2 ms·

Your 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-ci

by dahart 5y ago

Your 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 ago
I 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 ago
  You’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.
  - tristor 5y ago
    I would posit the difference in our viewpoint largely comes down to the fact I've spent a considerable amount of time on a racetrack. On a track, speed is kind of the point, so reducing speed is not an appropriate way to reduce your risk profile and increase safety. Instead we focus heavily on ensuring that drivers on track are educated and practice safe driving behaviors, like appropriate signalling, maintaining their line, looking ahead and committing, and being predictable. By your logic, when taken to the extreme, you should never exceed the speed by which the safety technology in your vehicle can completely prevent injury (which is about 35-40mph in most modern vehicles). By my logic, when taken to the extreme, you should never take any action that you haven't planned ahead and signaled clearly to other drivers. Neither is unreasonable, but they come from a different place. I keep reiterating my main point, because I think we should agree to disagree. Speed does not cause accidents, erratic behavior and not looking ahead causes accidents, speed makes the accidents that do happen worse, but if we had less accidents we would still be safer overall. Since I'm not concerned with myself causing an accident, I am most concerned with others causing an accident with me, speed is not what concerns me. In actuality, I see speed on the roadway as a tool to avoid other people who are likely to cause an accident. I almost always drive faster than surrounding traffic to try to get out of being in a position of having cars all around me, because I don't trust other drivers to not do something stupid and dangerous. I've been proven right time and time again, by being able to avoid accidents using speed as a tool. It's somewhat ironic that I feel safer on a race track than I do on a public highway, because of the skill differential of the drivers.
    - dahart 5y ago
      What makes you think you know how much time I’ve spent on a track? > On a track, speed is kind of the point, so reducing speed is not an appropriate way to reduce your risk profile and increase safety. False. Reducing speed will reduce risk on the track. You’re conflating racing and safety. > By my logic, when taken to the extreme, you should never take any action that you haven't planned ahead and signaled clearly to other drivers. I’m still not sure why you don’t acknowledge the clear and obvious reasons why speeding increases your risk under your own stated reasons. Speeding increases the probability of an event the driver hasn’t planned ahead. > Speed does not cause accidents Is it useful to play this semantic game? Don’t you think it’s more valuable to talk about which choices lead to greater risks? There are many valid ways to classify the ‘cause’ if an accident. Blaming the road when you’re doing 35 over seems like a way to stick your head in the sand and discount a bad choice. When it comes to public road safety, don’t you think we should focus on the things we have control over, and not pretend like accidents are uncontrollable, especially when the stats and safety experts all point to excessive speed being a major factor? Since you drive track, you are well aware that roads are designed with certain speeds in mind, and that exceeding the design parameters is more likely to result in an accident.

by dahart 5y ago

tristor 5y ago

I 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 ago
You’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.
- tristor 5y ago
  I would posit the difference in our viewpoint largely comes down to the fact I've spent a considerable amount of time on a racetrack. On a track, speed is kind of the point, so reducing speed is not an appropriate way to reduce your risk profile and increase safety. Instead we focus heavily on ensuring that drivers on track are educated and practice safe driving behaviors, like appropriate signalling, maintaining their line, looking ahead and committing, and being predictable. By your logic, when taken to the extreme, you should never exceed the speed by which the safety technology in your vehicle can completely prevent injury (which is about 35-40mph in most modern vehicles). By my logic, when taken to the extreme, you should never take any action that you haven't planned ahead and signaled clearly to other drivers. Neither is unreasonable, but they come from a different place. I keep reiterating my main point, because I think we should agree to disagree. Speed does not cause accidents, erratic behavior and not looking ahead causes accidents, speed makes the accidents that do happen worse, but if we had less accidents we would still be safer overall. Since I'm not concerned with myself causing an accident, I am most concerned with others causing an accident with me, speed is not what concerns me. In actuality, I see speed on the roadway as a tool to avoid other people who are likely to cause an accident. I almost always drive faster than surrounding traffic to try to get out of being in a position of having cars all around me, because I don't trust other drivers to not do something stupid and dangerous. I've been proven right time and time again, by being able to avoid accidents using speed as a tool. It's somewhat ironic that I feel safer on a race track than I do on a public highway, because of the skill differential of the drivers.
  - dahart 5y ago
    What makes you think you know how much time I’ve spent on a track? > On a track, speed is kind of the point, so reducing speed is not an appropriate way to reduce your risk profile and increase safety. False. Reducing speed will reduce risk on the track. You’re conflating racing and safety. > By my logic, when taken to the extreme, you should never take any action that you haven't planned ahead and signaled clearly to other drivers. I’m still not sure why you don’t acknowledge the clear and obvious reasons why speeding increases your risk under your own stated reasons. Speeding increases the probability of an event the driver hasn’t planned ahead. > Speed does not cause accidents Is it useful to play this semantic game? Don’t you think it’s more valuable to talk about which choices lead to greater risks? There are many valid ways to classify the ‘cause’ if an accident. Blaming the road when you’re doing 35 over seems like a way to stick your head in the sand and discount a bad choice. When it comes to public road safety, don’t you think we should focus on the things we have control over, and not pretend like accidents are uncontrollable, especially when the stats and safety experts all point to excessive speed being a major factor? Since you drive track, you are well aware that roads are designed with certain speeds in mind, and that exceeding the design parameters is more likely to result in an accident.