4 ms·

Having done 250kmph / 155mph on the German Autobahn I do wonder what why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid

Having done 250kmph / 155mph on the German Autobahn I do wonder what why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid? No-one forces you to drive faster (1) and when driving you can stick to the right lane (2) and check your mirrors when you need to pass (3).

barbazoo 4y ago
The relative speed difference of 130km/h means you're closing in on the traffic in front of you at 36m/s. That doesn't sound like much but if you consider how long it takes from checking the mirror to changing lanes, that's often just not enough time. Numerous times I've had the situation where I checked the mirror and by the time I've changed lanes, some car almost rear ended me. Relative speed differences like that are just a recipe for disaster and the only way to fix that is to make the fast car go slower.
14 4y ago
When I ride my motorbike it rides comfortably at about 160km/hr. For that bike it is a very comfortable speed the bike likes. If I want to rip it can do 180plus. It maxes out at 200km/hr. Even at 200 really isn’t that fast for the open highways where I live. But a huge majority of the driver population has a hard time driving at sub 80km/hr speeds so we kind of need to adjust for the lowest denominator. I think the best system would be one where speed limits change based on time of day and weather. Also perhaps drivers could take extra testing and get licensed to go faster. Some people are just more capable then others. I personally feel very comfortable at 200km/hr.
- MandieD 4y ago
  How would you enforce per-driver speed limits? As it stands, car insurance sort-of does this: German policies usually reserve the right to refuse payment if you’re at fault and were going more than 130. How could this be managed for all the non-German vehicles that pass through? How invasive would this be? As a sibling comment said, the difference in speed is what makes for the danger, and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around might be less-prepared to deal with you popping up at 200 as he’s trying to pass a truck lumbering along at 80.
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    > and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around That’s the other extreme that is a part of the problem. Both, the speedster and the slouch think their speed is safer for them. Driving too slow for the traffic around is as dangerous as driving too fast.
    - Retric 4y ago
      It isn’t symmetric. Being X kph faster than traffic is significantly more risky than being X kph slower than traffic. It’s that damn Velocity squared term that always fucks things up.
      - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
        Yeah, being too fast can be bad for you. Being too slow can be bad for many around you. A guess. An average, don’t take it literally.
        Retric 4y ago
        Being too fast is much worse for the people you get into an accident with because it’s simply a more energetic collision. Being to fast is therefore much worse for the people around you. Slow drivers annoy other drivers, speeders tend to kill other drivers.
        rad_gruchalski 4y ago
        Slow drivers not paying attention kill other drivers. As proven by all fatalities in countries without such speed differences. Yes, I get the kinetic energy argument. Lack of attention while driving is the real killer. Speed can be a factor.
        Retric 4y ago
        Fast drivers not paying attention are again much more dangerous because they over take other drivers and need to respond accordingly. Slow drivers on the other hand are being overtaken and so their inattention is rarely an issue for others on a freeway.
- Retric 4y ago
  Feeling comfortable has almost nothing to do with actually being safe at those speeds. People talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect all the time because it’s so insidious. Doing 200kph on a good bike is very unlikely to kill you the first time. You’re terrified and try and minimize the risks, but soon you’ve done it a few times and it feels old hat. What changed wasn’t skills just desensitization so people end up having higher risk as they start to feel more safe. There are ways to actually get better, but it’s always going to be extremely dangerous and if you start to think differently it’s very much time to stop.
danparsonson 4y ago
> why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid? That argument works both ways - why do you feel like you should take away a person's right to safer roads just because you didn't have a kid? Any speed limit or lack thereof does not account for driving skill. A victim of a car accident loses a lot more than a sense of fun.
throw827474737 4y ago
Doesn't need kids to cringe for one's life is all I can say, and fine to take any fun for that away :p

barbazoo 4y ago

The relative speed difference of 130km/h means you're closing in on the traffic in front of you at 36m/s. That doesn't sound like much but if you consider how long it takes from checking the mirror to changing lanes, that's often just not enough time. Numerous times I've had the situation where I checked the mirror and by the time I've changed lanes, some car almost rear ended me. Relative speed differences like that are just a recipe for disaster and the only way to fix that is to make the fast car go slower.

14 4y ago

When I ride my motorbike it rides comfortably at about 160km/hr. For that bike it is a very comfortable speed the bike likes. If I want to rip it can do 180plus. It maxes out at 200km/hr. Even at 200 really isn’t that fast for the open highways where I live. But a huge majority of the driver population has a hard time driving at sub 80km/hr speeds so we kind of need to adjust for the lowest denominator. I think the best system would be one where speed limits change based on time of day and weather. Also perhaps drivers could take extra testing and get licensed to go faster. Some people are just more capable then others. I personally feel very comfortable at 200km/hr.

MandieD 4y ago
How would you enforce per-driver speed limits? As it stands, car insurance sort-of does this: German policies usually reserve the right to refuse payment if you’re at fault and were going more than 130. How could this be managed for all the non-German vehicles that pass through? How invasive would this be? As a sibling comment said, the difference in speed is what makes for the danger, and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around might be less-prepared to deal with you popping up at 200 as he’s trying to pass a truck lumbering along at 80.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  > and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around That’s the other extreme that is a part of the problem. Both, the speedster and the slouch think their speed is safer for them. Driving too slow for the traffic around is as dangerous as driving too fast.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It isn’t symmetric. Being X kph faster than traffic is significantly more risky than being X kph slower than traffic. It’s that damn Velocity squared term that always fucks things up.
    - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
      Yeah, being too fast can be bad for you. Being too slow can be bad for many around you. A guess. An average, don’t take it literally.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Being too fast is much worse for the people you get into an accident with because it’s simply a more energetic collision. Being to fast is therefore much worse for the people around you. Slow drivers annoy other drivers, speeders tend to kill other drivers.
        rad_gruchalski 4y ago
        Slow drivers not paying attention kill other drivers. As proven by all fatalities in countries without such speed differences. Yes, I get the kinetic energy argument. Lack of attention while driving is the real killer. Speed can be a factor.
        Retric 4y ago
        Fast drivers not paying attention are again much more dangerous because they over take other drivers and need to respond accordingly. Slow drivers on the other hand are being overtaken and so their inattention is rarely an issue for others on a freeway.
Retric 4y ago
Feeling comfortable has almost nothing to do with actually being safe at those speeds. People talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect all the time because it’s so insidious. Doing 200kph on a good bike is very unlikely to kill you the first time. You’re terrified and try and minimize the risks, but soon you’ve done it a few times and it feels old hat. What changed wasn’t skills just desensitization so people end up having higher risk as they start to feel more safe. There are ways to actually get better, but it’s always going to be extremely dangerous and if you start to think differently it’s very much time to stop.

danparsonson 4y ago

> why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid? That argument works both ways - why do you feel like you should take away a person's right to safer roads just because you didn't have a kid? Any speed limit or lack thereof does not account for driving skill. A victim of a car accident loses a lot more than a sense of fun.

throw827474737 4y ago

Doesn't need kids to cringe for one's life is all I can say, and fine to take any fun for that away :p