Not wanting to split hairs but I was always taught that it is the "3 second rule", especially when driving at higher speeds e.g. on motorways. It always shocks me to see how close drivers sit behind other cars on motorways, it's so dangerous! (Not saying that you do this harley, but it just made me think about it)
-
Life Advice & Visual Arts
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules 🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌 📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸 -
LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari
Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion
- Thread starter Fjones
- Start date
Not wanting to split hairs but I was always taught that it is the "3 second rule", especially when driving at higher speeds e.g. on motorways. It always shocks me to see how close drivers sit behind other cars on motorways, it's so dangerous! (Not saying that you do this harley, but it just made me think about it)
SHHMCJOOAPOYS
Bluelighter
Fjones, a tractor trailer traveling 65 MPH on a highway is dangerous. They have little maneuverability. How about when a tractor trailer is traveling 80 MPH + on said highway? That scares me a little bit. I drive a high performance vehicle. When I see a tractor trailer blaze past me on the highway, I get worried. Not necessarily for myself, but for others on the road.
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
I always heard 3 second rule as well.
On a somewhat related note (This is not directed at anyone in particular), If someone is behind me and wants to go faster, I move over and let him. Why create an unsafe siutation by insisting on slowing down someone behind you who wishes to drive faster? Yet many drivers do exactly that, steadfastly refusing to move over into the right lane.
If a car in the ldeft lane is going the same speed as a car near him in the right lane, why must he create a moving roadblock by remaining in the left lane?
On a somewhat related note (This is not directed at anyone in particular), If someone is behind me and wants to go faster, I move over and let him. Why create an unsafe siutation by insisting on slowing down someone behind you who wishes to drive faster? Yet many drivers do exactly that, steadfastly refusing to move over into the right lane.
If a car in the ldeft lane is going the same speed as a car near him in the right lane, why must he create a moving roadblock by remaining in the left lane?
SHHMCJOOAPOYS
Bluelighter
I go nuts when I'm driving in the left lane and the person refuses to move over to let me pass. Often this results in me having to make a dangerous move in order to pass him. If the asshole would just move over, potential accidents would be a lot less likely.
harley89
Bluelighter
Yeah it may be two car lengths and 3 seconds. I got mixed up, yeah i hate seeing people getting right up behind someonne on the motorway and then having to brake. Braking on a motorway should not used unless compulsory because it puts drivers on edge when you see someones brake light, well to me personally anyway.
harley89
Bluelighter
I completely agree, you should only really be in the fast lane to over take or at on ramps.
Heuristic
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,263
A speed limit is a publicly known standard. It allows all drivers to calibrate themselves, and allows them to better coordinate their movements. The more you deviate from a set speed limit, the more at odds your movement will be to the expectations of other drivers, which will increase the chance of an accident.
If your deviation is to the positive side of the speed limit, then the odds of an accident at a higher speed will also increase (which is also why I'm unsure about the relevance of a graph posted above showing a greater incidence of crashes among drivers traveling under the average speed---such crashes are presumably less dangerous as well).
We should also be clear that the degree of control you have over your vehicle is not necessarily in a linear relationship to the speed of your vehicle. That is, it may not be true that every ten extra miles per hour of speed results in the same loss of control. The loss of control as you increase from 90 to 100mph may be significantly greater than the loss of control as you increase from 60 to 70, for example.
A lot of people above have introduced the example of the long freeway, clear of cars, except for the lonely speeder, cruising along at a controlled 100mph. I rarely see such a freeway, but it's nice to know that they still exist. To this, I have three questions:
1) Are cars tested for various standards of control at that speed? If not, does it make sense that we should encourage them to be driven that fast?
2) Do we really want each individual cop deciding on how much traffic has to be on the road before 100mph becomes an unsafe speed?
3) Do we really want individual drivers deciding how much traffic has to be on the road before 100mph becomes an unsafe speed?
Finally, we should be clear that while it may not make a large difference to the individual car whether the traveled speed is at 65 mph or 55 mph (though 85 mph likely does have significance), it may make a very large difference when we apply the difference to millions of cars traveling millions of miles, carrying hundreds of millions of people.
If your deviation is to the positive side of the speed limit, then the odds of an accident at a higher speed will also increase (which is also why I'm unsure about the relevance of a graph posted above showing a greater incidence of crashes among drivers traveling under the average speed---such crashes are presumably less dangerous as well).
We should also be clear that the degree of control you have over your vehicle is not necessarily in a linear relationship to the speed of your vehicle. That is, it may not be true that every ten extra miles per hour of speed results in the same loss of control. The loss of control as you increase from 90 to 100mph may be significantly greater than the loss of control as you increase from 60 to 70, for example.
A lot of people above have introduced the example of the long freeway, clear of cars, except for the lonely speeder, cruising along at a controlled 100mph. I rarely see such a freeway, but it's nice to know that they still exist. To this, I have three questions:
1) Are cars tested for various standards of control at that speed? If not, does it make sense that we should encourage them to be driven that fast?
2) Do we really want each individual cop deciding on how much traffic has to be on the road before 100mph becomes an unsafe speed?
3) Do we really want individual drivers deciding how much traffic has to be on the road before 100mph becomes an unsafe speed?
Finally, we should be clear that while it may not make a large difference to the individual car whether the traveled speed is at 65 mph or 55 mph (though 85 mph likely does have significance), it may make a very large difference when we apply the difference to millions of cars traveling millions of miles, carrying hundreds of millions of people.
SHHMCJOOAPOYS
Bluelighter
Cars are built to maintain control at high speeds.
ThaiDie4
Bluelighter
Good points ^
Yeah, I read the first few pages of this thread, so if I'm repeating something that someone else arleady pointed out, I appologize.
Ok, ideally everyone would drive in the safest car models, have their tires properly inflated, have their car inspected and be fully alert while driving. Ideally, the roads would be in good condition and the weather would be good (i.e. not windy, icy, rainy, etc.)
But, the ideal is not always reality ^
Fjones, you are right, the actual act of speeding probably isn't the reason for so many accidents... but the thing is, speeding can worsen the affects of said accidents.
Let's take the tire blowout... lets say some asshole didn't inflate their tires properly... they are driving along, you are following them and lets say you are both going 15 mph over the limit. His tire blows out, and you don't have time to stop before you hit them. You both die.
Okay... now, it wasn't YOUR speeding that directly was the problem, but had you both been going slower, two lives could have been saved.
And I get what you are saying about how death is normal, and we have to expect that a certain number of deaths will happen each year on the road... but just because that jerk didn't inflate his tires properly doesn't mean he deserves to die. Same with you... its sad that you think so little of your life that you are OK with dying.. I really don't mean that remark in a rude or sarcastic way, but really, I feel like you should care more about your life. Maybe that's a whole different issue, but I just wanted to point out my opinion on that.
Yeah, I read the first few pages of this thread, so if I'm repeating something that someone else arleady pointed out, I appologize.
Ok, ideally everyone would drive in the safest car models, have their tires properly inflated, have their car inspected and be fully alert while driving. Ideally, the roads would be in good condition and the weather would be good (i.e. not windy, icy, rainy, etc.)
But, the ideal is not always reality ^
Fjones, you are right, the actual act of speeding probably isn't the reason for so many accidents... but the thing is, speeding can worsen the affects of said accidents.
Let's take the tire blowout... lets say some asshole didn't inflate their tires properly... they are driving along, you are following them and lets say you are both going 15 mph over the limit. His tire blows out, and you don't have time to stop before you hit them. You both die.
Okay... now, it wasn't YOUR speeding that directly was the problem, but had you both been going slower, two lives could have been saved.
And I get what you are saying about how death is normal, and we have to expect that a certain number of deaths will happen each year on the road... but just because that jerk didn't inflate his tires properly doesn't mean he deserves to die. Same with you... its sad that you think so little of your life that you are OK with dying.. I really don't mean that remark in a rude or sarcastic way, but really, I feel like you should care more about your life. Maybe that's a whole different issue, but I just wanted to point out my opinion on that.
Heuristic
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,263
I'd imagine the reduction in the amount of force transferred by reducing the speed of a multi-ton vehicle by 20mph would be substantial, even if no collision were averted.
But let's say the chances of avoiding collision increase just 5% as we drop in speed from 80 to 60, assuming all else equal. All right. And let's say that actual speeds driven tend to concentrate around whatever the speed limit is, so that a 20 mph drop in the limit will result in a roughly 20 mph drop in actual speeds driven (even if on average these are 10mph above whatever the limit might be).
Then we've reduced all collisions resulting from tire blowouts, in this type of situation, by 5%. We've probably reduced fatal collisions by an even greater amount.
Take that 5% and multiply it over years, over millions of instances...
But I'm just making up numbers here. Point is, even a 5% reduction is meaningful because of the large numbers of drivers.
I do agree with you that it is really annoying when people in the fast lane won't move over to let you pass (as many others have noted in this thread already). But in the interests of safety to yourself and others, couldn't you just be patient and wait until they move and then pass them at a reasonable speed, rather than making high-risk moves to get around them??
RedLeader
Bluelight Crew
Wow, I didn't realise this thread was still going!
SHHMCJOOAPOYS
Bluelighter
Good point.. If I had to guess it would be a low %
SHHMCJOOAPOYS
Bluelighter
Sure I could be patient, but I when I drive, I tend to want to get to wherever I am going as fast as possible.
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
I am not sure I understand this example. The trailing car should be able to stop in time without hitting the car with the blown out tire. It's not as though a tire blowout causes a cr to go from 75 MPH to 0 MPH instantly.
Who said I am okay with dying? If a car in front of you has a tire blowout, and you are going to same speed as he is, I don't see why there will be an accident.
People die every year for lots of reasons. I was merely pointing that out. If everyone is so concerned with highway safety, then why is it acceptable to drive cars that are so much less safe than other cars? Why is a car's handling capabilities not the most important aspect of a car's features for people when picking out a car?
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
Let us assume that reducing speed yields a decrease in the likelihood of an accident (a logical assumption). We nevertheless have to reach a point where we accept some risk and death and injury, otherwise we could never move our cars from park.
Thus, a certain amount of tragedy is unavoidable. But we can do our best to minimize this incidence of tragedy. We jsut don't all agree on how to do it. Some people want to just set some sort of speed limit and never change it. I disagree with this approach. I think technological advances afford us the capability to drive faster than in previous decades.
Instead, we set somewhat arbitrary sped limits, allow people to drive cars that handle poorly, and put no effort into driver training and education. A speed limit is not going to save people if people just can't drive for shit.
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
Why does everyone keep talking about TIRE BLOWOUTS as though some sort of cosmic force causes every car in the vicinity of tire blowout to crash? WHen driving a car, you are supposed to be paying enough attention and alowing enough space in front of you to BRAKE safely if a car in front of you decelerates abrubtly. Now, if a car in front of you hits some sort of massive stationary object that literally causes the car to stop in that exact spot, going from 75 MPH to 0MPH instantly, then yes, the rear car will probably hit that car. But, that isn't what happens.
Multicar accidents on interstate highways are very rare. I'll try to look up the data and post it here, but they really are very rare.
For the record, I have had three tire blowouts. The stock tires and wheels on a car I drove were faulty acrosss the entire model line, resulting in a class action lawsuit that was successful. Anyhow, I did the same thing in each of those blowouts -- I slowed down and pulled off the road and put on my spare. No one died, no cars lost control, and no one crashed.
Maybe I got lucky. Or maybe I drive safer cars that most. Who knows? But when I buy a car, my primary concern is how the car handles and its ability to safely maneuver in an emergency.
But hey, it's cool, Hummers and Suburbans look cool, even if they cannot avoid an accident or perform emergency maneuvering.
Multicar accidents on interstate highways are very rare. I'll try to look up the data and post it here, but they really are very rare.
For the record, I have had three tire blowouts. The stock tires and wheels on a car I drove were faulty acrosss the entire model line, resulting in a class action lawsuit that was successful. Anyhow, I did the same thing in each of those blowouts -- I slowed down and pulled off the road and put on my spare. No one died, no cars lost control, and no one crashed.
Maybe I got lucky. Or maybe I drive safer cars that most. Who knows? But when I buy a car, my primary concern is how the car handles and its ability to safely maneuver in an emergency.
But hey, it's cool, Hummers and Suburbans look cool, even if they cannot avoid an accident or perform emergency maneuvering.