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.

I have no data to back this up, but I bet the vast majority of vehicle fatalities are from people turning left in front of other cars with minimal relation to speed. Notice how many 'white crosses' you see at intersections or cross streets where you really couldn't go very fast.

Really, that's where the "all things being equal" disclaimer comes into play. Someone pulls out in front of you, the slower you go, the easier you can stop. Just physics.

We have a rural 4 lane that goes out of Wichita with many uncontrolled cross-streets, I'd say there's at least one fatality a month out there. Just pure stupidity. Stop signs on the cross-streets obviously don't mean much.

True, but speed itself kills, too.

If you get into a collision in your car with someone going half your speed, you will be fine if your speed is 5 mph. If you are going 120 mph in that same collision, you are likely going to die.

Same if you want to use an absolute number as the delta, say 25 mph. A 50 mph car v. 25 mph car is not going to be as damaging as a 125 mph car v. 100 mph car in the same collision.

There is one other little detail that seems to be overlooked here. The momentum of your car increases with the square of the velocity. Stopping from 100MPH to zero much more than twice as long as from 50MPH to zero. The impact is much greater for a small increment in velocity. So, not only does your reaction time drop, but your ability to stop in a reasonably distance does too.

I know that, but I think the key is that drivers are more distracted and complacent near home. I don't think driving 15,000 miles a year is more dangerous just because you own real estate in the area. I believe if the person drove 12k a year on the highway and the remaining 3k near their home, the latter would be the riskier because that's where people do their worst driving.

Yes. Inertia is increased, so if anything happens, the hit is going to be harder and more likely to damage the car or anything inside the car. In my book that makes it more dangerous. Also, because of the speed even a trained, skilled driver will have less time to react and less control, that also, IMO makes it more dangerous.
Yes, being a dumba55 behind the wheel is safer at 50 than 80 for excatly the reasons above.

But I do also agree with the point that an idiot driver going 50 pulling in front of an attentive driver going 80 is more dangerous than if the idiot driver was going 75. So I agree with the quote below.

I am also in complete agreement that the biggest problem is incompetent, untrained, unskilled, unconscious, inattentive, selfish, rude, overconfident, inexperienced drivers. Any and all of these things can make for a deadly driver.

So, speed does kill, it's physics. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can argue that. But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the training here is a joke and the ease with which nearly anyone can get a car and/or license is a joke.

Doing 50 on a road where everyone is doing 80 (and the speed limit is 70) will be more dangerous though.

But if your doing 80 on a road where the limit is 45 then 50 is safer.

Speed kills, yes, but I am willing to bet most of the time the equation reads more like Speed + N = Death.

N can be anything pick one

tired driver
drunk driver
good driver finding a drunk driver
distracted driver
tire blow out
debri in road

I guess I should have said something besides "minimal relation to speed." I was thinking about 40-60mph roads where you have a good chance of being killed in a broad side accident whether the other driver is going the speed limit or 10-20 over. I'm really surprised by how many people don't look twice or three times before turning into an oncoming lane.

I don't see nearly as much danger in going twice the speed limit on a limited access highway versus 10 mph over the speed limit on a road with cross streets.

I used to drive horribly fast on public roads - I didn't pass people at those speeds but still, not the smartest thing to do. With experience comes wisdom - and wisdom generally comes from the close calls and near death experiences.

Depending you where you live you've probably seen dead deer on the side of the highway. Now use your imagination.

Where are you getting this "inertia increases as a square of the velocity" stuff?

Maybe you are thinking of energy as in E = 1/2mv^2 i.e. twice as fast = 4 times as much energy?

I suppose if you go twice as fast your brakes will have to dump 4 times as much energy (heat) but I don't know if that will effect your stopping distance - which is a function of your tires.

-Chris

"speed does not kill, stupidity does". I've always listened to that and always will.

Everyone posting here thinks of themselves as better than average drivers, I presume?

Aren't 50% of all drivers better than average? :)

I don't know if I'd say we're all better, but I do believe that everyone on this forum cares about driving and wants to be good at it. That alone is a huge step towards being better drivers. Most people simply don't give a damn.

Zamoran driving Porsche hurt when speeding
 

Chris,
Yep its energy that increases as the square of the velocity. Assuming that your brakes are at their maximum capacity without locking up, your stopping distance will increase by four times. In practical driving situations stopping distances will increase by some amount compared to driving slower. The point is that this is not a linear relationship. Once the brake system is at capacity stopping distance will be proportional to the amount of energy that is built up in the vehicle.

My point is that other than noting a reduction in reaction time, nobody has seized on this point. No matter how good your reaction times are, there is an increase in stopping distance and its not linear. That means a lot of folks are speeding along with a flawed idea of how much stopping distance they really require.


>Maybe you are thinking of energy as in E = 1/2mv^2 i.e. twice >as fast = 4 times as much energy?

>I suppose if you go twice as fast your brakes will have to dump >4 times as much energy (heat) but I don't know if that will >effect your stopping distance - which is a function of your tires.

Pretty good advice. For example, I've gone off-track at "The Kink" at CMP going around 100mph (backwards). Let me tell you. You go a looonnnnggg way through the grass before you stop.

Momentum = 1/2*m*v^2, good point. The fact that it is not a linear relationship between velocity and the energy that must be dissipated is a great point. You have twice the energy at 100 MPH than you do at 70 MPH, considering your brakes have a finite rate for dissipating energy, the effect on stopping distances is obvious.

You just can't "assume your brakes are at their maximum capacity" because it suits you. What would that mean anyway? You brake fluid boils? Not going to happen in a single stop even with crappy brakes.

Double your speed, double your braking distance.
-Chris

No more or less dangerous than the backup created due to a highway full of "looky-loos" gawking over a cop having pulled over someone for doing 10 mph over the speed limit along with everyone else.

I wonder how many people have rubbernecked at a person pulled over for speeding, only to rear-end the person in front of them because they weren't paying attention. Probably more than PDs would ever admit. Oh, but that's okay - they want to back up traffic (and forget about the hazard created by having everyone distracted and slamming on their brakes and backing up traffic for five miles) - it's about "increasing police presence". That's more important. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong - there's an appropriate time and place. Some jackass whipping in and out of lanes, riding two feet off peoples' bumpers and intimidating them with aggressive use of their headlights in their oversized, poor-handling, illegally modified "boy toy"? Damn straight they should get a ticket. Perhaps several. Someone driving drunk? Ticket. Wrong way down a one-way street? Most likely a ticket (or at least an inquiry into what the heck they're thinking). Running a stop sign or a red light? Ticket (unless there are BIGTIME extenuating circumstances). Accident? Ticket pretty much by default.

Just because some city bureaucrats have decided to put a sign on a strip of asphalt saying "35" or whatever doesn't change the de facto reality that if everyone and their brother can drive down that road for years at 70+ without a problem, that the speed limit is stupid, moot, irrelevant and probably a mistake.

Perhaps I (and others) would have a bit more respect for government, police officers, traffic laws and authority in general if it weren't so blatantly manipulated in the interest of insurance company interests and dollars, day after day after day after day after day. We all see it daily - a uniformed guy (or woman) who has dedicated their lives to public service and puts their lives on the line for the citizens they supposedly represent (whom we SHOULD be able to respect and thank for their service) forced into the role of tax collectors for dollar-drunk government do-nothing bureaucrats. That's a tragedy.

Speed is FAR less dangerous than differences in speed (as has been said). It'd be nice if on a three lane road, the speed limit was (for example) 40 in the right lane, 60 in the middle and 80 in the left. Or something to that effect. Of course, ideas like this will never fly, because we need to continue to dumb down our system for a society increasingly populated by stupider and stupider individuals with less cognition skill, less language skill, less analytical skill, etc. It'd be "too complex" for some retard illegal alien to make sense of, so it would never be considered.

Welcome to Amerika. Land of "the free".

From working Interstate accidents over more years than I care to count I have deduced the following :

It's not the SPEED that kill's , it's the sudden STOP at the end.

Todd :D

PS... I know the above is pretty simple but then I am a pretty simple kind of guy.

I always thought speed killed by shutting down your liver.