The little things that annoy you

[doodab]

Speed may not kill, but if done in a car, the chances [potential] of having a fatal accident increase dramatically (proportional to the 4th power in some cases according to your article I think) in practise with speed wrt to ground. Did you see the table just over half way down in your article? For motorways I think predominantly, the effect of speed on accident fatalities was quite marked.

I did. That table actually shows the chances of an accident being injurious or fatal should you have one, but it doesn't say anything about the probability of actually having an accident.

In fact, according to the article the chances of having an accident depend on the difference in speed compared to the flow of traffic, not on speed itself. The variance in speed is apparently minimised when the speed limit is less than 10mph below the "design speed" of the road, presumably because it reduces the differences in speed between people who stick to the limit and people who decide what speed to drive at based on their own judgement of the road itself.

Taking some numbers from the article, if you are on a road designed for 100mph (which I believe is the case for British motorways, which originally had no speed limits) and every one else is doing 90, then you are at least six times more likely to have an accident if you drive at 60 than if you drive at 90 (based on figure 2 and taking the left hand most point on the dark blue graph, as figure 1 makes it look like a factor of about 100 which seems a bit high to me) According to the text under the table there is already a >50% chance of an accident being fatal when you are travelling at 60mph, so even if an accident at 90mph were guaranteed to kill you that's only a factor of two increase in the probability of death. Combining the two probabilities means you are at least three times more likely to die driving at 60 in those conditions than if you drive at 90.

[TimberWolf]

I did. That table actually shows the chances of an accident being injurious or fatal should you have one, but it doesn't say anything about the probability of actually having an accident.

In fact, according to the article the chances of having an accident depend on the difference in speed compared to the flow of traffic, not on speed itself. The variance in speed is apparently minimised when the speed limit is less than 10mph below the "design speed" of the road, presumably because it reduces the differences in speed between people who stick to the limit and people who decide what speed to drive at based on their own judgement of the road itself.

Taking some numbers from the article, if you are on a road designed for 100mph (which I believe is the case for British motorways, which originally had no speed limits) and every one else is doing 90, then you are at least six times more likely to have an accident if you drive at 60 than if you drive at 90 (based on figure 2 and taking the left hand most point on the dark blue graph, as figure 1 makes it look like a factor of about 100 which seems a bit high to me) According to the text under the table there is already a >50% chance of an accident being fatal when you are travelling at 60mph, so even if an accident at 90mph were guaranteed to kill you that's only a factor of two increase in the probability of death. Combining the two probabilities means you are at least three times more likely to die driving at 60 in those conditions than if you drive at 90.

Okay, it's agreed the probability of an accident being fatal is greater at higher speeds, if you are involved in an accident. Much greater.

But the probability of an accident occurring in the first place is weighted more heavily in favour of speed relative to other road users than to speed relative to ground, according to the article. Certainly it does feel dangerous driving slowly on a fast road, and the consequences of that are often seen, just as we see for people that drive faster than the speed limit. Okay, perhaps slow drivers turn out to be more dangerous than speeders overall. It does sometimes feel like it.

But, some people don't like driving fast. You might introduce a minimum speed on motorways, but you can't do that on many if not most other roads. Roads which have pedestrians (which sometimes can't run out of the way very fast), cyclists, junctions and tractors; here slow traffic and variance in speeds appears unavoidable. Would you want to see juggernauts doing 80 or 90 on motorways anyway?

I may read the article fully later.

[shoes]

I don't really believe it's that much of a conscious thing with most MLer's. I think they just tootle along, completely unaware of the world around them.

Yeah the majority may well do, but I don't. Im well aware of what Im doing and why Im doing it. I don't give a stuff that the self righteous flashers and 'swerve in front of' ers don't understand it but yet believe they are

1, in full comprehension of the situation
2, arrogant enough to believe they have anything to teach me
3, believe it a useful service to provide their opinion on my driving

I just laugh at them. If I could explain it to them in sign language I would, but it's too complicated for them. I find the middle finger conveys the most useful message.

[shoes]

One that struck me today. The people that pull up to the first pertrol pump in a garage when the one in front is free and you are waiting behind them. I mean WTF is that all about? What are they thinking when they pull up. Surely you have to actually think to pull up at the nearest one and not go forward?

Are they choosing the only pump with the higher octane fuel?

[shoes]

So you are self imposing at 70mph limit with an un-calibrated speedometer that by law muster over-read by at least 3%. You also get satisfaction by holding up over drivers that could be off-duty police, firemen, ambulance men or lifeboat crew on the way to emergencies not to mention doctors or somebody taking an emergency to hospital in their own car.

Just exactly how does speed kill? Or do you mean speeding and tailgating or 17 year olds unable to steer around a corner?

I made no mention of speed, or getting satisfaction from anything, or holding anyone up. Read it again more slowly. Other than that, top post.

[MaryPoppins]

Yeah the majority may well do, but I don't. Im well aware of what Im doing and why Im doing it.

...the cavalier approach to punctuation?

[shoes]

...the cavalier approach to punctuation?

...

[Paddy]

I made no mention of speed, or getting satisfaction from anything, or holding anyone up. Read it again more slowly. Other than that, top post.

I did real all of your post and you seem to be making up your own rules for the road and in addition making an excuse why you don’t want to use the inside lane because it is rutted. You could buy a car with decent suspension and then it won’t be a problem. The way that describe you driving habits; you must drive like self indulgent tosser.

[shaunbhoy]

I did real all of your post and you seem to be making up your own rules for the road and in addition making an excuse why you don’t want to use the inside lane because it is rutted. You could buy a car with decent suspension and then it won’t be a problem. The way that describe you driving habits; you must drive like self indulgent tosser.

Whereas expecting everyone to move out of your way so that you can more safely and easily flout the speed limits suggests a highly altruistic driving style.

[Spacecadet]

Whereas expecting everyone to move out of your way so that you can more safely and easily flout the speed limits suggests a highly altruistic driving style.

Not move out of the way, just use the lanes the way you should do
Its not rocket science, stay left unless overtaking.

If some other idiot wants to do 90+ in the "fast" lane then thats their business just concentrate on your own driving.