3 ms·
I feel as though we are talking past each other and I've been quite clear in my statements. Yes, until you crash, speed is safe, nearly by definition. Or as t
by tristor 5y ago
I feel as though we are talking past each other and I've been quite clear in my statements. Yes, until you crash, speed is safe, nearly by definition. Or as the saying goes, "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing." Two drivers who are paying attention, signalling lane changes, and maintaining lane keeping, where one driver passes the other on the left doing 90mph as the other driver is doing 80mph in a 65mph zone on a clear sunny day without heavy traffic are not in any way increasing the risk profile of each other by exceeding the speed limit or speeding in relation to one another. One of those drivers staring at an iPad playing a movie in the center of their steering wheel rather than at the road and weaving erratically MASSIVELY increases the risk profile of themselves and other drivers on the road, /regardless/ of the speed they are moving at.
> Everyone believes they’re an above average driver, you’re demonstrating one of the most common biases on the road.
Sure, and in my case it's actually true. I don't feel like it's necessary to list off credentials, but if you had read my other comments you would probably have picked up on the fact that I drive on track. E.g. I have engaged in significant amounts of high-speed maneuvering under professional instruction and solo that exceeds the level of car control understanding necessary for driving under normal road conditions. I hold a competition racing license from more than one racing body, and have lived and drove outside the US where I was licensed to drive under much more rigorous conditions than required to get a license in the US. While this is a common bias, in my case, it is absolutely true that I am a better driver who is more educated about vehicle dynamics and car control than the average driver on US roads.
> Btw in light of the fact that most accidents happen at lower speed you may also be demonstrating a correlation-causation accident by asserting that speeding is safer. Driving faster does not reduce your risks.
Every single study on this matter I've seen that was conducted in the US clearly showed that increases in speed increased the probability of fatalities when an accident occured /and/ lowered the probability of an accident occurring. I don't know the "cause" of this, but I have a few guesses, my primary one being that people who speed habitually tend to be more focused on driving and that lowering speeds results in driving being boring which causes attention to shift. But that's just a guess. The evidence supports my viewpoint, and I've already pointed out to you directly that I am optimizing personally, for reducing the probability of an accident occurring, not the consequences of an accident when it does occur.
- dahart 5y agoYour comments are clear, it’s the logic that seems to be rationalizing and ignoring the expert advice of the people studying road safety. You’ve mentioned un-cited “studies” multiple times that, so you say, contradict the one study actually posted to this thread by the NHTSA. The NHTSA has been crystal clear for decades that speed is a major contributing factor to accidents as well as fatalities. The same goes for many other countries, if you really care to read the studies. Drunk driving is, by your logic, safe until you crash, “by definition”. Same goes for using a phone while driving. Your example is false. People speeding do increase the risk profile. There are scenarios where it’s low, but speeding always reduces reaction time for something unexpected, and always increases damage when a collision at that speed occurs. Claiming that speeding is safe until you crash is not a useful way to evaluate risk. You need to look at outcomes to understand risks. Counting accidents is one valid way to estimate outcomes, but if you only count accidents then you are “by definition” ignoring damage and therefore your safety. Your clear statements contradict each other. When you say you’re optimizing for your safety, and then say you’re ignoring the consequences of an accident after it occurs, then one of those things isn’t true.
- tristor 5y agoI think we fundamentally disagree about what constitutes a "cause" for an accident. You say speeding causes accidents because "speeding always reduces reaction time for something unexpected," where I would say that the "something unexpected" was the cause of the accident. If people are driving correctly, drivers should be looking ahead and not taking erratic, unexpected, or sudden actions. When people don't drive correctly, they cause accidents. Speed is not a causative factor, in the way that I look at this issue. I'll reiterate, I'm concerned with reducing the number of accidents that happen, not the consequences of the accidents that do happen.
- dahart 5y agoYou’re right, I disagree with you, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. Again, by your logic, alcohol is not a cause either. You’re rationalizing. Something unexpected is always a possibility. Therefore, choosing to speed is always risky, it’s a poor choice because unexpected things happen. > I'll reiterate, I'm concerned with reducing the number of accidents that happen, not the consequences of the accidents that do happen. Yes. I’ve heard this point loud and clear multiples times. You don’t seem to be hearing the response. If you ignore the consequences, you are ignoring safety. BTW the stats I posted show the number of speeding accidents increasing while the total number of accidents is decreasing. You should care about speeding even by your own standards.