You make good points here but I do have a couple things to say. First, I didn't quote anything from that article. It's an interesting read, but severely flawed in its conclusions and can be easily misinterpreted. Second, I have no problem with cars going the speed limit on two lane roads where it's not safe to pass. If it's safe, I do sometimes pass. If it's not, who cares. I'd only save about a minute anyway and that can be lost while sitting at a traffic light. But let me explore what you've said here.
First, the speed limit, to my knowledge, is not an advised speed. It is a limit. There is no basis for saying that people "should" go the speed limit. You can only say that people cannot legally go over that speed. Second, most people on the road do no pull over to let others pass when going below the speed limit, even with thirty cars behind them being slowed down. If people do that in your area, great, but they don't here! Third, there are many roads where I live with no posted speed limits. Heavily travelled roads too. What's the speed limit there? Prima Facie (55 in California) but rarely enforced.
==
It would be nice to live in a world where everyone obeyed the rules as you put forth. All roads would be "safer". I wonder why people object so much to higher speed limits though. If the speed limits were higher and people obeyed the limits, the issue would be exactly the same. It makes no difference whether it's 60, 80, 100, or 50. If people obey the laws as you prescribe, there would be no speed differential, and therefore we would have "safer" roads.
One thing does come to mind; the fact that we don't have a national limit of 25. Why not? It's a very safe speed. But would you do it?
How would you approach a road where the traffic moves at 85 normally with a posted speed of 55? If the traffic normally moves at 85, why is the speed posted at 55? That is how things were on 280 in San Jose several years ago. When the speed limit was raised the normal speed fell significantly. Now the normal speed is about 70. What I gather from that is people are going to drive speeds that are comfortable, but when the limit is close to what they feel comfortable doing they are willing to slow down. I know I am. When the limit was 55, I drove 80+ on many roads. I even followed many police officers doing the same thing. Never got pulled over for it. But now that the limit is 65, I drive no more than 5-10 over. There's no point.
Another example of people driving comfortable speeds regardless of posted speed is the street I live on. The posted speed is 45, but everone (just about) drives 35. It's been that way for years! No passing, no complaints, just smooth traffic at 35. And the road has three lanes in each direction. This just shows that people drive what is comfortable whether faster or slower than the posted speed limits.
The speed differential issue becomes more frustrating on multi-lane highways where people refuse to let faster traffic go by. People purposely block faster traffic, regardless of the fact that it is unlawful to do so (CA Vehicle Code). They sit there because they are "slowing down that unsafe asshole". If it's so unsafe, why is there a law regarding slower traffic keeping right. Now you might say that the person doesn't have to move over because he/she is maintaining the speed limit, but it is a ticketable offense to impede traffic. This law was enforced quite a bit on 280 back when traffic speed was 85 in the 55 zone. Many people were warned or ticketed for driving too slowly as it was unsafe given the traffic conditions.
As in the case of I280, it is safer to drive at faster speeds even when everyone is doing the same. Less speed differential. Simple. Regardless of the speed limit, you are supposed to drive at a safe speed, whether higher or lower than the posted speed. This is also in the CA VC.
Why is it that people talking about this issue always insult people going faster than them, but never those going slower, falling back on the PC notion that slower driving is safer? The Autobahn disproves this. The Germans prove that courtesy on the road is much more significant than speed. Heck, the same is true of England. When I lived in England, you could drive 100+ in the 70 zones and not worry. If you had an accident you would be charged with driving too fast, but otherwise it was fine. Basically put, don't cause problems and they leave you alone. Speed by itself was not a problem.
Everyone who hates being passed (which is the real issue, but nobody will say it) just get over it, egomaniacs! Let's all just be courteous on the roads. We all have to share them, and individually have no right to try to control them. If you think you have the right to control the road, I'll show you a million people who will tell you that you don't.
Oh, and in CA, we don't have 75 roads anymore. They lowered it to 70. I'm sure it was because ticket revenues fell significantly when the speed limits were raised.
Why should I care if you can't understand how to use a stove properly? You probably believe that because you set your oven to 375 the temp inside is actually 375.
When has anyone in this discussion said that it's OK to drive at top speed all the time?
Grow up and start listening, Coward.
Love the cowards! If you had even read this thread you would have noticed that the conversation implies a speed limit of 60. My implication was that if someone was going less than the speed limit (which is perfectly legal) people complaining about speeders would probably get pissed off themselves instead of slowing down to the supposed "safer" speed. But it seems you were unable to understand that, and understandably so... Next time you choose to insult someone, try saying something intelligent.
I love this. How about a person in front of you doing 40 instead of the 60 you're doing? Would you like that person to speed up to the 60 he's "supposed" to be doing? Would you slow down to 40 or would you try to pass him to go back to 60? It's funny how you like to pick on those going faster than you, but I bet you hate to slow down for those going slower than you.
And where does he state he has a fast car? Most cars on the road can do 120MPH, probably even yours.
I see you don't like the fact that there is evidence to support a viewpoint other than yours. Maybe if you took the time to learn about proper driving habits instead of picking on one simple aspect of driving you would understand that it is not as simple as slowing down. Speed is but one factor of many.
It has been statistically proven over and over again that slower drivers (those driving below the speed of others on the road, who by your logic would be safer drivers, cause more accidents than faster drivers. Car and Driver reported on this several years ago. Police stats also verify this.
Maybe you should petition for speed limits to be lowered? Isn't 55 safer than 65? How about 45? Or maybe we should return to the days when the national speed limit was 25MPH.
I drive 17 when I have the chance. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but one thing never changes. I monitor the traffic ahead and behind constantly. If there is a car coming up behind me quickly, I do my best to get out of his/her way. Courtesy. There are signs all over the place that say "Slower Traffic Keep Right" and they are there for a reason.
Drivers in Germany respect these simple courtesies, and they are enforced by law. Applying these simple rules (on roads where people habitually drive 120MPH+) lead to lower accident and death rates compared to those on roads here where people don't apply these rules (and drive only 60-80MPH).
People and their lack of courtesy or concern on the road are of greater concern to me than speed. Speed is just the easiest issue to pick on. People love to pick on cell phones too, even though eating in the car is more dangerous (statistically proven). Should we ban eating in the car? Should we also get rid of radios? People have been killed in accidents when fiddling with them too. Granted, higher speed makes problems worse, but speed itself is a minor issue!
Back to the blackbox. A black box does nothing to record what the driver is doing. It only records some of what the car is doing (speed, brakes, RPM, and maybe the gear). That is a serious flaw! If someone is not looking at the road and has an accident at your prescribed slower speed, they are still capable of killing someone, and the blackbox would completely exonerate them.
Consider this scenario. Imagine for a moment that your child was hit at a ped. crossing by a driver who was playing with the car's radio. Now your child is permanently injured, and you have to pay his/her medical bills. You go to court for relief (sue the insurance co. and the driver). It is stated in court that your child was being careless and ran into the street and in front of the car. You know this isn't true, but then the driver is exonerated by the simple blackbox data stating that the driver was not speeding and that the brakes were being applied when the car hit your child. This kind of case has been heard in court before (public court records), but it usually requires a lot of testimony regarding vehicle speed from expert witnesses, and testimony from witnesses at the scene. The blackbox would eliminate that need for witnesses and automatically become a completely unchalengeable expert witness. If you faced this I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
You make good points here but I do have a couple things to say. First, I didn't quote anything from that article. It's an interesting read, but severely flawed in its conclusions and can be easily misinterpreted. Second, I have no problem with cars going the speed limit on two lane roads where it's not safe to pass. If it's safe, I do sometimes pass. If it's not, who cares. I'd only save about a minute anyway and that can be lost while sitting at a traffic light. But let me explore what you've said here.
First, the speed limit, to my knowledge, is not an advised speed. It is a limit. There is no basis for saying that people "should" go the speed limit. You can only say that people cannot legally go over that speed. Second, most people on the road do no pull over to let others pass when going below the speed limit, even with thirty cars behind them being slowed down. If people do that in your area, great, but they don't here! Third, there are many roads where I live with no posted speed limits. Heavily travelled roads too. What's the speed limit there? Prima Facie (55 in California) but rarely enforced.
==
It would be nice to live in a world where everyone obeyed the rules as you put forth. All roads would be "safer". I wonder why people object so much to higher speed limits though. If the speed limits were higher and people obeyed the limits, the issue would be exactly the same. It makes no difference whether it's 60, 80, 100, or 50. If people obey the laws as you prescribe, there would be no speed differential, and therefore we would have "safer" roads.
One thing does come to mind; the fact that we don't have a national limit of 25. Why not? It's a very safe speed. But would you do it?
How would you approach a road where the traffic moves at 85 normally with a posted speed of 55? If the traffic normally moves at 85, why is the speed posted at 55? That is how things were on 280 in San Jose several years ago. When the speed limit was raised the normal speed fell significantly. Now the normal speed is about 70. What I gather from that is people are going to drive speeds that are comfortable, but when the limit is close to what they feel comfortable doing they are willing to slow down. I know I am. When the limit was 55, I drove 80+ on many roads. I even followed many police officers doing the same thing. Never got pulled over for it. But now that the limit is 65, I drive no more than 5-10 over. There's no point.
Another example of people driving comfortable speeds regardless of posted speed is the street I live on. The posted speed is 45, but everone (just about) drives 35. It's been that way for years! No passing, no complaints, just smooth traffic at 35. And the road has three lanes in each direction. This just shows that people drive what is comfortable whether faster or slower than the posted speed limits.
The speed differential issue becomes more frustrating on multi-lane highways where people refuse to let faster traffic go by. People purposely block faster traffic, regardless of the fact that it is unlawful to do so (CA Vehicle Code). They sit there because they are "slowing down that unsafe asshole". If it's so unsafe, why is there a law regarding slower traffic keeping right. Now you might say that the person doesn't have to move over because he/she is maintaining the speed limit, but it is a ticketable offense to impede traffic. This law was enforced quite a bit on 280 back when traffic speed was 85 in the 55 zone. Many people were warned or ticketed for driving too slowly as it was unsafe given the traffic conditions.
As in the case of I280, it is safer to drive at faster speeds even when everyone is doing the same. Less speed differential. Simple. Regardless of the speed limit, you are supposed to drive at a safe speed, whether higher or lower than the posted speed. This is also in the CA VC.
Why is it that people talking about this issue always insult people going faster than them, but never those going slower, falling back on the PC notion that slower driving is safer? The Autobahn disproves this. The Germans prove that courtesy on the road is much more significant than speed. Heck, the same is true of England. When I lived in England, you could drive 100+ in the 70 zones and not worry. If you had an accident you would be charged with driving too fast, but otherwise it was fine. Basically put, don't cause problems and they leave you alone. Speed by itself was not a problem.
Everyone who hates being passed (which is the real issue, but nobody will say it) just get over it, egomaniacs! Let's all just be courteous on the roads. We all have to share them, and individually have no right to try to control them. If you think you have the right to control the road, I'll show you a million people who will tell you that you don't.
Oh, and in CA, we don't have 75 roads anymore. They lowered it to 70. I'm sure it was because ticket revenues fell significantly when the speed limits were raised.
Why should I care if you can't understand how to use a stove properly? You probably believe that because you set your oven to 375 the temp inside is actually 375. When has anyone in this discussion said that it's OK to drive at top speed all the time? Grow up and start listening, Coward.
Love the cowards! If you had even read this thread you would have noticed that the conversation implies a speed limit of 60. My implication was that if someone was going less than the speed limit (which is perfectly legal) people complaining about speeders would probably get pissed off themselves instead of slowing down to the supposed "safer" speed. But it seems you were unable to understand that, and understandably so... Next time you choose to insult someone, try saying something intelligent.
I love this. How about a person in front of you doing 40 instead of the 60 you're doing? Would you like that person to speed up to the 60 he's "supposed" to be doing? Would you slow down to 40 or would you try to pass him to go back to 60? It's funny how you like to pick on those going faster than you, but I bet you hate to slow down for those going slower than you. And where does he state he has a fast car? Most cars on the road can do 120MPH, probably even yours.
I see you don't like the fact that there is evidence to support a viewpoint other than yours. Maybe if you took the time to learn about proper driving habits instead of picking on one simple aspect of driving you would understand that it is not as simple as slowing down. Speed is but one factor of many.
It has been statistically proven over and over again that slower drivers (those driving below the speed of others on the road, who by your logic would be safer drivers, cause more accidents than faster drivers. Car and Driver reported on this several years ago. Police stats also verify this.
Maybe you should petition for speed limits to be lowered? Isn't 55 safer than 65? How about 45? Or maybe we should return to the days when the national speed limit was 25MPH.
I drive 17 when I have the chance. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but one thing never changes. I monitor the traffic ahead and behind constantly. If there is a car coming up behind me quickly, I do my best to get out of his/her way. Courtesy. There are signs all over the place that say "Slower Traffic Keep Right" and they are there for a reason.
Drivers in Germany respect these simple courtesies, and they are enforced by law. Applying these simple rules (on roads where people habitually drive 120MPH+) lead to lower accident and death rates compared to those on roads here where people don't apply these rules (and drive only 60-80MPH).
People and their lack of courtesy or concern on the road are of greater concern to me than speed. Speed is just the easiest issue to pick on. People love to pick on cell phones too, even though eating in the car is more dangerous (statistically proven). Should we ban eating in the car? Should we also get rid of radios? People have been killed in accidents when fiddling with them too. Granted, higher speed makes problems worse, but speed itself is a minor issue!
Back to the blackbox. A black box does nothing to record what the driver is doing. It only records some of what the car is doing (speed, brakes, RPM, and maybe the gear). That is a serious flaw! If someone is not looking at the road and has an accident at your prescribed slower speed, they are still capable of killing someone, and the blackbox would completely exonerate them.
Consider this scenario. Imagine for a moment that your child was hit at a ped. crossing by a driver who was playing with the car's radio. Now your child is permanently injured, and you have to pay his/her medical bills. You go to court for relief (sue the insurance co. and the driver). It is stated in court that your child was being careless and ran into the street and in front of the car. You know this isn't true, but then the driver is exonerated by the simple blackbox data stating that the driver was not speeding and that the brakes were being applied when the car hit your child. This kind of case has been heard in court before (public court records), but it usually requires a lot of testimony regarding vehicle speed from expert witnesses, and testimony from witnesses at the scene. The blackbox would eliminate that need for witnesses and automatically become a completely unchalengeable expert witness. If you faced this I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.