its annoying and dangerous.. but boy do i love pulling up at a stop light next to the person who blew past me 5 minutes earlier
its annoying and dangerous.. but boy do i love pulling up at a stop light next to the person who blew past me 5 minutes earlier
its annoying and dangerous.. but boy do i love pulling up at a stop light next to the person who blew past me 5 minutes earlier
5 mins was just a estimate but its probably closer to what your sayingThis. So many times people here in Manchester will dangerously overtake one just for exactly what you said to happen.. except instead of minutes earlier it's seconds.
yup grandpa taught leave some room to stop and then someI work as a driving instructor in the school bus industry. It's amazing how many people willingly tailgate school buses so close that you cannot even see their headlights in the rear view mirror. This is followed by them passing school bus, going 70 down the road in a 50 zone, then getting stopped at red light or by car that was front of school bus.
Speed is one thing, but tailgating has become much more of an epidemic that cops do jackshit about. Following too closely causes SO FUCKING MANY preventable accidents it's insane.
by and large the enforcement of speeding is not consistent, and penalties for speeding as an infraction are not severe.
This. In a modern day Audi or BMW, the number of safety systems is pretty incredible. The number of airbags, the safety systems that are embedded in the software, the number of different calculations the car can make using different traction control systems, the car knows when it's going to crash and takes procedures to lessen the impact, etc etc.In many places, the speed limits were set during times when cars didn't have the technology we have today. So things like better traction control, steering, braking, etc., allow us to drive faster without decreasing safety but the speed limits haven't changed so it feels unnecessarily slow to only go the speed limit at times. Plus people tend to prioritize their time more than safety in general.
There was a thread about this on the old forum and someone posted a study that basically said:
If a speed limit is deemed by the driver to be correct for the road they are on, then they will not speed - and if not, they are much more likely to speed.
Basically, on most roads the speed limit could stand to go up a notch, and then everyone (or at least the vast majority) would be driving at a consistent speed, which would be safer despite the limit being higher.
100% this. 35 in a lot of nowheresville long roads here in FL. Pisses me off.because speed limits are comically low in many places and only exist to make money, not for safety reasons.
This is far and away the truth of the matter.Many accidents happen when you have speeders and slow pokes on the road together. It's the differential that is the cause of collision.
Driving slowly in areas where children are constantly active is understandable. For debris on roads, that is a failure by the municipality. I also find it hard to base speed limits off of potential dangers, where the dangers are entirely random and unforeseen. I understand why you would lower speed limits in areas where black ice reliably forms during certain seasons, or where animals frequently dawdle. Highways, though? Quick transit is what they're meant for. Highways are generally linear, so unless someone is magnificently bad at driving, control shouldn't be an issue.Well, for one thing, the vehicle becomes harder to control at higher speeds, and it takes longer to stop. So, like, if you're in that type of situation and something unexpected happens—like an animal or child runs out onto the street or something, or maybe there's some debris on the highway—it becomes much harder to avoid an accident, and the damage from that accident will be much higher.
Yeah, speeders and turtles.It seems the study is indicating that the majority of accidents are caused by a minority of individuals who are either going too fast or going too slow. But speeders are killing folks y'all.
I find that plenty of people are magnificently bad at driving. I know that getting a license is much harder in Europe than it is here, though, but nonetheless, bad drivers showing up and basically being obstacles is a thing, too, and I really wouldn't consider them a failure of the municipality (maybe a failure of the state to grant them a license, at best).Driving slowly in areas where children are constantly active is understandable. For debris on roads, that is a failure by the municipality. I also find it hard to base speed limits off of potential dangers, where the dangers are entirely random and unforeseen. I understand why you would lower speed limits in areas where black ice reliably forms during certain seasons, or where animals frequently dawdle. Highways, though? Quick transit is what they're meant for. Highways are generally linear, so unless someone is magnificently bad at driving, control shouldn't be an issue.
There is no dispute, speed kills. With higher speed crashes, injury severity increase as does the likelihood of fatalities. We treat non-seatbelt use or drunk driving as serious concerns to safety, why not speeding? It seems to me that society has collectively decided that convenience trumps safety when it comes to driving.