Prove me wrong - driving speed related

[rong]

So I just had an argument with my g/f about driving speeds with the kids in the car. She hates it when I go over 70mph on the motorway (that's the speed limit, so feel free to replace that with your local freeway sped limit to relate more).

Her argument s that it's irresponsible and unnecessarily risking our childrens lives. 70mph is the speed limit and therefore that's the maximum speed I should drive when the kids are in the car.

I argue that I should drive at whatever speed I feel is appropriate for the driving conditions and that I wouldn't take risks with regard to my childrens safety and driving at 80mph in good driving conditions isn't doing so.

How can anyone say 80mph is too fast from a safety standpoint? Surely that argument relies on the fact that the faster you are going the more dangerous, but in that case why is 70mph ok? As you can legally drive at 60mph on the motorway which is surely safer than 70mph. So if 80 is taking unnecassary risks, surely so is 70, right? And obviously the same argument could be applied to driving anything over like 20mph or w/e speed limit has a risk factor of practically nil for the driver/passenger.

Now unless anyone can argue that there is a particularly steep and sudden increase in risk once you go above 70mph that doesn't exist prior to this speed, surely that argument is stupid.

You can't argue that it is more risky due to driving faster than the other cars, as at 80mph is a very common speed to travel at and you certainly wouldn't spend much time in the outside lane doing 80 as you need to get the fuck out the way of all the people driving much faster than you, of which there will be many.

I explained this to my gg/f. She got very, very angry. I tried using expressions like your argument is invalid. It didn't help. She threatened to state that I think it's safe to drive at 100mph on facebok to shame me (taking my above argument a stage further), I explained to her that her friends are fuckoing stupid and if need be I will tell them so in the public arena of facebook. She is yet to post it.


The point here is I'm sure I'm wrong, I just can't figure out why. Please help.

[OngBonga]

You are right, she is wrong, and her friends are indeed stupid. But that's because you're the man, and gf's friends are always stupid.

You could argue that driving at 70 means you have to spend more time in the car with woman and children, thus stressing you out more. Stress is pretty dangerous when driving.

Seriously, problem I see is that most people are driving at around 80 on the motorway, if you're going slower than the traffic in the middle lane then that in itself is more dangerous than simply travelling at the same speed in convoy, you overtake and get overtaken less when you match the average speed. Conditions are critical, and those drivers around you are conditions that have to be factored in, imo. If you're sticking to 70, you're going to spend a lot of time in the slower lane with articulated lorries and fucking old people in their brown and yellow Austin Allegros, you have to go at 80 to keep out of moron lane.

I reckon next time you're all on the motorway you should go at 90 then negotiate down to 80.

[Hawk]

I don't have evidence to back you up, but I've always learned (at it makes complete sense to me) that going 5-10 mph below the rest of traffic is more of a safety problem than speeding to keep up with the flow due to you becoming an obstacle for other the other cars on the road. Along with that, you also end up being at increased risk of being the victim of road rage.

Safe driving speeds depend on other traffic, road conditions, your car, and your own driving comfort/ability. Speed limit are set to be safe for bad drivers in bad cars on bad road conditions.

All that said, logic is irrelevant to any woman who is convinced that she's right, so even with absolute proof you'll need some luck to win this.

[kickass]

Horrible argument! No way to change her mind, girls have their opinions. Just know all of MANkind are on your side. Now go apologise its not worth the hassle, let her drive in future.

[JKDS]

The problem is you're both right.

1) You're right. Driving slower or faster than the average speed of every other car is dangerous. Although, driving faster is moreso than driving slower. You could argue about kinetic energy and how its proportional to the square of your velocity...but a crash at 60 is gonna kill you about as often as one at 80 so whatever.

2) She's right. Speed limits are set based on considerations from a few parties. The most important influence comes from traffic engineers...whose job it is to determine how safe it is to drive on the road.

Another influence is from governmental bodies...who just fuck with it for fun. Examples include how a highway is 55mph in the State of PA while its 65mph in the State of NJ. Roughly the same everything except they crossed a state boundary.

[Illfavor]

Lots of speed limits are arbitrary. I think speeding is fine as long as you're respecting road conditions, like you seem to do. Your gf needs to know that politicians are not civil engineers.

What bothers me is how little experience and actual ability Americans can have to be given the full legal right to operate a 2,500lb weapon. How is texting while driving not banned yet? My gf got her license at age 18 with approx. 45 mins of driving experience, lifetime. The state of TX then said "YOU ARE LEGALLY PROFICIENT ENOUGH TO DRIVE ON THE HIGHWAY DESPITE NOT HAVING SEEN YOU DO SO"

[JKDS]

Whats better than that Ill, is that in AZ my drivers License doesnt expire until im 65. Some bs paper test, and like 15min of driving with an instructor + parallel parking and bam, legal to drive forevers.

But south western states are weird...ESPECIALLY texas. Whats it like in other countries?

[supa]

I'll approach this as the devils advocate because you really aren't going to get many people to disagree with you. However I rarely drive slower than 80 on the highway and usually triple digits on a motorcycle.

Studies have shown there has been a 16.6% increase in fatalities since speed limits went up to 65 from 55 in california in 1995. Just 10mph faster, so yeah, your chicks right.

Other studies prove that basically the faster you drive the more likely you're going to a fatal accident.

One study actually says that due to decrease travel time obesity rates go up with speed limits. lol.

[rong]

The appropriate speed is not the point I'm getting at. The point is the stupidity of her argument, which is 70 is safer than 80 so you should drive at 70. I drives me insane. I think 90 is fine if there isn't much traffic and it's dry. On my own I drive approx 90-100 any time I'm in a rush without worrying at all.

[rong]

I'll approach this as the devils advocate because you really aren't going to get many people to disagree with you. However I rarely drive slower than 80 on the highway and usually triple digits on a motorcycle.

Studies have shown there has been a 16.6% increase in fatalities since speed limits went up to 65 from 55 in california in 1995. Just 10mph faster, so yeah, your chicks right.

Other studies prove that basically the faster you drive the more likely you're going to a fatal accident.

One study actually says that due to decrease travel time obesity rates go up with speed limits. lol.

This does not make her right!!!!!

If it's a safety issue, then why drive at 70? Studies also show that it's safer at 60. So surely if she cares she should drive 60? Right? Well then why not 55? That would be even safer!

The argument is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[rong]

In fact, someone please explain to me why I should drive at 70 and not 90 with the kids in the car and then explain to me why I shouldn't take the same logic further and drive at 60.

I only throw kids in to this argument to amplify the safety aspect.

[JKDS]

Because driving at speeds drastically different than the average road speed is very very dangerous. Not speed limit, what the cars are actually driving on average.

[rong]

I disagree that driving at 60 on the motorway is more dangerous than 70. You'd just sit in the slow lane trundling along with trucks and busses and shit.

[JKDS]

Going further, you are much less likely to be able to handle a sudden problem that you havent account for at a higher speed.

Tire blow outs for example.

[rong]

Incidentally, I had a back drivers side tyre blow out on me last year on the motorway while doing approx 95mph and overtaking a lorry. Scared the shit out of me, but all was fine.

But you're right JKDS. But imagine only driving at 40mph, I'm sure it would be even safer. Maybe avoid motorways and windy roads with 60 limits altogether, it's just unnecessary risk.

[rong]

This was my what was left of the tyre

[d0zer]

German autobahns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure there are other factors than speed involved, but if speed was that significant a factor in fatality rates, we'd see higher fatality rates on german highways.

[JKDS]

Im not sure what your getting at anymore man.

We're talking about highway driving right? These are roads designed to be super open, little to no stops, no one waiting for left/right turns, no kids that can just pop out of bushes and in front of your car, and constant maintence so that potholes and other unexpected road hazards are drastically limited. For these reasons you can drive much faster on highways than other roads.

There is a ton of arbitraryness set into making speed limits due to political entities (though how much is hard to say, as traffic engineers DO play a role in deciding the limit). Whats most important on highways is just making sure you are going with the flow. Any speed that is not with the flow is dangerous. Thats it.

It appears i was mistaken before about slower being necessarily less dangerous than faster...but both are still bad. Solomon curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . I know, its wiki, but still.

[rong]

Some interesting info in here too

Speed limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[rong]

What does the flow of trafic mean on a 3 lane road with each land going at a different speed?

[Illfavor]

German autobahns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure there are other factors than speed involved, but if speed was that significant a factor in fatality rates, we'd see higher fatality rates on german highways.

From the many Germans I know, it is waaaaaaaay harder to get a drivers license in Germany than in the US. They're expensive and you need like 50 hrs of professional training and classes. The other factors are significant.

[Illfavor]

Some interesting info in here too

Speed limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That massive table on effectiveness seemed to somewhat prove you gfs point. Reducing the speed limit from whatever mark is or maybe is not significantly safer, but increasing it is significantly more dangerous, though it's a little cloudy.

[JKDS]

From the article i linked

“for example, if I drive at 45 mph, while the median of the pack is 60 mph, how many cars will pass me in an hour and hence have a chance to collide with me?"

^Explains pretty well the problem with driving at a lower than average speed...and also why driving at a speed higher is safer (though still dangerous)

A different article that may be fun for seeing the effectiveness of speedlimits
Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

[supa]

I disagree that driving at 60 on the motorway is more dangerous than 70. You'd just sit in the slow lane trundling along with trucks and busses and shit.

Well no, you're wrong and can't read either. With a 10mph increase in speed we've seen an increase in fatalities. Not a small increase either. 16% is a pretty significant increase.

[JKDS]

Also re autobahn.

Having a speed limit at all creates a sample of ppl that have varying degrees of adherence to it. For example...you'll have ppl that completely ignore it and go faster/slower, and ppl that stick to it like glue. This causes a natural difference in speed between ppl and can be dangerous. The autobahn eliminates this mandate...and so most ppl drive at the speed they feel is comfortable and safe...which averages out pretty well.

Also this Speed Limits: Frequently Asked Questions is pretty informative

[rong]

Well no, you're wrong and can't read either. With a 10mph increase in speed we've seen an increase in fatalities. Not a small increase either. 16% is a pretty significant increase.

Actually, I'm right and can read perfectly fine. I wasn't referring to your post.

[supa]

From the article i linked

“for example, if I drive at 45 mph, while the median of the pack is 60 mph, how many cars will pass me in an hour and hence have a chance to collide with me?"

^Explains pretty well the problem with driving at a lower than average speed...and also why driving at a speed higher is safer (though still dangerous)

A different article that may be fun for seeing the effectiveness of speedlimits
Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

Still no. Driving 15 mph slower or faster is gonna net you the same amount of interaction with the same # of cars.

I will say that when I ride a bike I always go faster than the speed of traffic because I can deal with almost anything thats coming from in front of me. Getting hit from behind on a motorcycle is something I never want to experience.

[rong]

From the article i linked

“for example, if I drive at 45 mph, while the median of the pack is 60 mph, how many cars will pass me in an hour and hence have a chance to collide with me?"

^Explains pretty well the problem with driving at a lower than average speed...and also why driving at a speed higher is safer (though still dangerous)

A different article that may be fun for seeing the effectiveness of speedlimits
Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

Well, if you imagine a 3 lane road, the left lane is people driving at 60mph, the middle lane mainly consists of 70mph and the outside lane mainly of 80mph, plus a bunch of randoms which mean cars occasionaly switch back and forth, surely those in the middle would pass or be passed by more cars as they have 2 lanes of vehicles to potentially crash into.

[supa]

Actually, I'm right and can read perfectly fine. I wasn't referring to your post.

I know. But your still wrong no matter how badly you want to be right.

[d0zer]

From the many Germans I know, it is waaaaaaaay harder to get a drivers license in Germany than in the US. They're expensive and you need like 50 hrs of professional training and classes. The other factors are significant.

of course they are, but if they are more significant than speed, it suggests non-surprisingly that bad/inexperienced driving is a much more significant factor in accident than speed.

Since DanAronG is a man, of course he's a great driver so he should just tell his wife not to drive fast and his kids will be safe!

[rong]

I think Daven nailed it. Your safe from bans if I ever become mod.

[rong]

I know. But your still wrong no matter how badly you want to be right.

Supa, you should meet my gf, she'd love you.

[JKDS]

Still no. Driving 15 mph slower or faster is gonna net you the same amount of interaction with the same # of cars.

I will say that when I ride a bike I always go faster than the speed of traffic because I can deal with almost anything thats coming from in front of me. Getting hit from behind on a motorcycle is something I never want to experience.

I dont think you understand what i said.

Driving with flow/average speed = Safest
Driving faster than average = less safe
Driving slower than average = less less safe

I linked studies that showed this, i believe the reason is that if you are driving faster than average you are the one thats doing the passing and react to others as opposed to them reacting to you.

[rong]

I feel stragnely better for getting this off my chest.

I'll be in our spare room if anyone wants me.

[JKDS]

Well, if you imagine a 3 lane road, the left lane is people driving at 60mph, the middle lane mainly consists of 70mph and the outside lane mainly of 80mph, plus a bunch of randoms which mean cars occasionaly switch back and forth, surely those in the middle would pass or be passed by more cars as they have 2 lanes of vehicles to potentially crash into.

And? Thats dangerous...

[rong]

well lots of people are passing you and you're passing lots of people, so lots of potentisl for crashing. If you were on the inside lane, only one lanes worth of people can plough into you.

[Illfavor]

of course they are, but if they are more significant than speed, it suggests non-surprisingly that bad/inexperienced driving is a much more significant factor in accident than speed.

Since DanAronG is a man, of course he's a great driver so he should just tell his wife not to drive fast and his kids will be safe!

But since we are a nation of women/asian immigrants, we need slower speeds to compensate.

[JKDS]

But we arent talking about how safe one side of the highway is compared to the other, or how safe higheways are compared to other roads D:

I mean...if you wanna talk about that...i feel safest in the slower road because they are closer to average speed than others. The fast lane has the crazies driving at rediculously fast speeds mixed with those that are just driving fast, and the middle has twice the amount of traffic i have to watch combined with both of these groups mixing into me.

[supa]

German autobahns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure there are other factors than speed involved, but if speed was that significant a factor in fatality rates, we'd see higher fatality rates on german highways.

As of 2008, 52% of the German autobahns have only advisory limits (Richtgeschwindigkeit), 15% have temporary speed limits due to weather or traffic conditions and 33% have permanent speed limits.[44] The length of speed-unrestricted autobahns slowly expanded after the opening of the East German borders in November 1989. Prior to German reunification in 1990, accident reduction programs in eastern German states were primarily focused on restrictive traffic regulation. Within two years after the opening, availability of high-powered vehicles and a 54% increase in motorized traffic led to a doubling of annual traffic deaths, despite "interim arrangements [which] involved the continuation of the speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph) on autobahns and of 80 km/h (50 mph) outside cities. An extensive program of the four Es (enforcement, education, engineering, and emergency response) brought the number of traffic deaths back to pre-unification levels after ten years while traffic regulations were raised to western standards (e.g., 130 km/h (81 mph) freeway advisory limit, 100 km/h (62 mph) on other rural roads, and 0.5 milligrams BAC) .[45]

.

[d0zer]

As of 2008, 52% of the German autobahns have only advisory limits (Richtgeschwindigkeit), 15% have temporary speed limits due to weather or traffic conditions and 33% have permanent speed limits.[44] The length of speed-unrestricted autobahns slowly expanded after the opening of the East German borders in November 1989. Prior to German reunification in 1990, accident reduction programs in eastern German states were primarily focused on restrictive traffic regulation. Within two years after the opening, availability of high-powered vehicles and a 54% increase in motorized traffic led to a doubling of annual traffic deaths, despite "interim arrangements [which] involved the continuation of the speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph) on autobahns and of 80 km/h (50 mph) outside cities. An extensive program of the four Es (enforcement, education, engineering, and emergency response) brought the number of traffic deaths back to pre-unification levels after ten years while traffic regulations were raised to western standards (e.g., 130 km/h (81 mph) freeway advisory limit, 100 km/h (62 mph) on other rural roads, and 0.5 milligrams BAC) [45]

.

[supa]

Bah...

[boost]

Well, here's the thing, even if she is right in her conclusion, her argument, as relayed to us by you, is deeply flawed. I'd rather talk with someone who is wrong, but is capable of using logic and new information to self correct, than someone who is right, but cannot support their claims and is able only to affirm their point with ultimate conviction. If she really is incapable of having a rational discussion about such a thing, then I say you just resort to (mock) misogyny and retort with something like, "do I make a habit of coming into the kitchen and dictating how you make sandwiches?"

[supa]

You''ll never get a decent sandwich with that kind of thinking.

[boost]

You''ll never get a decent sandwich with that kind of thinking.

ha, this is funny on the more pc level (crossing that line, even in a mock way, is unlikely to gain you any favor with a woman), and on a misogynistic level (women are too incompetent to handle even the most basic tasks without male oversight.) Although the latter interpretation is obviously far funnier.

[d0zer]

boost should be a marriage counsellor

[StarGrinder]

Men cannot argue with women. Why? Men argue with logic. Women argue with emotion. We can't win.

[wufwugy]

The increased speed limit to fatalities correlation may not be causal. Other things have changed over the time too, like more cars on the road, probably more bad drivers.

Anyways, concern is misplaced. Kids are probably at higher risk when their parents argue about stupid shit than when Daddy drives in the fast lane. And I guaranfuckingtee you that even talking while you're driving is substantially more dangerous than going 70 in a 60 or whatever

[JKDS]

+1

[dranger7070]

Man fuck you guys and your intsta-driver's license.

I had to drive over 400 hours, 50+ at night and then take the written test, then driving test with state certified instructor or w/e.

Fucking. Lame.

[bikes]

what? i didnt have to do any of that shit.

[Ash256]

So I just had an argument with my g/f

You'd already lost here.

[boost]

what? i didnt have to do any of that shit.

You don't have down syndrome.

[supa]

Fuck dranger, I think you can solo a single engine plane for less hours than that.

[Micro2Macro]

well considering your gf is a woman she cant fucking drive so her opnion here is completely invalid

[dranger7070]

This kind of makes me mad now. The vast majority of the kids in my age group in this area had to go through what I did or wait til they were 18. At which time you can just take the written and on the road.test.

[dranger7070]

Maybe it was only 200 hours, but still fucking absurd.

[boost]

I think it makes sense. Driver's Licenses are a privileged, not a right. Driving is fucking dangerous, and people take the privilege for granted. This is especially true for teens. I remember when all my friends and myself got our licenses. It was an orgy of speeding, power slides around every turn, and-- worst of all-- drunk driving.

[wufwugy]

It's not so much that I think lots of time should be put into passing drivers tests, but that the tests should be very strict. Every driver in the country, including 16 year old girls should be forced to pass big rig tests, motorcycle tests, obstacle course tests, high speed tests, and even impact tests. Every driver should have expert understanding and control of not only their vehicle but other vehicles and the traffic/transport system itself.

[eugmac]

but ya going on the german autobahn on the no-limit stretches, i was amazed at how orderly everything was. slow people really stick to the right, normal in the middle, crazies in the left who will once in a while blast by at 200km/h. as long as people have this understanding that dawdling in the passing lane will get you killed, accident rates should stay low imo. i saw a lot more accidents in canada, where every retard is allowed to get a license.

[wufwugy]

IMO traffic patrol causes more accidents than they prevent. I never pay as little attention to what's going on in front of me than when a cop passes me and I'm watching him in my mirror to see if he's gonna power trip and turn around and chase me down just to tell me I was going five over

[boost]

It's not so much that I think lots of time should be put into passing drivers tests, but that the tests should be very strict. Every driver in the country, including 16 year old girls should be forced to pass big rig tests, motorcycle tests, obstacle course tests, high speed tests, and even impact tests. Every driver should have expert understanding and control of not only their vehicle but other vehicles and the traffic/transport system itself.

ya, for sure. I think a huge danger is that people are unwilling or unable to empathize with other motorists. People don't put themselves in the shoes of the motorcyclist that they are tailgating. They don't recognize how cumbersome a big rig with an articulated trailer is. If people were simply more knowledgeable and able to relate to their fellow motorist, there would be far less aggression on the road. For example, all of us space out a bit and don't put 100% of our focus on the task of driving-- yet when we feel that anyone else isn't giving their full attention to the road, we get enraged and act like fucking asshats. That shit is dangerous.

[dranger7070]

Asshat is such an awesome word.

[flomo]

I agree with JKDS and everyone who is saying that going the same speed as the other traffic is safest.

What I don't get is how people don't understand the hierarchy of right of way.

Aircraft Carrier
Train
Very Big Truck
Big Truck
Bus
Truck
Mini Van
Large Car(me, I respect all the vehicles above and the ones below who cares)
Car
Small Car
Smart Car
Motorcycle
Pedestrian
Dog
Cat
Squirrel

WTF, some 50 year old lady just walked out in front of me without looking.
Im a stupid bitch I'm in a crosswalk I don't have to look for traffic




Sent from my IPhone

[boost]

flomo, that's actually the way things work in Thailand. The bigger your vehicle, the more right of way you have. Not sure if this is by law, but in practice that is how traffic works there. Pedestrians have no right of way. You will get run the fuck over if you expect traffic to stop for you as a pedestrian.

[rong]

Same in India too.

[rpm]

yeah roads in india are chaotic at best

[kiwiMark]

I think the point of that quote was that the east germans flipped out with how fun it is to go fast when they were finally allowed but once the novelty wore off everything returned to normal