Discussion: Is speed really dangerous??
 

Lately the item of speeding has come up quite a bit lately. On the freeways now I see signs that say SPEED KILLS. And in today's paper (OC Register, Local Section Speeding 100 mph in Prius, no joke) is another discussion of how dangerous speed is.

I drive fast but I believe in control and I only speed when it is safe to do in my opinion but it seems that this issue may be getting worse for those that drive above the posted limit which is quite a few in Southern California. I do not speed above the limit in residential areas or where children are present.

My argument is that speed does not kill but lack of knowing how to drive properly and car control is what kills. I don't believe traffic school is an aqeduate solution to a ticket but a driving school in which people are instructed on how to drive properly. I have had my license for 10 years now and I have a total of 3 tickets, all speeding for 10-15 miles over the posted limit.

What are your opinions? Am I not seeing the whole issue?

Speeding tickets are a cash grab. Speeding is like guns - guns don't kill people, irresponsible gun users kill people.

Bit of a touchy subject with me... :)

Speed doesn't kill - it's the high moment of inertia to zero that kills (I hope I said that right)

R&T did (and/or quoted) a study years (and years) ago that showed that, on major thoroughfares, it is NOT speed that causes accidents or "kills", it's delta speed -- speed differences.

So, if the posted limit is 75, which you're doing, and some dfbroad is doing 55, that delta is more dangerous than if you were both doing 75, or 85, etc.

The geeks at NHTSA knew this as well, but figured if the limit was lowered to 55, you're essentially squashing the delta.

FWIW, moment of inertia is for a rotational inertia -- like mass for linear motion -- but specified for a chosen axis of rotation.

JP

Eventually doing anything dangerous catches up to you. It called odds. No matter how good you think you are you always crap out once. Depending on how bad the loss is what determines if you want to keep gambling.

Many people don't understand, it's not about YOU. It's about all the other morons around you. America gives a driver's license to anyone, which means that you're surrounded by idiots that managed to pass an open book test. The consequences of this are obvious, people don't act predictably, don't follow proper driving procedures, and often lack skill. So, you may be overqualified to go 100 MPH in a 60, but the 16 year old girl that just swerved in front of you going 60 while texting her friend is not.

Why do you think Germany's autobahn has a similar death rate to our interstates, despite being unregulated? In europe, driving is not looked upon as a right. It's a responsibility, and passing the test is actually a challenge.

Answering the question, is it more dangerous, hell yes. Like JP said, the difference in speed/closing rate is what kills people. This is beyond the obvious fact that things just happen faster, and when something unpredictable (other drivers) happens, you have less time to react. The implications are obvious. I typically go 10 over on the Interstate, but those that think 100 MPH is safe because they've spent some time on the track are morons.

Speeding is simply a tax on the people who are able and willing to go faster than the rest. It's also a way for cops to have an excuse to find things.

Isn't a majority of car accidents from people under the influence.

Personally I think that they should remove the loosing your license for speeding, and the fines, but still have the option to pull people over, search the vehicle, and give a breath test on the spot when a cop sees someone speeding.

This would do two things: (1.) for the people who are safe fast drivers, we can go fast and, (2.) it becomes easier to remove the unsafe drivers from the roads. A win/win situation for everyone.

Inattentive/distracted drivers are far more dangerous than speeders.

Very true, but your speed makes a big difference in how you react.

No. You may have been reading too many MADD reports.

The majority of car accidents are from inattentive drivers.
Switching lanes without looking, not paying attention and running into the car in front of you, talking on the phone, playing with the radio, eating an egg mcmuffin in rush hour, putting on makeup, searching in the backseat for something while still driving, running red lights - need I say more?

Most drunk drivers are driving at night. Most car accidents are during high traffic periods which are between 6am and 6pm.

This is not based on any statistics - but rather from logging a couple of million miles over the last 25 years or so.

Very good buddy is a state trooper. "No matter what - never go off the road over 55" is his good advise. He has seen it all and I believe him. Something I think about.

All other things being equal, yes.

I'd agree with that for urban areas, and the interstates around them. According to the stats I've read, the biggest factor tends to be weather for accidents while driving on the highway: snow, rain, ice, fog, etc. Speed is always lumped in under "driving too fast for conditions" as a contributing factor because politicians like the revenue generated by a "speed kills" public mindset.

But I think we could increase the speed limits in extra-urban areas because 1) the roads are less crowded and 2) people tend to drive better on the highway at speed, where there are fewer distractions inside and out of the car.

This is a lot of the reason most accidents happen near the home - people are less attentive, focusing on either where they're going or where they just left, or attempting to multi-task. On the open road during a 5-hour road trip, the driver gets to just drive.

Statistically, you spend most of you time near your home. Think about it. :)

90% of accidents happen within 5 miles of your house.

Now I never go home!

- Steven Wright

My Physics 101 input,

You guys know what kills ... Remember F=M*A. eccellerations caused by any type projectile by means of unskilled, intoxicated, negligent unreasonable people!

Bob

When I'm on the road with my kids...I prefer than the ones who want to go fast do that at the track...you never know who is driving near you...at the track...you know that...!

To restate what Matt said, more or less -- yes the inattentive/distracted driver is a key element of an accident, and probably the most common cause... but the likelihood of there being an accident, especially a serious accident, increases with delta V.

I'm zipping down the highway at 85 mph, and dfbroad, doing 80 mph drifts into my lane while using rearview mirror to apply fake eyelashes.

vs.

I'm zipping down the highway at 75 mph, and dfbroad, doing 50 mph drifts into my lane while using rearview mirror to apply fake eyelashes.

75 mph is "safer" than 85, no? And as long as dfbroad is dolling herself up, it's "safer" for her to do so at 50 than at 80, no?

But, the latter fact pattern is likelier to end catastrophically, no?

Delta Speed Kills.

JP

Of course, at highway speeds, even a little tap can be enough to get you into some pretty serious trouble. Sideways at 70 MPH would not be a happy place to be.......

As speeds increase, the time to react decreases. Your reaction time, however, remains the same. The amount of energy necessarily to stop a vehicle isn't a linear relationship with velocity. It's physics - yes speeding increases the chances of an accident.

Being "qualified" to drive 100 doesn't mean ***** when there are so many other factors to consider.

Aside from all that crap, my latest $400 speeding ticket hurts.