a jumpstart and a 65 mph national speed limit is just as vitally needed as it is unpopular. And install free air machines at all interstate and other strategically located rest areas.
T
While I wish others well, and I give enough in taxes and charity, that I'm also going to give up everything for some other people - who may or may not be working as hard as I am. I was out cutting/hauling/splitting firewood this weekend; if anyone would like to stay warm, I'm sure I can direct you to some wood cutting websites.
So if I want to "waste" fuel by taking a pleasure trip, drive a little faster, or really "waste" fuel and rent an RV and go to a game, I will. That's the whole concept of our economic system. You get paid and can spend your money as you wish. You may have a moral imperative that you can't enjoy life to the fullest, because you might be taking from others, well that's your choice.
The information was featured on the chart...if you choose to ignore it that is your problem. Or you can prove that the Colorado Department of Transportation just makes these things up.
cdn_tch: It is, but is it because of car design, highway design/materials, better understanding of what makes a highway 'safe'... If the hypothesis that traffic is safer at 70mph than 80 mph, but the average speed is 80mph with fatalities dropping marginally, then it might be that if the average speed was reduced to 70mph then fatalities would drop significantly more.
Or, the more likely scenario, based on past experience is that if we begin targeting the slower drivers, instead of listening to whining about "speeders," the fatatities would drop even more.
cdn_tch: Emotion has to be taken out of the discussion.
That's what those who understand the relationship between speed and safety are trying to do, as the "slow is good" and "65 mph is fast enough for everyone" and "faster drivers are a danger" arguments are based on hysteria and ignorance.
cdn_tch: Yes, people could drive below a given speed limit, but the reality is that 1) many people ignore the word maximum on the sign and will attempt to drive at that speed regardless of their or their vehicles ability and 2) read through this thread and look at the comments about anyone driving below the speed limit.
Which provides anecdotal evidence that most speed limits are underposted.
another thing about my post was i meant a 90 degree turn, not 180.
it did do a 180 after the 90 into the jersey barrier.
anyways. glad he's ok.
There have been many, many studies on speed and safety, but as with most scientific studies, you start with what others have done and add a bit of new knowledge. (This is not a slight or facetiousness. Science builds upon previous work) So any particular subject ends up looking like a pyramid. Sometimes, a new piece is added that chips away at the base and so that a lot of previous work gets re-evaluated based on those changes.
Studies done by D. Solomon (1964) and J. Cirillo (1968) showed that slower cars had a higher incidence of accidents relative to faster cars (I couldn't find these online anywhere except for sale, and I'm not going to spend the money to read them). These studies have been used as a base for most of the future studies that followed.
I found the following 2006 paper: BTS: Speed as a Risk Factor... which looked at whether the Solomon and Cirillo findings were or were not valid.
I urge those who are interested to read it as it does provide a very good discussion of elimination of variables and how they went about using other peoples research and adding their own parts to it, mostly in the form of advanced statistical modeling. When you read the paper please note their comments on how the original studies compiled their data and what was/wasn't included.
In their conclusion they state "In the introduction we indicated that a salient issue with regard to the role of speed in road crashes concerns the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk. Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved. ...we found that these data did not support the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed and crash risk, although risk did tend to increase as a function of speed."
Thanks to you for gathering this information. That should settle it.
BTW, do you know what "U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk" means?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It is from a chart that shows the relationship between the # of accidents (The U) across a graph of speed, listed as SL in middle with either side being + or - % to either side. The graph shows that there are more accidents at ~10% under SL than at 10% over SL.
Is risk the same as an accident? We all understand going faster has the potential to cause more bodily injury, just as going 8' on a ladder is riskier than going 6'. But if the risk doesn't turn into a fact the risk is not very probable (I make risk vs. probability graphs in my job to rate what issues are of importance.)
Next looking at that report - the dates of the various references; I would guess that most of the vehicles studied did not have ABS, or stability control.
Also I see the studies were from Australia(!) and Minnesota. I believe Australia has a few urban areas, and some paved highways, but thousands of miles of high-speed roads through the Outback. Hardly a place comparable to the Autobahn/European roads or U.S. highways.
So let me say the study is probably accurate for what it is, but is dated and not similar. The most accurate data is the crash data that's collected each year by the NHTSA, and it clearly shows that the roads are safer on a per-mile basis, and this despite a general disregard for the current SL's.
The way I read it, risk = probability of accident
Next looking at that report - the dates of the various references; I would guess that most of the vehicles studied did not have ABS, or stability control.
And the original studies were done in the 60's, and included 2 lane roads.
Also I see the studies were from Australia(!) and Minnesota. I believe Australia has a few urban areas, and some paved highways, but thousands of miles of high-speed roads through the Outback. Hardly a place comparable to the Autobahn/European roads or U.S. highways.
They have about 350,000km of paved highways with a government initiative to pave much of the other 500,000km of unpaved roads.
So let me say the study is probably accurate for what it is, but is dated and not similar. The most accurate data is the crash data that's collected each year by the NHTSA, and it clearly shows that the roads are safer on a per-mile basis, and this despite a general disregard for the current SL's.
The crash data collected by the NHSTA is just the raw data with NO attempt to correlate speed vs incidence of accidents.
Yes it is not an accident. It is a probability, and what is a probability based on? - someones assumptions of what the factors in the probability formula should be.
Now it seems you rather believe someone's assumptions over actual data and reality. Most everyone else would choose actual data - no matter how "raw" we consider it.
I don't consider the data raw as my experience in the world everyday, and what I read here everyday is that the typical motorist "speeds" relative to the SL's. Since 90% of the people speed, the data does not have to be separated - the data basically is only of speeders, that the NHTSA collects. And it is that way year after year thus allowing comparisions. If anything with more powerful cars and better gearing, speeds are higher than ever; but the fatality rates continue to drop with most everyone ignoring the SL's.
Did you read the paper in the link I gave??? Of course it is only a probability, noone will ever say if you travel at this speed you WILL have an accident. The conclusion they came to was that there is a correlation between the likelyhood of an accident and speed. And yes if you read the math they did do some probability analysis as well.
Now it seems you rather believe someone's assumptions over actual data and reality.
They made an assumption and used DATA to see IF their assumption was correct. Please read the paper.
Since 90% of the people speed, the data does not have to be separated - the data basically is only of speeders, that the NHTSA collects.
Huh? Unless you are looking at a different dataset from NHTSA than I have seen published they breakdown the aggregate of all accidents by age, gender, state, month, vehicle type, alcohol level, seat belt use, single/multi vehicle. Only 1 page lists speed, and it shows that 31% of fatal accidents and 32% of fatalities are speeding related. There is no study of the numbers, they are just sliced and diced in different ways.
As I said before the report is too old and based partly on driving conditions in Australia. I would not waste more than 2 minutes on that - as I did to find major flaws in it, though the math is probably correct; but again based on the partial, obsolete data. You might as well do a study on how dangerous it is to cross the streets in Boise, by analyzing the daily patterns of 20 people last week.
The NHTSA data is current, accurate, and encompasses the whole driving population in the U.S.
Huh? Unless you are looking at a different dataset from NHTSA than I have seen published they breakdown the aggregate of all accidents by age, gender, state, month, vehicle type, alcohol level, seat belt use, single/multi vehicle
Huh? I never said it was in the NHTSA data. Many times you have to use data from different sources to solve any question or issue. Are you expecting them to spoon-feed you? The answer to how many people speed is right in front of your eyes, if you go on an interstate. Or if you would like to ask any cop or police force what they measure as average speeds vs. their speed limits. Or I'm sure some data is published from the state police forces on avergae vehicle speeds.
When's the last time you were on an interstate? What was the SL, and what do you think the majority of people were driving?