2 ms·

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

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.
CWuestefeld 5y ago
Like you, I've never had an accident (I've been licensed and driving for 39 years). While I don't have an SCCA license or the like, I have taken performance driving training, and done a fair amount of kart racing. I definitely see where you're coming from. I'd like to point out that much of the argument against speed is the assumption that, in order to avoid an accident, speed must be shed. I believe this is false - or really, that it depends on circumstances. In normal circumstances, slowing down or stopping may be the best way to avoid an collision depending on the specifics. But there are other specifics in which you can, e.g., avoid the car coming at you by going faster yet. The obvious example is at a 4-way intersection, where you can avoid being T-boned by breaking before entering the oncoming path, or by completely crossing the path before the other car arrives. So simply saying that a faster-moving car is more likely to be involved in a collision because it takes longer to scrub the speed isn't necessarily true. (And while that's one factor against the "war on speed", I still think, as you stated above, that the most important factor is that driving slow allows people to let their attention wander.)

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.

CWuestefeld 5y ago

Like you, I've never had an accident (I've been licensed and driving for 39 years). While I don't have an SCCA license or the like, I have taken performance driving training, and done a fair amount of kart racing. I definitely see where you're coming from. I'd like to point out that much of the argument against speed is the assumption that, in order to avoid an accident, speed must be shed. I believe this is false - or really, that it depends on circumstances. In normal circumstances, slowing down or stopping may be the best way to avoid an collision depending on the specifics. But there are other specifics in which you can, e.g., avoid the car coming at you by going faster yet. The obvious example is at a 4-way intersection, where you can avoid being T-boned by breaking before entering the oncoming path, or by completely crossing the path before the other car arrives. So simply saying that a faster-moving car is more likely to be involved in a collision because it takes longer to scrub the speed isn't necessarily true. (And while that's one factor against the "war on speed", I still think, as you stated above, that the most important factor is that driving slow allows people to let their attention wander.)