What constitutes speeding?

[dsm363]

High speed if you get into an accident is worse than lower speed. Variable speed (some driving really fast and others slower) as well. Speed limits should however make sense for the area they are in and maybe not one set speed the entire length of highway.

 

[7racer]

exactly....also, equating driving at a faster speed to automatically becoming a killer is ridiculous.

here is another rebuke of the speed kills myth
Watch The Guy Dominate This Debate On Speed Limits

 

[deonb]

I'm with Brianman,

speed doesn't kill and people who speed don't automatically weave in and out of traffic. In Germany, where there are some of the fewest speed restrictions has one of the lowest mortality rate. So either speed doesn't kill or that Germans are better drivers?

anyways, one of the best arguments that I have seen arguing that speed "Kills"

This Is The Best Takedown Of The ll Ever See

- - - Updated - - -

and please watch the whole video....I found it enjoyable

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, very enjoyable.

There are places in the world where posted speed limits are very much needed. If you've ever driven through Northern California on the 101 in the middle of the night under fog, you'll know that without following the posted limits on the corner, you would have certainly skid off the road or driven into a tree.

B.C. on the other hand is a joke. The speed limits there are so ridiculously low that they're not at all helpful (it's actually downright dangerous to follow them), so you're left to figure out what is a safe speed by your own devices. Which is fine if you're a local who knows the roads, but as a foreign visitor it borders between annoying and dangerous.

The only saving grace is that B.C. don't seem to care if you don't pay your speeding tickets (as a visitor at least) .

 

[AudubonB]

Those of you who live in that part of the galaxy...universe????...where certain fundamental laws of physics don't apply, please pick up this hitchhiker and take me there. For the rest of us, kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass) X (the SQUARE of velocity). I'm not going any further in nannying you as to what constitutes speed, but I will categorically state that it is irrefutably irresponsible to say that speeding is not dangerous.

 

[Lloyd]

In 1895 the speed limit for light rail (steam powered vehicles) was 14 mph, In 1903 the Motor Car Act lifted that speed limit to 20 mph, and everyone decreed that unsafe. Point is that as our technology and safety of our vehicles has increased we have increased our speed limit accordingly. Perhaps there is an argument for the Tesla as the most technologically advanced, and the safest car on the road, and cars in the same catagory to have a waiver for an increase above the posted limit! :wink:

 

[Canuck]

B.C. on the other hand is a joke. The speed limits there are so ridiculously low that they're not at all helpful (it's actually downright dangerous to follow them), so you're left to figure out what is a safe speed by your own devices. Which is fine if you're a local who knows the roads, but as a foreign visitor it borders between annoying and dangerous.

So true. Thankfully, however, a review is under way:

"Transportation Minister Todd Stone said the review is meant to ensure appropriate limits are in place, because research suggests that it's not speed that kills, but variations in speed."


B.C. asks public for input on highway speed limits | CTV Vancouver News

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

Those of you who live in that part of the galaxy...universe????...where certain fundamental laws of physics don't apply, please pick up this hitchhiker and take me there. For the rest of us, kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass) X (the SQUARE of velocity). I'm not going any further in nannying you as to what constitutes speed, but I will categorically state that it is irrefutably irresponsible to say that speeding is not dangerous.

I've gotta disagree with you here, because you're going too far. Yes, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. However, there are absolutely circumstances where speeding (ie driving above the posted speed limit) is LESS dangerous than driving at/under the limit. The most important causal variable in accident rates on highways is NOT the absolute speed involved, but the speed differential involved. If the flow of traffic is 5 mph or even 10 mph above the limit, driving slower than the general flow of traffic is far more dangerous to both you and others than "speeding" at the same speed at which essentially all others are going.

It is irrefutably incorrect to declare that driving at a higher speed is always more dangerous than driving at a slower speed. You can be as categoric as you want, you're wrong on this one.

 

[deonb]

Those of you who live in that part of the galaxy...universe????...where certain fundamental laws of physics don't apply, please pick up this hitchhiker and take me there. For the rest of us, kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass) X (the SQUARE of velocity). I'm not going any further in nannying you as to what constitutes speed, but I will categorically state that it is irrefutably irresponsible to say that speeding is not dangerous.

The weight of the car and the laws of physics that you cite has nothing to do with whether or not an accident will occur. 20mph is a lethal impact between an 18 wheeler and a motorcycle. Should our speed limits be so low that we guarantee a injury-free outcome if every vehicle will collide with very other vehicle on the road? (Hint - that will be in the low single digits, if not decimals).

What we are talking about here is whether a posted speed limit serves a purpose in reducing the number of accidents in the first place.

If lethality rates from accidents increase by 15%, but accident rates drop by 30%, isn't the tradeoff worth it?

 

[Chipper]

I've gotta disagree with you here, because you're going too far. Yes, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. However, there are absolutely circumstances where speeding (ie driving above the posted speed limit) is LESS dangerous than driving at/under the limit. The most important causal variable in accident rates on highways is NOT the absolute speed involved, but the speed differential involved. If the flow of traffic is 5 mph or even 10 mph above the limit, driving slower than the general flow of traffic is far more dangerous to both you and others than "speeding" at the same speed at which essentially all others are going.

It is irrefutably incorrect to declare that driving at a higher speed is always more dangerous than driving at a slower speed. You can be as categoric as you want, you're wrong on this one.

Yes, but isn't it more dangerous due to the fault of those speeding and NOT due to those following the speed limit? If everyone were to obey the limits there would not be these "differentials".

 

[deonb]

Yes, but isn't it more dangerous due to the fault of those speeding and NOT due to those following the speed limit? If everyone were to obey the limits there would not be these "differentials".

There would also not be differentials if the speed limit is set at a reasonable rate in the first place. Most people will drive at the speed they feel is reasonable and safe, no matter what the posted speed limit is.

Watch the video on here - it really is worth the 15 minutes:
This Is The Best Takedown Of The ll Ever See

 

[7racer]

Yes, but isn't it more dangerous due to the fault of those speeding and NOT due to those following the speed limit? If everyone were to obey the limits there would not be these "differentials".

no that isn't true, if it were than the countries with higher speed limits would have higher fatalities...which they don't

- - - Updated - - -

There would also not be differentials if the speed limit is set at a reasonable rate in the first place. Most people will drive at the speed they feel is reasonable and safe, no matter what the posted speed limit is.

Watch the video on here - it really is worth the 15 minutes:
This Is The Best Takedown Of The ll Ever See

agree +1

- - - Updated - - -

Those of you who live in that part of the galaxy...universe????...where certain fundamental laws of physics don't apply, please pick up this hitchhiker and take me there. For the rest of us, kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass) X (the SQUARE of velocity). I'm not going any further in nannying you as to what constitutes speed, but I will categorically state that it is irrefutably irresponsible to say that speeding is not dangerous.

in your equation I see no variable that equates that number to fatalities.

I have a street car that I track. In the HPDE group that I run with, there have been ZERO fatalities in the 20+ history of the driving club. In this group, we pass people going around corners, go down straights at 100+ mph...but no one has died. Not even a fender bender.

So to say the absolute that speed kills is falling into the myth.
Regardless, I wouldn't mind a healthy debate, to look at both sides and the data and facts and debate about it. However, have a lecture where there is only one side is pointless as a person will believe whatever they want and avoid the facts.

Take a look at the video and tell me what you think.

 

[Chipper]

There would also not be differentials if the speed limit is set at a reasonable rate in the first place. Most people will drive at the speed they feel is reasonable and safe, no matter what the posted speed limit is.

Watch the video on here - it really is worth the 15 minutes:
This Is The Best Takedown Of The ll Ever See

I watched it. Twice. It is a well done video, however, let's come back to your statements. Your comment that most people will drive at the speed they feel is reasonable and safe... does not correlate with my experience. My experience has been that most people will drive at 5-10 miles OVER the speed limit because they know they will not be ticketed at that speed. They "assume" that the "reasonable and safe" speed has been determined by the speed limit + 10-15 MPH. There will always be differentials. Little old men and women out for a Sunday drive. Teenagers tearing up the roads. Lumbering big trucks, etc. Where I live the city does studies on traffic patterns. They gauge the speed most people travel on a particular route and then determine the proper speed limit for that street based on what most drivers do. But what happens is this: initially the speed limit is set for 35 MPH. They conduct the study and determine that most people drive 40 MPH on that street so they up the speed limit to 40 MPH. Guess what? Shortly thereafter they determine most people now drive 45 MPH on that street.

 

[ElSupreme]

Your comment that most people will drive at the speed they feel is reasonable and safe... does not correlate with my experience.

My dad is a traffic engineer. He has dealt with hard numbers on this sort of thing. And Atlanta just did a mini-experiment. People drive on limited access roads at a speed they feel is safe and reasonable, almost regardless of posted speed limits. If average travel is above the speed limit, and the limit raised, there is very little change in average speed.

Most of the change in average speed is due to slower drivers being encouraged to drive closer to the posted speed limit. This mechanism brings the speed differential down on the roadway and thus increases safety.

Atlanta recently (Jan 2014) increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph on half (south of I-20) of I-285. I drive ~60% of this section every day. I can tell you without a doubt that median speeds on the road have not increased. My speeds have not increased. My risk of getting an $700 ticket has decreased significantly.

In my opinion the speed limit on this section of road should be 65mph (or 70). Most traffic is inside of 65-75mph. And it is very easy to drive 65mph.


I'd rather have a person be going 90 (paying attention) in a 65 on an interstate, than driving 40 in a 45 on a surface street while texting (not paying attention) any day! I would also rather have a person going 90 (paying attention) in a 65 on an interstate, than someone doing 55 (paying attention) in a 45 on a surface street.

 

[7racer]

My dad is a traffic engineer. He has dealt with hard numbers on this sort of thing. And Atlanta just did a mini-experiment. People drive on limited access roads at a speed they feel is safe and reasonable, almost regardless of posted speed limits. If average travel is above the speed limit, and the limit raised, there is very little change in average speed.

Most of the change in average speed is due to slower drivers being encouraged to drive closer to the posted speed limit. This mechanism brings the speed differential down on the roadway and thus increases safety.

Atlanta recently (Jan 2014) increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph on half (south of I-20) of I-285. I drive ~60% of this section every day. I can tell you without a doubt that median speeds on the road have not increased. My speeds have not increased. My risk of getting an $700 ticket has decreased significantly.

In my opinion the speed limit on this section of road should be 65mph (or 70). Most traffic is inside of 65-75mph. And it is very easy to drive 65mph.


I'd rather have a person be going 90 (paying attention) in a 65 on an interstate, than driving 40 in a 45 on a surface street while texting (not paying attention) any day! I would also rather have a person going 90 (paying attention) in a 65 on an interstate, than someone doing 55 (paying attention) in a 45 on a surface street.

+1

Good to look at real data. Not just got impressions

 

[jerry33]

no that isn't true, if it were than the countries with higher speed limits would have higher fatalities...which they don't

Presumably countries that have higher speed limits and fewer fatalities also have roads that are designed for those higher speed limits, both sight distances and road construction. I understand that the Autobhan's pavement is double the thickness of the U.S. Interstate to insure a smooth surface (I've never been to Germany, so this is just going by what I've read). Accident reduction is primarily a function of road design and construction. That's why you can't say, "Germany has no speed limits on parts of the Autobahn therefore the U.S. should have no speed limits as well". It's not even close to an apples to apples comparison.

In addition to better road design, it also helps if you have to do more than purchase a box of Cracker Jacks to get a license.

So sight distances, curve radii, grades, superelevation, sign and standard placement, construction materials, a host of things I haven't mentioned, plus educated drivers all combine to make roads safe or unsafe.

 

[dsm363]

Yes. The drivers license requirements in Germany (at least 15 years ago) were very time consuming and thousands of dollars. People take things a little more seriously when they spend $2,000 and months to get something than a weekend and $50.

 

[7racer]

Presumably countries that have higher speed limits and fewer fatalities also have roads that are designed for those higher speed limits, both sight distances and road construction. I understand that the Autobhan's pavement is double the thickness of the U.S. Interstate to insure a smooth surface (I've never been to Germany, so this is just going by what I've read). Accident reduction is primarily a function of road design and construction. That's why you can't say, "Germany has no speed limits on parts of the Autobahn therefore the U.S. should have no speed limits as well". It's not even close to an apples to apples comparison.

In addition to better road design, it also helps if you have to do more than purchase a box of Cracker Jacks to get a license.

So sight distances, curve radii, grades, superelevation, sign and standard placement, construction materials, a host of things I haven't mentioned, plus educated drivers all combine to make roads safe or unsafe.

Jerry,

I agree with you. I think the training for driving to get a license here in the US is terrible.

But I also did not state that the speed limit should be unlimited like the autobahn. Like was presented in the study. I higher speed limit that meets the driving of the people ALREADY driving in the 85% would be safe. If the roads couldn't handle the faster speed of this 85% group we would already be seeing more accidents.

So it is comparing apples to oranges in regards to unlimited speed. But stating that a faster speed is universally unsafe isn't true. Also to say a higher speed limit in the US that matches what a majority of people already drive anyways is unsafe would be untrue.

 

[dsm363]

If you raise speed limit to 85 won't some drive 5-10 above just because? I would be all for speeds that make sense, safer and better built roads and better enforcement (dangerous drivers not revenue enhancement)!

 

[7racer]

If you raise speed limit to 85 won't some drive 5-10 above just because? I would be all for speeds that make sense, safer and better built roads and better enforcement (dangerous drivers not revenue enhancement)!

no...what they found in studies is that people still drive the same speeds. Raising the speed limit doesn't automatically cause 85% of the population to drive 5-10 mile faster.

In Texas, where there are some stretches of highway that are now 80, we haven't seen reports of a majority of people doing 100 on those stretches "just because". Also for my commute to Sherman Texas the speed limit in one section was raised a couple years ago to 75mph, and people drive the same speed...

the problem has been the tag line that "speed kills" has automatically conditioned us to assume that any increase in speed is automatically dangerous leading to higher mortalities.

Like you mentioned, the speed limit should be just that a limit that "makes sense". Find what the 85% of people drive and have the legal authorities focus on those that are in the 15%.


watch the video if you haven't...

 

[jerry33]

But I also did not state that the speed limit should be unlimited like the autobahn. Like was presented in the study. I higher speed limit that meets the driving of the people ALREADY driving in the 85% would be safe. If the roads couldn't handle the faster speed of this 85% group we would already be seeing more accidents.

Only if the roads are upgraded to allow faster speeds. Just because an engine redlines at 7000 RPM doesn't mean it's good to always keep it at 7000 RPM, you want a reasonable margin of safety.

But stating that a faster speed is universally unsafe isn't true

I've never said that. I maintain that speeds need to be based on the road geometry (mostly) and other factors (local situations). The problem is that many speed limits are based on revenue generation and so people assume they all are.