Speed limits

[4x4ord]

The speed limit on the straight desolate paved road that goes past our place is 80 km/hr. The people who use the road drive whatever speed they please and for the most part it works fine ….. until you come across somebody driving 80 km per hour. The other day I was riding my bike through Banff national park and rode at the upper end of how fast traffic was moving …. about 130 km per hour. For the most part people drove 120 - 130 km/hr. Fortunately there wasn’t a sole driving the posted speed of 90 km/hr. How should we view speed limits? Is a speeding ticket simply a driving tax?

[toedtoes]

JRscooby wrote:

This is 1 reason I always say the best vehicle for first car is a regular cab small pickup with 4 cyl, manual transmission. The low power reduces chance of showing off. Manual transmission mean pay more attention to driving. The frame IMHO is better when (not if) they wreck.
And most important; Think back, every time you got in trouble, or should of got in trouble, there was 3-4 friends in the car with you. The little cab reduces that chance.

Dose of reality: that won't stop kids from being stupid. I've seen kids cram 6 kids in one of those cabs. And regardless of the actual power, they will speed, chase, and otherwise show off.

[MFL]

Scoob...while above may be a good thought, whose son would want his friends to see him in that truck?

That is like telling him he can only date the xxx, xxxx girls, so that he won't be temped to take a test ride, and maybe ruin his future.

Lets be realistic!

Jerry

[JRscooby]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I haven't checked back to see if any body has mentioned it yet, but if every one dropped back the "recommended" spacing, 1 car length per 10 mph or whatever, you would end up with the traffic moving backwards as new cars got into the mix.
bumpy

I don't think that '1 car length per 10 mph' has been a recommendation for a long time. Mostly I have heard spacing given in seconds, not distance. And most do not mention that if you are following a car that can stop faster than you, you need to add time that you would be moving to the 2 seconds it takes you to react. In other words, a car 3 seconds behind a TT is likely not tailgating, but the TV pulling a TT 3 seconds behind the car probably is.

When I was old enough to get my DL, I drove 60 miles to Mom's house. She took me up to office, I took the written test to get the permit, then got in line for drivers part. Left with DL, drove back to farm. Next Sat night showing off my car, the first time driving it to town, a Deputy stopped me. Looked at DL, "I have seen you driving for years!"

Bumpyroad wrote:

toedtoes wrote:


My Mom wouldn't let us drive home after getting our permits or licenses. Her observations showed a lot of kids getting into accidents on those two days - so she removed them from the equation.

I can certainly agree on not letting a kid drive solo. I remember some states restricting driving with two young drivers. If one kid has an IQ of 100 and another gets in with an IQ of 100 the combined IQ would total out to about 60.
bumpy

This is 1 reason I always say the best vehicle for first car is a regular cab small pickup with 4 cyl, manual transmission. The low power reduces chance of showing off. Manual transmission mean pay more attention to driving. The frame IMHO is better when (not if) they wreck.
And most important; Think back, every time you got in trouble, or should of got in trouble, there was 3-4 friends in the car with you. The little cab reduces that chance.

[time2roll]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I haven't checked back to see if any body has mentioned it yet, but if every one dropped back the "recommended" spacing, 1 car length per 10 mph or whatever, you would end up with the traffic moving backwards as new cars got into the mix.
bumpy

Nah. Those that cut in usually don't last long. They pop over to the fast lane and you can move forward again. Even if you let 105 cars in front of you at 4 second spacing you lose max 7 minutes at 60mph. Hardly going backward on a 6 hour drive.

[toedtoes]

Bumpyroad wrote:

toedtoes wrote:


My Mom wouldn't let us drive home after getting our permits or licenses. Her observations showed a lot of kids getting into accidents on those two days - so she removed them from the equation.

I can certainly agree on not letting a kid drive solo. I remember some states restricting driving with two young drivers. If one kid has an IQ of 100 and another gets in with an IQ of 100 the combined IQ would total out to about 60.
bumpy

My Mom didn't let us drive on those two days period. Even if she or my dad were in the car. She said too many of her friends let their kids drive home from taking the test and they got into accidents. She felt it was "tempting fate" to drive after the test.

She also made us wait until we were 18 to get our licenses. Hsr excuse was that by waiting we didn't have to take driver ed (which at that time was not offered by the school nor was free). The truth is that it saved her two years of headaches and high insurance premiums.

[spoon059]

Bumpyroad wrote:
If one kid has an IQ of 100 and another gets in with an IQ of 100 the combined IQ would total out to about 60.
bumpy

None of us are as dumb as all of us...

[toedtoes]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I haven't checked back to see if any body has mentioned it yet, but if every one dropped back the "recommended" spacing, 1 car length per 10 mph or whatever, you would end up with the traffic moving backwards as new cars got into the mix.
bumpy

Not true. It actually would result in a faster traffic.

Traffic slows down because folks are unable to merge at driving speeds. If they want to merge into another lane, they brake and move over or move over and brake. That braking requires those behind them to brake. The driving speed keeps going up and down in exaggeration.

In comparison, leaving the proper space between vehicles allows folks to merge at the driving speed. In order to maintain that distance, the car behind simply coasts for a few seconds. No braking required by anyone. The driving speed stays at a fairly stable rate of speed.

Remember, as long as you are driving forward you are getting to where you are going. Every time you have to lay on the brakes, you are stopping your forward progress.

[Bumpyroad]

toedtoes wrote:


My Mom wouldn't let us drive home after getting our permits or licenses. Her observations showed a lot of kids getting into accidents on those two days - so she removed them from the equation.

I can certainly agree on not letting a kid drive solo. I remember some states restricting driving with two young drivers. If one kid has an IQ of 100 and another gets in with an IQ of 100 the combined IQ would total out to about 60.
bumpy

[Bumpyroad]

I haven't checked back to see if any body has mentioned it yet, but if every one dropped back the "recommended" spacing, 1 car length per 10 mph or whatever, you would end up with the traffic moving backwards as new cars got into the mix.
bumpy

[toedtoes]

spoon059 wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
As such, the report shows that no one stated "he was driving too slow" as the cause of the accident. Yet many many people stated they were distracted, speeding, tailgating, or had fallen asleep, etc. and that's why they hit the other car.

What if the at-fault driver was tailgating because the other driver was "driving too slow"?

Again, the cause is tailgating. Had that person left more room between cars, there wouldn't have been a collision. People drive at different speeds - it's not for one person to "punish" others by tailgating them until they move out of the way. If traffic is so congested that you can not safely go around the slow driver, then you need to slow down accordingly. If traffic is such that you can safely go around the slow driver then you should do so. There is no legitimate reason for tailgating.

Keeping a safe distance from the car in front of you is Driving 101.

[spoon059]

toedtoes wrote:
As such, the report shows that no one stated "he was driving too slow" as the cause of the accident. Yet many many people stated they were distracted, speeding, tailgating, or had fallen asleep, etc. and that's why they hit the other car.

What if the at-fault driver was tailgating because the other driver was "driving too slow"?

[toedtoes]

valhalla360 wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

wing_zealot wrote:
While there may be no evidence that differential speed causes accidents, there is certainly empirical evidence that the greater the differential speed, the greater the potential for having accidents and the greater the severity of the accidents.

Hence there is a reason why there is a minimum speed limit on freeways and why you can't drive your moped on them.

Yes, there are minimum speed limits on freeways. But that minimum is "waived" all the time. Stop and go traffic, road work, icy roads, fog, stormy weather, etc.

One person driving too slow may be annoying. But as long as others are driving an appropriate speed for the conditions and are paying attention, there will be no accident. It's when all those other "people factors" come in that accidents happen. Like the driver who chooses not to slow down but instead swerve around the slow driver on a crowded freeway.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/RC-1609_478401_7.pdf

There is plenty of evidence. See pg7 of the attached (right side graph)
- About 7mph above the average speed (not speed limit) is the safest speed, though obviously, everyone can't go 7mph above the average or the average would move.
- 20mph below average is far worse than 20mph above average (around 3 times as likely to be in a crash).

This graph is from the 1960's but I've seen similar studies that show the same basic pattern.

Going significantly slower than average is dangerous.

You are making your own conclusion that hasn't been shown.

The data shows that you are more likely to Be IN A COLLISION if driving at the much slower speed. It does NOT show that the slow driving person is the CAUSE of the collision. Per the data from the NHTSA study, the CAUSE of that collision is most likely because the other driver was distracted, speeding, tailgating, not correctly judging the amount of space, overcorrecting, falling asleep, etc.

[toedtoes]

Bumpyroad wrote:

wing_zealot wrote:
When I took Driver Ed if any of the instructors caught you driving to Driver Ed, you automatically failed and had to wait a year to take it again. Many of us grew up on farms and had been driving big equipment and trucks for years before we were old enough to get a license.

reminds me of when I went to the court house to take my test. I drove there on my learner's permit and my mom was with me. she went shopping, I went in the court house. when the officer giving me the test and I went out to the car he was surprised no body was with me. he did accept the fact that my mom had been with me and went shopping but I don't think I totally convinced him. 🙂
bumpy

My Mom wouldn't let us drive home after getting our permits or licenses. Her observations showed a lot of kids getting into accidents on those two days - so she removed them from the equation.

[toedtoes]

valhalla360 wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you don't believe speed kills just look at the pileups with 40-50 cars. Those who are driving the limit are not the problem the speeder is the problem.

Typically, that is poor visibility. They are rarely doing the speed limit. It's more often someone nervous who is traveling substantially below the average of nearby traffic (high differential speed).

Of course, until we have wide spread adaptive speed limits, the limits posted for normal conditions will be too much for icy white out conditions.

According to the NHTSA, approx 94% of car crashes are caused by drivers.

Of those, over 40% are "recognition mistakes" - this is distracted driving or simply not paying attention.

"Decision errors" cause 33.3% of crashes - this includes speeding, tailgating, driving recklessly, and incorrectly judging the speed of other cars or space the driver has to complete an action (e.g., passing another vehicle).


"Driver performance" causes more than 10% - this is oversteering, losing control, etc.

Other errors not related to performance, which mostly is the driver falling asleep causes 7%.

Unknown or unspecified reasons cause 8%.


Note that "driving too slowly" is not listed in any of these categories.

That suggests that your claim that those pile ups are caused by some nervous nellie is inaccurate. It is NOT the nervous nellie who causes the accident - it is the driver who is distracted or is making decision mistakes. If that driver were not distracted, speeding, tailgating, miscalculating speed of or space between other vehicles, then the collision would not have occurred.

The nervous nellie does NOT hit other vehicles - other drivers hit the nervous nellie. And they do so because they are distracted or making bad decisions.

In a foggy situation, with a speed limit of 55mph, one should expect and be extra observant of vehicles driving much slower, or even stopped traffic. A driver who chooses to drive 55 in that situation has no one to blame but himself if he hits a car going 45mph.

You've found a flaw in the way crashes are reported. The cop is almost never present to see the accident unfold. They typically have little or no evidence to go off of (usually conflicting he said/she said), so they typically fall back following to closely for conditions or driving too fast for conditions...well because if they weren't there wouldn't have been a crash.

That's great in terms of handing out a ticket or determining who's insurance pays up. It's not very useful in determining how to fix the problem.

If there is a 100 car pile up, that suggests 99 cars selected a speed they felt was reasonable and 1 felt they needed a significantly slower speed...but again, if the average speed is 50mph in a 70mph zone, it's not relevant to setting the speed limit.

Actually, this data was based on a project where the NHTSA went out to the accidents with the police and questioned the drivers at the scene and then compared those statements to the cars' data and the skidmarks, damage to the cars, etc.

As such, the report shows that no one stated "he was driving too slow" as the cause of the accident. Yet many many people stated they were distracted, speeding, tailgating, or had fallen asleep, etc. and that's why they hit the other car.

So your argument doesn't hold water.

In a 100 car pileup, it does not mean 99 people were going one faster speed and one was going much slower. That is your bias showing. All it means is that 99 people failed to not hit another car.

It could have been caused because there was a large piece of debris in the roadway and the first car swerved to avoid it thereby causing the cars around it to swerve and all the cars behind were following too close to stop in time.

It could be that one person was driving significantly faster than everyone else and didn't see the car ahead due to fog and hit it causing a chain reaction.

It could be that someone was trying to read a report on the way to work while driving and swerved to make their accident causing a chain reaction.

The idea that all (or even a significant number) of these pile ups were caused because one person chose to drive too slow is simply trying to justify speeding - and it doesn't work.

In reality, the best way to avoid a pile up is to increase the space between cars. If the car in front of you swerves, slows down, or farts, you should be far enough back to not have to slam on your brakes. And if you avoid hitting them and take a huge sigh of relief, you were still too close.

That's why the three second rules works - because the faster you are going the more room between you and the car in front of you. Because the higher speed requires a greater stopping distance. But most people maintain one car length or less between them and the car in front of them at any speed - because heaven forbid someone is allowed to move over in front of them. Heck, they might have to drop their speed from 70 to 67 for a minute in order to reestablish that space and that is unacceptable.

[Bumpyroad]

wing_zealot wrote:
When I took Driver Ed if any of the instructors caught you driving to Driver Ed, you automatically failed and had to wait a year to take it again. Many of us grew up on farms and had been driving big equipment and trucks for years before we were old enough to get a license.

reminds me of when I went to the court house to take my test. I drove there on my learner's permit and my mom was with me. she went shopping, I went in the court house. when the officer giving me the test and I went out to the car he was surprised no body was with me. he did accept the fact that my mom had been with me and went shopping but I don't think I totally convinced him. 🙂
bumpy