Takedown on the Speed kills myth

[Stephane Dumas]

I saw this article from Jalopnik about a video showing a takedown on the "speed kills" myth.
http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-best-takedown-of-the-speed-kills-myth-you-1302382244@matthardigree

[colinstu]

Nice video. Totally agree.

[kj3400]

I'm starting to think the people who govern speed limits either a) don't drive the roads they set the limits for, b) think they're above the laws they set, so don't care what the limits are, c) are crazy, d) don't need to be setting them at all, or e) all of the above.

[Brandon]

I have only this to give for this video: 

And to boot, they have a true professional, a Michigan State Trooper stating that raising the limit is sometimes the better thing.

[hotdogPi]

Surface road: One person going 65 and everyone else going 40 kills. (This is the normal "speed kills".)

Interstate: One person going 40* and everyone else going 65 also kills.

*Usually people who go 40 on an interstate are distracted by cell phones or headphones, are drunk, have a problem with the car, or are tired.

[mgk920]

I've been saying it for years now - it is not 'speed' (as in how fast the car is going) that kills, it is *boneheadedness* that kills.  Nearly every crash of that sort is a boneheadedness thing.

Mike

[Billy F 1988]

Sure. That's been a common norm for a long time since the speed limit laws were put into place to begin with. People don't pay attention to the speed limits. There are specific reasons for them. It isn't to slow the vehicles down. It's to slow the operators of the vehicles down. But, people don't get it. They think "Ah, what can go wrong going 50 in a 30?!" Hey, trust me. I've been there, done that. Did my car break the speed limit going 40 in a 25? No. I did. And I had to learn that the hard way. Just remember one thing. It isn't the fact that the car behind you is speeding and tailgating you. It's the person operating the car behind you speeding and tailgating. Please follow the speed limit laws. You'll do yourself and your fellow drivers a big favor.

Oh, and don't get me started on "Speed kills our wildlife." It goes back to mgk's point. It's not the speed of the vehicle. It's the person inside the vehicle committing a lawless act of speeding that kills wildlife.

[31E]

The problem is that there are all too many 30 zones where 50 is perfectly reasonable (in that you have full control of your car and you have enough time to react to what's around the corner) - that's why people don't pay attention to the posted limit. Another problem is the simple fact that speed does not kill - what kills you is not speed, but the speed differential, like the differential between you traveling at 100 mph and that tree to the right traveling at 0 mph. This isn't a problem unless you collide with the other object, which most of the time is caused by not paying attention to your surroundings. The casualty rate from tailgating and inattention is much higher than merely driving over the posted limit.

I'm starting to think the people who govern speed limits either a) don't drive the roads they set the limits for, b) think they're above the laws they set, so don't care what the limits are, c) are crazy, d) don't need to be setting them at all, or e) all of the above.

For a lot of the governing class I'm afraid it's all of the above.

[Brandon]

Oh, and don't get me started on "Speed kills our wildlife." It goes back to mgk's point. It's not the speed of the vehicle. It's the person inside the vehicle committing a lawless act of speeding that kills wildlife.

Yeah...

It's the hitting of wildlife that is a problem, but that's done above or below the limit (which may or may not be arbitrary in an of itself).  Hitting wildlife goes to the point some of us have had regarding inattention, not speed.

Plus, the problem is impatience and tailgating, again, not speed by itself.  So, fuck the limit where the limit is arbitrarily set far too low.  And remember my friends, Mr. Accelerator is your friend for speed control, Mr. Brake is not and never will be.

[bulldog1979]

Michigan has been pushing for rationalized speed limits for the last 7 or so years. A state senator sponsored legislation that passed in 2006 that forces cities, villages and counties in the state to use engineering or speed studies to determine limits, absent a few common-sense exceptions like school zones. Once the cities got it through their heads that the days of the speed trap were over, arterial speed limits have increased in the state.

Even MDOT and the MSP have restudied sections of highway, and that's why we have 65 mph on our two sections of expressway (US 2 between Gladstone and Rapid River, US 127 between Ithaca and St. Johns) and more miles of freeways set at 70 instead of 55. Now they're even looking at re-evaluating 55 as the limit on rural two-lane highways. Of course in the UP, we see double nickels on those highways, read it as 65 and drive accordingly.

[NE2]

Pollution is a myth. All hail London fog.

[english si]

Pollution is a myth. All hail London fog.

You mean Smog - Fog is a naturally occurring weather feature.

The last London Smog was over 60 years ago. The Clean Air Act that forced the move from coal to coke and town gas (and more recently natural gas and electricity) to heat homes killed them off.

[NE2]

Yeah, and the U.S. version of that Clean Air Act often results in speed limits below the God-given 85th percentile.

[english si]

Which is ironic as most of London's pollution hotspots (Heathrow the exception) are places with low traffic speeds and are like that due to:
1)the large proportion of buses and taxis
2)the low traffic speeds

[NE2]

They'd be worse if you added a couple motorways to the mix.

[wxfree]

This is a file related to cancelling some environmental speed limits in the DFW area.  It's relevant here because there's a chart on page 4 that shows the per-mile rate of production of oxides of nitrogen.  The Mobile6.2 rate was used in 2000, and the MOVES rate is the modern one.  http://www.nctcog.org/trans/committees/rtc/2013/09Sept/Ref.Itm_6.rtc091213.pdf

The vehicle manufacturers have substantially solved the problem of higher emissions per mile at higher speeds.  The same is true of unburned hydrocarbons.  Over the whole area, the increased speed limits are expected to add 1 ton of emissions increases per day, with a current total of 256 tons.

[Brandon]

They'd be worse if you added a couple motorways to the mix.

Oddly, no, they wouldn't.  Vehicles operate cleaner at freeway speeds than when standing still and idling.

[NE2]

They'd be worse if you added a couple motorways to the mix.

Oddly, no, they wouldn't.  Vehicles operate cleaner at freeway speeds than when standing still and idling.

Whether or not this is true, you'd still have the local traffic. Induced traffic is real.

[Brandon]

They'd be worse if you added a couple motorways to the mix.

Oddly, no, they wouldn't.  Vehicles operate cleaner at freeway speeds than when standing still and idling.

Whether or not this is true, you'd still have the local traffic. Induced traffic is real.

Some is, not all.  When a new freeway is built, it does remove through traffic from these local roads, uncongesting them.  That's been documented.  For example, when the I-355 extension was built, a lot of the through traffic left the surface roads for the new tollway.  Thus, local traffic is also spending less time idling and thus also operating cleaner.

[NE2]

There may be a temporary reduction in surface traffic, but it will return to its former levels as more development is built.

PS: your I-355 example is suburban sprawlshite.

[Brandon]

There may be a temporary reduction in surface traffic, but it will return to its former levels as more development is built.

PS: your I-355 example is suburban sprawlshite.

Actually, it is the inverse if you actually paid attention.  The sprawl came first with the old two-lane roads.  The tollway came later.

[NE2]

Then comes more sprawl.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the fact that slower traffic on the tollway would do less damage to the atmosphere. Speed kills, though maybe not in the way some believe.

[Brandon]

{A bunch of nonsense}

SPUI, you're going to believe and say what you want no matter what facts are presented.

[NE2]

I know you are, but what am I?

[JREwing78]

Now they're even looking at re-evaluating 55 as the limit on rural two-lane highways. Of course in the UP, we see double nickels on those highways, read it as 65 and drive accordingly.

The only reason U.P. drivers cap speeds at 65 mph is that the MSP starts pulling people over at speeds faster than that. There are many stretches, particularly away from the population centers, that 70 or 75 mph limits would be reasonable (aside from the four-legged creatures wandering into the travel lanes). That said, I'll be perfectly happy with 65 mph limits, and the MSP not pulling people over until 71 mph or over.

Catch the right officer on the right day, and you might get away with more. In April between Houghton and Baraga, I was clocked at 73 in a 55 mph coming out of a set of passing lanes. The driver beside me in the passing lanes wouldn't speed up or slow down to let me back over. I opted to speed up from my 65mph cruise to merge back over with a cushion between us, and as I was winding back down the trooper nailed me. He was completely cool with it - just ran my information and send me on my way with a reminder to slow down. Don't expect that generosity elsewhere though.