4 ms·

Driving "too slow" is often dangerous as well. You'll get failed in a UK driving test for going too slow and not keeping up with traffic or generally causing a

Driving "too slow" is often dangerous as well. You'll get failed in a UK driving test for going too slow and not keeping up with traffic or generally causing an obstruction. If you are doing 40mph but everyone else is doing 65-70 then you cause a hazard for people as they have to take evasive action to go around you, then others have to brake to avoid hitting the people going around you, then a ripple braking wave starts behind you, then a BMW driver rear-ends someone half a mile behind you and suddenly you've caused a multiple pile-up where someone died today, because you were going too slow for the conditions.

amelius 5y ago
Uh, it is still their fault if they rear-end you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
newaccount74 5y ago
That's a nice story that people keep telling because they don't like having to slow down. But I seriously doubt that driving below the speed limit has a measurable increase in risk. I would bet the opposite: That driving below the speed limit decreases risk of serious accidents. One reason for that is that rear end accidents where both cars are going in the same direction are typically much less serious than head on collisions. So even if slow drivers increase the risk of rear end accidents (which I doubt is significant), they reduce the impact of head on collisions much more leading to a net positive. People should drive slower, it's always safer. (Apart from dumb maneuvers like brake checking...)
- AuthorizedCust 5y ago
  Research from the 60s has a relative speed/crash incidence curve. It’s lowest for cars going a little above the median speed, about equally dangerous going either way from that in a U shape. Some subsequent research affirms this curve, others call it into question. My own, informal read is that the stronger research generally affirms it.
  - newaccount74 5y ago
    It's not crash incidence I care about, it's "chance of being involved in a fatal accident" that I want to minimize. Reducing the rate of harmless crashes is no good if the rate of severe crashes increases.
    - AuthorizedCust 5y ago
      Speed-CAUSED crashes don’t factor strongly into fatal crash counts. Also, a general trend of increasing rural road or freeway (urban and rural) speed limit increases in the US since 1995 has accompanied continued plunges into record low highway fatality rates. Also, all crashes are relevant. Fatalities can’t happen when there aren’t crashes. The speeding crisis is mostly a moral panic.
      - newaccount74 5y ago
        It doesn't matter if the primary cause of a traffic accident is speed. The relevant question is: "Would this person have died if the cars were driving slower?" And simple physics tells us that almost always the answer is "No". If you try to argue that driving faster is safer, you need to provide strong evidence. Statistical correlation over a time frame where cars and roads have been made much safer doesn't really convince me. Even a correlation between driver speed and collision risk is meaningless -- eg. people with poor vision generally drive slower, but are still more dangerous than drivers with good vision. (I'm not saying that driving fast is unsafe in general. On a well maintained road with good visibility you can drive pretty fast with minimal risk. All I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, driving slower is almost always going to be safer)
        AuthorizedCust 5y ago
        I don’t disagree with the idea that if you’re going to get into a crash, that a slower-speed crash is usually less risky. Where I disagree is that we can stop at basic physics and ignore so many other factors. A focus on physics is kind of like the “but if it saves one life” argument, which is fallacious because it’s contemptuous of all other views. It is not simply the case that anti-speed crusades result in safer roads. The USA’s 55 mph experiment a was a failure in that regard, and Vision Zero campaigns aren’t delivering on promises. We really need to focus on crash elimination, which is not a hyper focus on speed. Crashes that don’t happen can’t injure or kill.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > because they don't like having to slow down An inability to read an argument without imputing your biases onto the person making it makes what you say a bit useless.

amelius 5y ago

Uh, it is still their fault if they rear-end you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

newaccount74 5y ago

That's a nice story that people keep telling because they don't like having to slow down. But I seriously doubt that driving below the speed limit has a measurable increase in risk. I would bet the opposite: That driving below the speed limit decreases risk of serious accidents. One reason for that is that rear end accidents where both cars are going in the same direction are typically much less serious than head on collisions. So even if slow drivers increase the risk of rear end accidents (which I doubt is significant), they reduce the impact of head on collisions much more leading to a net positive. People should drive slower, it's always safer. (Apart from dumb maneuvers like brake checking...)

AuthorizedCust 5y ago
Research from the 60s has a relative speed/crash incidence curve. It’s lowest for cars going a little above the median speed, about equally dangerous going either way from that in a U shape. Some subsequent research affirms this curve, others call it into question. My own, informal read is that the stronger research generally affirms it.
- newaccount74 5y ago
  It's not crash incidence I care about, it's "chance of being involved in a fatal accident" that I want to minimize. Reducing the rate of harmless crashes is no good if the rate of severe crashes increases.
  - AuthorizedCust 5y ago
    Speed-CAUSED crashes don’t factor strongly into fatal crash counts. Also, a general trend of increasing rural road or freeway (urban and rural) speed limit increases in the US since 1995 has accompanied continued plunges into record low highway fatality rates. Also, all crashes are relevant. Fatalities can’t happen when there aren’t crashes. The speeding crisis is mostly a moral panic.
    - newaccount74 5y ago
      It doesn't matter if the primary cause of a traffic accident is speed. The relevant question is: "Would this person have died if the cars were driving slower?" And simple physics tells us that almost always the answer is "No". If you try to argue that driving faster is safer, you need to provide strong evidence. Statistical correlation over a time frame where cars and roads have been made much safer doesn't really convince me. Even a correlation between driver speed and collision risk is meaningless -- eg. people with poor vision generally drive slower, but are still more dangerous than drivers with good vision. (I'm not saying that driving fast is unsafe in general. On a well maintained road with good visibility you can drive pretty fast with minimal risk. All I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, driving slower is almost always going to be safer)
      - AuthorizedCust 5y ago
        I don’t disagree with the idea that if you’re going to get into a crash, that a slower-speed crash is usually less risky. Where I disagree is that we can stop at basic physics and ignore so many other factors. A focus on physics is kind of like the “but if it saves one life” argument, which is fallacious because it’s contemptuous of all other views. It is not simply the case that anti-speed crusades result in safer roads. The USA’s 55 mph experiment a was a failure in that regard, and Vision Zero campaigns aren’t delivering on promises. We really need to focus on crash elimination, which is not a hyper focus on speed. Crashes that don’t happen can’t injure or kill.
robertlagrant 5y ago
> because they don't like having to slow down An inability to read an argument without imputing your biases onto the person making it makes what you say a bit useless.