Cruising Speed

[Silver16]

Flashback to drivers ed...the horror

[gmcleer]

Safest to drive with the traffic. Slow drivers probably create more numerous accidents and create traffic. Fast drivers likely create fewer but more deadly accidents.

[Grumpy Bear]

In one of my data hunts I had the need to run 70 and 75 mph for extended periods and learned something that made me smile.

70 is the local Interstate speed here in Illinois. So naturally everyone drives at least 75 mph. Well…sort of. +/- 3 mph of 75 anyway. Know what that means?

 

There is a bunch of brake checking, horn honking and rat racing. Especially around the on and off ramps. The real A holes live up at that speed. The ones who speed way up to get in front of you then brake check hard. The ones who speed up and pin you between them and the on ramp traffic and the guy in front of you doing 2 mph under 75. The ones who switch lanes to get out in front of someone faster because there running on cruise a bit faster that the guy in front of them and don’t want to slow making everyone in the ‘fast lane’ checkup, honk horns, fly birds and pass on his right, get in front of him and slam on the brakes to show him what an ass he is.

 

Absolutely none of that happens running 10 under the limit. You get a nasty or perhaps inquisitive look, a pass and on their merry way they go. Traffic moves around you smooth as melted butter. Yep. Running with the pack is a hundred times safer.

[JoeM21]

 

Yea I said…..but I love logic traps.

 

<snip>

 

Let’s play this out. Case #1. I’m doing 5 under on a primary and you’re doing 5 over. 10 difference in the same direction. That would be equivalent to you hitting a stone wall at 10 mph. Let that FULLY sink in. You can run walk into a wall that fast and survive without a bruise. A rear end collision is the ONLY case possible by your definition of speed differential hazard.

 

When you approach me your pass is complete in a relatively short distance and your on your way none the worse for the wear.

 

Case #2. I’m driving 5 over and you pass me. You have to accelerate to say what 70 in a 55 to do that without taking up half a state to do so. Don’t lie, it’s probably faster. The oncoming car is also doing 5 over. He drives like you do. That’s a collision with a stone wall at 130 MPH where everyone dies or sustains critical injury. In addition you collect me the guy or two or three behind him that are following too closely and some bystander on a bicycle on his graduation trip across country and his girlfriend.

 

Been lurking this forum for a short time and have probably picked a very poor place for a first post. Not looking to start any arguments - just trying to understand the "logic."

 

First off, I'm not so sure about running into a stone wall at 10 mph, but will take your word for it. I don't plan to try it out. I've fallen off a horse onto dirt at slower speeds and have the broken bones to show for it.

 

Some notes and questions on your own "logic traps":

 

- In case #1, the difference may only be 10mph, but both vehicles are still moving at highway speed. Even a small bump can create a fatal collision. It's not the 10mph "bump" that gets you, it's the 55mph uncontrolled spin into an overpass.

 

- How can you compare case #1 and case #2? Why isn't the oncoming driver a factor in #1? Add it to scenario #1 and the end result is the same. Not much difference between a head on with combined speeds of 130mph vs 120mph.

 

- Why are you following so closely in case #2? If someone wants to pass you, slow down a few mph and let them pass. Everyone wins. If the driver passing you is killed in a head on because you were determined to remain at 60mph, you share fault for the crash. The only difference between #1 and #2 is simply passing at 70mph vs 60mph. I'm not going to work the math to see how this changes the distance covered, but I bet any difference is offset if the car being passed in #2 simply showed standard courtesy backed off to 55. Most driving problems do come down to courtesy and respect. If the faster drivers didn't get so vindictive and the slower driver wasn't so sanctimonious or oblivious, the roads would be a better place.

 

 

On speed limits in general, I would respectfully suggest you are working from the wrong premise. Your position seems to assume that the posted speed limit is determined based on some inherent safety science. This is definitely not the case.

 

Speed limits were originally reduced to 55 in the 1970s - not for safety, but to save on fuel. While the national limit is no more, many states/area have been slow to correct the artificially low limits... and with good reason.

 

Maintaining artificially low limits is done intentionally to generate revenue. Speed enforcement is often done based on how "easy" it is to write tickets as opposed to locations where it can actually improve safety. Having a limit of 55 on a road that is designed for 70 makes virtually every driver an easy target. The government is expert at turning law-abiding people into criminals.

 

Road speeds are supposed to be based on the 85th percentile rule. As anyone who drives on a regular basis can attest, this is not the case. If speed limits were set correctly, "speeding" wouldn't be an issue. Of course, ticket revenue would substantially decrease and that's a problem for counties and states. In my area, ticket revenue is an integral part of the budget. With Illinois on the brink of bankruptcy, I'm sure it's as important in your area.

 

On a related note, I recently read comments from my own state's government about speed limits. They admitted to setting them lower than they should be because they _expect_ everyone to drive 10-15mph over the posted limit. I'll be the first to admit that this logic is insane. The point is that the people who create the speed limit laws are admitting that 55 really means 65-70 and 65 really means 75. That's why enforcement works the way it does. If they really expected to enforce a 55mph limit, they would enforce it. And people wonder why no one respects politicians.

 

 

Want to run 10mph under the limit? It may look fine and dandy from where you are sitting. What you don't see is the problems you are creating, sometimes for miles behind you. With all due respect, it's a rude as well as dangerous practice. I see drivers like that all the time. It creates a long back up with people changing lanes and getting more and more frustrated - until you finally get around the slow driver and the road opens up again. Road rage is a result of too many drivers operating in their own little bubble with no regard for others on the road. When everyone else is flying past you (like butter or not) that's a definite sign the problem is you, not them.

 

As studies have shown, "speed" isn't the problem as much as the difference in speed. Drivers going slower than the flow are just as much a problem as drivers going faster than the flow. No disrespect intended, but if you want to travel at 45mph, you probably shouldn't be on a 55mph road (unless it's rush hour, then we all get to average 10-15 mph on that same highway).

[Grumpy Bear]

 

Edited for time constraints......

 

As studies have shown, "speed" isn't the problem as much as the difference in speed. Drivers going slower than the flow are just as much a problem as drivers going faster than the flow. No disrespect intended, but if you want to travel at 45mph, you probably shouldn't be on a 55mph road (unless it's rush hour, then we all get to average 10-15 mph on that same highway).

So you only half read only some my entries on this topic? Read them all then try again. Before you do that, brush up on Newtonian Physics.

I rarely hold anyone up and when I do I just saved their life like the fellow passing me in the fog in a previous posting I intentionally blocked from killing us all.

Football players hit harder head on than a 10 mph delta impact with both vehicles going in the same direction. I’m not doing the math for you.

I broke my wrist when I was 10 falling off my feet with my hands in my pockets. My cousin died falling off his bike at walking speeds. What’s your point?

If you don’t understand why #1 is a rear end hit and #2 is a head on….because #1 isn’t a passing situation. Read slowly with an intent to understand instead of an intent to rebut. Post #48 sort of sums it up.

Let’s bottom line this. All the studies in the world and all the popular opinions expressed will not and cannot rewrite the three laws of motion in favor of a faster is better speed lobby. God doesn’t take bribes and he does read studies consulting men on what laws to make that keep this ball spinning and they all work in spite of our best attempts to mess it all up and our every opportunity to ignore them. If you still don’t get it. Pray. God made the rules. I just follow them. In fact we all do. It’s sort of unavoidable. If you think not then defy gravity by walking off a cliff. Let us know how that worked out for ya.

[JoeM21]

As I originally mentioned, I'm not looking for an argument and will thus decline to take the bait. I did read your other comments in this thread. Your response to my questions confirms the conclusion your prior comments led me to. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Peace to you.

[Grumpy Bear]

As I originally mentioned, I'm not looking for an argument and will thus decline to take the bait. I did read your other comments in this thread. Your response to my questions confirms the conclusion your prior comments led me to. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Peace to you.

 

Throw a ball into the air and it comes back to earth. That isn’t reason. It isn’t logic. It’s physics. It doesn’t need to be understood, explained or accepted. It just is. Frankly you don't matter in that context.

 

I’d be an idiot to deny that a difference in speed, any difference in speed expends energy and does so destructively. It can be quantified but you haven't an interest and as I’m not an idiot, we can dispense with that notion.

 

That said the opposing position is that driving more energy into the impact is safer because by some study it is less likely? Like I said God's laws explained to us by Newton's are pretty darn inflexible. Absolute in fact.

 

But you really make you agenda known when you argue, and I quote:

 

“Want to run 10mph under the limit? It may look fine and dandy from where you are sitting. What you don't see is the problems you are creating, sometimes for miles behind you. With all due respect, it's a rude as well as dangerous practice. I see drivers like that all the time. It creates a long back up with people changing lanes and getting more and more frustrated - until you finally get around the slow driver and the road opens up again. Road rage is a result of too many drivers operating in their own little bubble with no regard for others on the road. When everyone else is flying past you (like butter or not) that's a definite sign the problem is you, not them”.

1.) So you’re not arguing safety are you? Your arguing your personal annoyance at someone who isn’t the thousandths Lemming to jump from a cliff because everyone else does.

2.) Road rage isn’t the result of someone else’s actions. It’s the result of a lack of self control on the part of the person experiencing it. By your summation I’m responsible for their emotions and actions resultant from their lack of moral conviction? Get a grip. Or did you wish to offend?

3.) SO the sign I’m the problem that I drive BETWEEN the legal minimum and maximum in a field of people doing 5 to 25 over the limit?

 

Ya know, and I’m being serious here. My Father had that special sort of stupid beat out of me before I was five.

 

[Big Whiskey]

As I originally mentioned, I'm not looking for an argument and will thus decline to take the bait. I did read your other comments in this thread. Your response to my questions confirms the conclusion your prior comments led me to. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Peace to you.

Welcome to the forum. Don't get discouraged. This really is a great place, but there are a few members that are like talking to a brick wall. Your first post was a great one. My first post was probably something like, "Nice truck" haha. I'll be honest, when you talked about how the slow driver is in ignorant bliss, thinking that everything is great, because all of the problems are happening behind him/her.....I considered a similar response before you replied...but decided not to respond at all because I knew what would happen, haha. I recommend sharing your knowledge and opinions in another thread!

[KARNUT]

I read somewhere one of the reasons they increased the speed limit again from the double nickel was driving inattentiveness. People were having accidents from boredom and not paying attention. I remember those days road trips were grueling. Of course you can't rule out the laws of physics.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoeM21]

Welcome to the forum. Don't get discouraged. This really is a great place, but there are a few members that are like talking to a brick wall. Your first post was a great one. My first post was probably something like, "Nice truck" haha. I'll be honest, when you talked about how the slow driver is in ignorant bliss, thinking that everything is great, because all of the problems are happening behind him/her.....I considered a similar response before you replied...but decided not to respond at all because I knew what would happen, haha. I recommend sharing your knowledge and opinions in another thread!

 

Thanks, Big Whiskey. Glad to be here. I've read plenty of useful information in other threads and look forward to learning more.

[gearheadesw]

I still drive 67 to 68 to avoid the rat race.

It's traffic that makes everyone crazy, like this thread.

Welcome in Joe, lots of good info in here, and lots of personalities.

[gearheadesw]

Oops

[j-ten-ner]

...God made the rules. I just follow them. In fact we all do...

 

No, not me.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[JoeM21]

 

Throw a ball into the air and it comes back to earth.

 

<...etc.>

 

 

As I kick my self for responding.

 

I'll make it real simple (and in normal size text)....

 

I strongly disagree with your position. Your position or driving habits do not "annoy" me. Nor am I going to "argue," since no amount of information would make you see things from a different point of view.

 

All I wanted was to was better understand your position, how you arrived at it and what makes you hold your beliefs with such ferocity. I drive an above average number of miles each year in a variety of conditions. There are many types of drivers on the road, and I am often curious as to why they drive the way they do. I thank you for the insight you have provided into your thought process.

 

 

You keep throwing around the word "physics" as if it is some personal cloak of righteousness. Where it falls flat (pun intended) is you are not accounting for all the variables in the equation.

 

Driving is not one or two vehicles in a vacuum. It is all the vehicles, the road itself, weather conditions, the cop on the side of the road that forces everyone to brake check, etc. What _everyone_ does affects everyone else. That is the point many people miss. The slow driver, the fast driver, the driver at the speed limit. It is a much larger and connected choreography. Too many get fixated on the "trees" that they miss the "forest."

 

The simple "physics" you allude to is valid to a point, but only explains the _result_ of a crash (and that only partially). It does nothing to explain the _cause_ of the crash or how its likelihood could have been reduced or eliminated.

 

To use your example of throwing a ball into the air... of course, it will come back to earth. What you cannot tell me is where or when. That's because you did not take into account the variables of how hard I threw it and in what direction. This equation becomes more complicated when you add the variables of moving and stationary objects in the path of the ball. Which still doesn't account for a ball and objects that are able to randomly change acceleration, velocity, and vector at any time.

 

Driving is more complicated than F=ma. None of us can retreat to a bubble and deny that what we do affects others on the road. (Cause and effect being another important physics principle/) We have a responsibility to drive with the flow of traffic just as we have a responsibility to stop for pedestrians (jaywalking or not), let others merge into traffic, signal when changing lanes, etc. It's all part of "sharing the road." It requires us to consider our impact on _others_ and sometimes move a little faster, slower or change lanes. It's not a contest of who is "right," it's about knowing when to do the right thing.

 

The laws of physics are inflexible. On that, we can agree. Where we disagree is how complicated are the equations that apply to a dance of thousands of objects traveling at varying speeds in a confined area, each controlled by a different operator at a different skill level and sometimes with a different belief as to what the other objects "should" be doing.

 

 

Again, not trying to argue. That would imply I am trying to change your entrenched position. Just trying to correct any misunderstanding of where I am coming from as your response had some incorrect assumptions. You disagree with my position and I'm fine with that. When you respond, please try to refrain from implied personal attacks and assumptions about me. I know it's the internet, but we can try to discuss everyone's view without resorting to those tactics.

[Grumpy Bear]

Oh were to start. Let's start with the 'cause of the crash'. Well that's been determined a few millenniums ago. Two objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

 

Moving on and quoting:

 

“The laws of physics are inflexible. On that, we can agree. Where we disagree is how complicated are the equations that apply to a dance of thousands of objects traveling at varying speeds in a confined area, each controlled by a different operator at a different skill level and sometimes with a different belief as to what the other objects "should" be doing.”

 

BOLD: It doesn’t matter how complicated they are or who believes what sir, the result happens regardless. The dead have nothing to figure out. A point you seem to be missing. Your superior skills to which you elude “a different skill level” gives you the ability but not permission to drive recklessly.

 

Seemingly you don’t feel the need to have permission to ignore law. Actually the whole ‘reason for the law is reason to ignore it’ thing is….well…illogical and irrational.

 

Underlined: Exaggeration doesn’t prove a point. C’mon man. No wonder you have trouble with the math.

 

Simple F=MA.

 

Physics is not a cloak of righteousness. It’s a fact. A hard fact and one I understand well enough to teach it and have. I am not inflexible in matters of opinion. But I am guilty as charged in matters of ‘law’. Especially God’s laws which the laws of physics are. In matters of man’s laws such as speed limits I still submit to God’s will not yours.

 

Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.

 

Since the consensus is that we are free to ignore the speed limit and the laws of physics, (and we truly are) the law and by logical extension God’s law I don’t think I have anything left to say except this. You have freedom to choose your actions. You do not have freedom to choose your consequences. You do not have the freedom to choose mine. We are no longer discussing matters of science or even matters of law or our opinions about either. Now we’ve tread into matters of conscience.

 

You’re misunderstanding if you think I don’t or am unwilling to understand your position. I do and if it makes you feel better so do millions of drivers on roads everywhere in the world. And that should scare you. Millions die every year as a result. In the news every day. Man kills a mother and three children drunk driving or running a stop sign or losing control or head on in an illegal pass or hit and run or you fill in the blank______.

 

I’ve never heard of a death that reads: Man kills a family of four following the law and safe driving practice. And neither has anyone else.

 

You’re mistaking my unwillingness to compromise on a position in which I have no power over (these laws) as unreasonableness. I can’t fix that for anyone.

 

My text size it for me. It isn’t all about you.