Advocacy & Safety - Why I don't bike tour anymore...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704688604575125510326010610.html?mod=yhoofront

This mentality carries over even onto local farm type highways.

"Left to their own devices, American drivers confronted with an open stretch of interstate highway tend to drive at about 70 miles per hour—whatever the legal speed limit happens to be."


"Higher speeds are bad on any road," says Anne McCartt, vice president of research for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, a research arm of the insurance industry.

In general drivers tend to drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with on any given roadway, be it local or highway, regardless of the posted speed limit. On an open stretch of road with low traffic volumes there's really no reason for a speed limit at all.

I can vouch for that. I always go the speed limit, and even on roads with little traffic, in 5 minutes if nobody passes I easily gather a dozen cars behind me, going exactly at the speed limit. They're all tailgating each other too.

I can vouch for that. I always go the speed limit, and even on roads with little traffic, in 5 minutes if nobody passes I easily gather a dozen cars behind me, going exactly at the speed limit. They're all tailgating each other too.

So you're that guy! You know, you could be nice, pull to the side and let them around.

Or not. Cruise Control is my friend.

So you're that guy! You know, you could be nice, pull to the side and let them around.

Sorry, any requirement for manners or being nice stops at enabling impatient fools to violate the law and put others in danger because they want to get someplace ten seconds faster. You wanna drive fast, get on a limited access highway, otherwise slow the f down.

On the interstates or limited access highways, I'm usually the guy doing the passing.
Off the interstate, I do the speed limit.

So you're that guy! You know, you could be nice, pull to the side and let them around.

Why?

They are the ones breaking the law. FWIW I typically drive the speed limit, don't like? Feel free to explain to the state trooper why you felt it necessary to pass in a no passing zone or exceed the speed limit doing so.

Aaron :)

I certainly have nothing against my fellow drivers who fancy themselves unofficial pace cars, as it is the only way to ensure that one will not receive a speeding ticket and the lovely financial burdens they bring. Still, in many cases the speed limits on local roads are set by the whims of politicians and/or reactionary constituents, and are in no way based on what's in the best interest of public safety and traffic flow.

Drive the speed limit but don't confuse yourself as some sort of activist or denizen of safety. In many cases you're actually disrupting the natural flow of traffic, which may actually be more dangerous than driving at a speed exceeding the posted limit.

Living in an area where drivers have a tendency to do 70 down the backroads, and very unaware of cyclists in general, I would like to see stronger enforcement of posted limits on backroads. With that said, I am all for a higher speed limit on rural areas of limited access interstates.

(Sorry. Renewing my sub to this thread.)

I certainly have nothing against my fellow drivers who fancy themselves unofficial pace cars, as it is the only way to ensure that one will not receive a speeding ticket and the lovely financial burdens they bring. Still, in many cases the speed limits on local roads are set by the whims of politicians and/or reactionary constituents, and are in no way based on what's in the best interest of public safety and traffic flow.

Drive the speed limit but don't confuse yourself as some sort of activist or denizen of safety. In many cases you're actually disrupting the natural flow of traffic, which may actually be more dangerous than driving at a speed exceeding the posted limit.NO, the drivers exceeding the speed limit and tail gating are the ones disrupting the proper flow of traffic. If everyone drove at just under the speed limit and left a proper following distance, then traffic would flow quite nicely. It would even be easy to change lanes to pass a slow moving vehicle if drivers allowed the proper following distance, with no real impact on traffic flow.

I certainly have nothing against my fellow drivers who fancy themselves unofficial pace cars, as it is the only way to ensure that one will not receive a speeding ticket and the lovely financial burdens they bring. Still, in many cases the speed limits on local roads are set by the whims of politicians and/or reactionary constituents, and are in no way based on what's in the best interest of public safety and traffic flow.

Drive the speed limit but don't confuse yourself as some sort of activist or denizen of safety. In many cases you're actually disrupting the natural flow of traffic, which may actually be more dangerous than driving at a speed exceeding the posted limit.NO, the drivers exceeding the speed limit and tail gating are the ones disrupting the proper flow of traffic. If everyone drove at just under the speed limit and left a proper following distance, then traffic would flow quite nicely. It would even be easy to change lanes to pass a slow moving vehicle if drivers allowed the proper following distance, with no real impact on traffic flow.

NO, the drivers exceeding the speed limit and tail gating are the ones disrupting the proper flow of traffic. If everyone drove at just under the speed limit and left a proper following distance, then traffic would flow quite nicely. It would even be easy to change lanes to pass a slow moving vehicle if drivers allowed the proper following distance, with no real impact on traffic flow.

The slower dimwits who stay in the center and left lanes are the people that back up and disrupt traffic. If you're getting tailgated or being passed every two seconds, get the f over.

I am a pretty tame driver, but I do like to follow the speed limit very closely. If you're doing 10 under and you're in front of me, you will get passed.

Living in an area where drivers have a tendency to do 70 down the backroads, and very unaware of cyclists in general, I would like to see stronger enforcement of posted limits on backroads. With that said, I am all for a higher speed limit on rural areas of limited access interstates.

Yeah, just north of here is a rural area... one accident involved a father and son who were leaving their farm and were hit so hard/fast the fuel tank ignited. One kid was speeding in his new sports car on a rural road, lost control going over the top of a hill, got wrapped up in a snow fence the car caught fire and he and his buddy burned alive. They have a feature in the paper called "speeder of the week" and people are caught going double(160km/h) every week.

TBH the super highway is fine for 70mph... nice curves nothing near the side of the road... but when people tell me that they know what the real speed limit is on two lane country roads i just have to laugh.. all those people who i told you about i bet they know what the real speed limit was too.

There is a reason for the speed limit, man's hubris is one of them.

I certainly have nothing against my fellow drivers who fancy themselves unofficial pace cars, as it is the only way to ensure that one will not receive a speeding ticket and the lovely financial burdens they bring. Still, in many cases the speed limits on local roads are set by the whims of politicians and/or reactionary constituents, and are in no way based on what's in the best interest of public safety and traffic flow.

Drive the speed limit but don't confuse yourself as some sort of activist or denizen of safety. In many cases you're actually disrupting the natural flow of traffic, which may actually be more dangerous than driving at a speed exceeding the posted limit.

From the OP article: The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 2008, about 31% of the total 37,261 highway fatalities were related to speeding over posted limits.

You really think that driving the speed limit ahead of speeders can possibly be argued as more dangerous than speeding?

If everyone drove at just under the speed limit and left a proper following distance, then traffic would flow quite nicely.

I certainly won't contest that. But with our existing transportation infrastructure and enforcement methods, drivers are by and large not going to conform to the posted speed limits. As previously stated, speed limits are in most cases by-products of local and state politicians pandering to local residents who errantly perceive that large numbers of vehicles are passing through their neighborhoods at high speeds, and are not set based on safety or transportation engineering concerns. When you arbitrarily set a speed limit to say 30 MPH in an area where most drivers feel comfortable driving at 45 MPH, you create a scenario in which some drivers drive 30 MPH to obey the law, some drive above 30 but low enough to hopefully avoid a speeding ticket, and some drive to their comfort level of 45 MPH. Now, instead of having a majority of drivers driving at the natural traffic flow speed of 45 MPH, you have several groups of drivers all driving at different speeds, not to mention the road rage and aggressive driving that usually accompanies artificially low speed zones.

I'm not arguing that that's how it should be, but it's simply how it is. We can heavily modify our enforcement and engineering policies to modify driver behavior which few states and municipalities have the money for, or we can start basing speed limit policy on data and proven theory. Or we can continue to pass laws setting speed limits well below the speed at which most drivers feel comfortable with, further endangering drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Unfortunately I suspect that the latter option is the one that will be undertaken.

I certainly won't contest that. But with our existing transportation infrastructure and enforcement methods, drivers are by and large not going to conform to the posted speed limits. As previously stated, speed limits are in most cases by-products of local and state politicians pandering to local residents who errantly perceive that large numbers of vehicles are passing through their neighborhoods at high speeds, and are not set based on safety or transportation engineering concerns. When you arbitrarily set a speed limit to say 30 MPH in an area where most drivers feel comfortable driving at 45 MPH, you create a scenario in which some drivers drive 30 MPH to obey the law, some drive above 30 but low enough to hopefully avoid a speeding ticket, and some drive to their comfort level of 45 MPH. Now, instead of having a majority of drivers driving at the natural traffic flow speed of 45 MPH, you have several groups of drivers all driving at different speeds, not to mention the road rage and aggressive driving that usually accompanies artificially low speed zones.

I'm not arguing that that's how it should be, but it's simply how it is. We can heavily modify our enforcement and engineering policies to modify driver behavior which few states and municipalities have the money for, or we can start basing speed limit policy on data and proven theory. Or we can continue to pass laws setting speed limits well below the speed at which most drivers feel comfortable with, further endangering drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Unfortunately I suspect that the latter option is the one that will be undertaken.

Actually, removing the speed limit sign may make sense in certain situations and has lowered driver's average speed in other towns. People are simply ticketed for driving too fast.

In regard to traffic flowing smoothly with proper stopping distances, some roads are at such high capacity that if everybody was to leave a proper distance there wouldn't be enough room to accomodate the traffic and gridlock would ensue.

Sorry, any requirement for manners or being nice stops at enabling impatient fools to violate the law and put others in danger because they want to get someplace ten seconds faster. You wanna drive fast, get on a limited access highway, otherwise slow the f down.

On the interstates or limited access highways, I'm usually the guy doing the passing.
Off the interstate, I do the speed limit.

+1000

If someone wants to drive fast, get a race car and go to a track. Roads are for transportation not amateur racing.


"Higher speeds are bad on any road"

From the OP article: The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 2008, about 31% of the total 37,261 highway fatalities were related to speeding over posted limits.

You really think that driving the speed limit ahead of speeders can possibly be argued as more dangerous than speeding?

I suppose I should then argue that walking on highways is safer than driving, considering 100% of highway fatalities were related to driving? A relationship does not necessarily imply a causal link. Without further information its possible to surmise that the speeders were not at fault in the accidents and thus that speeding was not a contributing factor in the fatality. I admit that it's unlikely, but pointing to a statistic without context is not conducive to an intelligent discussion of speed limits and safety.

I certainly won't contest that. But with our existing transportation infrastructure and enforcement methods, drivers are by and large not going to conform to the posted speed limits. As previously stated, speed limits are in most cases by-products of local and state politicians pandering to local residents who errantly perceive that large numbers of vehicles are passing through their neighborhoods at high speeds, and are not set based on safety or transportation engineering concerns. When you arbitrarily set a speed limit to say 30 MPH in an area where most drivers feel comfortable driving at 45 MPH, you create a scenario in which some drivers drive 30 MPH to obey the law, some drive above 30 but low enough to hopefully avoid a speeding ticket, and some drive to their comfort level of 45 MPH. Now, instead of having a majority of drivers driving at the natural traffic flow speed of 45 MPH, you have several groups of drivers all driving at different speeds, not to mention the road rage and aggressive driving that usually accompanies artificially low speed zones.

I'm not arguing that that's how it should be, but it's simply how it is. We can heavily modify our enforcement and engineering policies to modify driver behavior which few states and municipalities have the money for, or we can start basing speed limit policy on data and proven theory. Or we can continue to pass laws setting speed limits well below the speed at which most drivers feel comfortable with, further endangering drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Unfortunately I suspect that the latter option is the one that will be undertaken.

The problem with that "comfort level" is that it is false, based not on knowledge of how to handle a high speed vehicle on various roads, but on the "living room design" of the modern typical automobile... drivers are lulled into driving well beyond their ability to actually safely handle their vehicles... which in themselves are safety cocoons which will cradle the driver and passengers even in the event of a head on collision. Roadway safety has been given away to maximum flow.

Bobby Sixkiller et. all check out this guy's blog/book http://www.howwedrive.com/

A good primer on driver behavior

Bobby Sixkiller et. all check out this guy's blog/book http://www.howwedrive.com/

A good primer on driver behavior

Thanks, that seems like an interesting take on driving from the folk perspective.

We all have our own personal opinions on how people should drive, and they usually vary slightly depending on whether or not we're running late for a morning meeting vs taking a leisurely cruise on a weekend afternoon. I'm not trying to advocate for poor driver behavior or recklessly high speed limits, but there seems to be a common misunderstanding that low speed limits are always born out of safety concerns and that conforming to those low speed limits, even when other drivers don't, is always a safe practice.

I suppose I should then argue that walking on highways is safer than driving, considering 100% of highway fatalities were related to driving? A relationship does not necessarily imply a causal link. Without further information its possible to surmise that the speeders were not at fault in the accidents and thus that speeding was not a contributing factor in the fatality. I admit that it's unlikely, but pointing to a statistic without context is not conducive to an intelligent discussion of speed limits and safety.

You're right, it's probably just a chance link. Despite the fact that driving faster increases stop times, decreases reaction times, and makes collisions more fatal when they do occur. There's absolutely no context between speeding and accidents. :rolleyes:

You're right, it's probably just a chance link. Despite the fact that driving faster increases stop times, decreases reaction times, and makes collisions more fatal when they do occur. There's absolutely no context between speeding and accidents. :rolleyes:

As the article states there is a relationship between speeding and fatalities. Without context it's pure speculation to suggest that speeding is a causal factor in the fatalities. Without further information that statistic isn't very helpful. I understand that you're relying on that statistic to question my assertion that in some cases driving at or below the posted limit when other drivers aren't is more dangerous than speeding, but it only obfuscates the issue. It doesn't make my assertion errant, nor does it further the discussion.

69% of highway fatalities weren't related to speeding. Therefore speeding is twice as safe as not. Hopefully this illustrates how distorting statistics to make sweeping generalizations isn't the most practical.

Sorry, any requirement for manners or being nice stops at enabling impatient fools to violate the law and put others in danger because they want to get someplace ten seconds faster. You wanna drive fast, get on a limited access highway, otherwise slow the f down.

On the interstates or limited access highways, I'm usually the guy doing the passing.
Off the interstate, I do the speed limit.

In some places, holding up traffic(even if youre going the speed limit) is illegal.
Also, youre assuming theyll get some where ten seconds faster...but what about if theyre traveling crosscountry? The time difference would be much more than ten seconds. Not that it really matters.
I agree with everything else you said though.

I however, do not allow people to tailgate me. Thats asking for an accident to happen...its also asking for someone to pass you and then slam on the brakes.
The way i see it is, someone who is tailgating is unstable. Why would I want to do something(driving at a speed so they tailgate me) to bother an unstable person. Id rather avoid the unstable person. Either turn, speed up or slow down and pull over.
Reminds me of guy #1 who was at a gas station and confronted guy #2 who was pumping gas while smoking a cigarette. Guy#2 pulled the gas nozzle out of the tank, sprayed guy#1 with gas and tossed his cigarette onto guy#1. Human torch!
Yes, guy#2 went to jail. big deal, guy#1 is still dead.

My advice would be to do your best to not annoy unstable people.:innocent:

My advice would be to do your best to not annoy unstable people.:innocent:

Do you refrain from driving, then?

-Kurt

From the OP article: The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 2008, about 31% of the total 37,261 highway fatalities were related to speeding over posted limits.

You really think that driving the speed limit ahead of speeders can possibly be argued as more dangerous than speeding?

I'd say that 100% of accidents involved driving.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704688604575125510326010610.html?mod=yhoofront

This mentality carries over even onto local farm type highways.

"Left to their own devices, American drivers confronted with an open stretch of interstate highway tend to drive at about 70 miles per hour—whatever the legal speed limit happens to be."


"Higher speeds are bad on any road," says Anne McCartt, vice president of research for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, a research arm of the insurance industry.


Bah...humbug. People confuse speed with bad driving, and they are not the same. When the "55' law was repealed, auto experts (like Ted kennedy, who obviously had experience in this subject) predicted soaring accident rates and slaughter on the highways. Neither happened.

The author did not find a significant increase in fatalities per miles driven after speed limit laws ceased to be national and states could, and some did, increase their highway limit to more than fifty-five miles per hour. "Automobile safety features and enforcement emerge as important factors in increasing highway safety; speed limits are far less important," author Robert O. Yowell explains.

and the trend continuues....




What's more, when the number of miles traveled on U.S. roads is taken into consideration, 2009's fatality rate hit its lowest mark ever. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were about 1.16 fatalities for every 100,000,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled.

roughstuff

I certainly won't contest that. But with our existing transportation infrastructure and enforcement methods, drivers are by and large not going to conform to the posted speed limits. As previously stated, speed limits are in most cases by-products of local and state politicians pandering to local residents who errantly perceive that large numbers of vehicles are passing through their neighborhoods at high speeds, and are not set based on safety or transportation engineering concerns. When you arbitrarily set a speed limit to say 30 MPH in an area where most drivers feel comfortable driving at 45 MPH, you create a scenario in which some drivers drive 30 MPH to obey the law, some drive above 30 but low enough to hopefully avoid a speeding ticket, and some drive to their comfort level of 45 MPH. Now, instead of having a majority of drivers driving at the natural traffic flow speed of 45 MPH, you have several groups of drivers all driving at different speeds, not to mention the road rage and aggressive driving that usually accompanies artificially low speed zones.

I'm not arguing that that's how it should be, but it's simply how it is. We can heavily modify our enforcement and engineering policies to modify driver behavior which few states and municipalities have the money for, or we can start basing speed limit policy on data and proven theory. Or we can continue to pass laws setting speed limits well below the speed at which most drivers feel comfortable with, further endangering drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Unfortunately I suspect that the latter option is the one that will be undertaken.

This is pure horsepucky. I feel quite comfortable doing 50+ through residential areas...that doesn't make it safe or smart. Fact is, operating ANY vehicle at ANY speed in close proximity to peds, kids, pets, critters, or even other vehicles, is potentially dangerous - especially when you add obstacles, blind spots. distractions and human failings into the equation.

Humans tend to overestimate the time it takes them and their vehicles to react to a situation. They also routinely fail to take a pro-active approach to safety, letting their impatience and schedules overcome their better judgment.

Bottom line - speed kills. If you want to drive fast, get on a limited access highway. Otherwise, relax and slow the f down.

In some places, holding up traffic(even if youre going the speed limit) is illegal.

Only if there is a posted minimum speed or the behavior is unreasonable...sitting in the passing lane when there is a perfectly clear alternative lane, for example. In the latter case, it's still a hard sell to a judge, you gotta prove that by obeying the law the driver was putting others at risk.

In some places, holding up traffic(even if youre going the speed limit) is illegal.
I've heard this urban myth before. Can you provide a source for this?

I know you can get ticket for going under a minimum speed. In CO, you also get ticketed for sitting in a passing lane on a 65mph or higher road.

But getting ticketed for going the speed limit because the drivers behind you are impatient? That's hard to believe.

In some places, holding up traffic(even if youre going the speed limit) is illegal.
...:


HUH? The speed limit is the LAW. How following the LAW be illegal? D'oh.

When I am driving the speed limit, I am not 'holding up traffic, ' I AM TRAFFIC. :)


roughstuff

In some places, holding up traffic(even if youre going the speed limit) is illegal.
That sounds like rubbish.... prove it.

In most accidents there was something that distracted the driver prior to the accident - driver over corrects and boom, you've got a fatal situation on hand.

It all goes back to the driver. Drivers need to be more alert and more responsible. I don't need limits in place to tell me that I can only go 65 when I know I can and have handled my car at speeds of 90+. Those of us that are more skilled at driving should not be limited by those that are less skilled. If you can't safely handle a vehicle at 65, or you feel anxious at all while doing it, please do us all a favor and get the hell off the road.

I'm not surprised by this in the least... I regularly commute on 55 mph roads, and I like to stay just over the limit. Or I used to. I would get bullied in every lane at ~60mph. Even the right lane would get me honks and passing on both sides. Both. Yes, the shoulder. So now I go 65. On the occasion I'm not watching and I get pulled into the "flow" I've seen myself going much higher, which I find scary. I try to slow down and get out of the way, but the roads are often clogged when I have to drive. I have seen people going at least 15+ faster than me get past by people just flying by.

I think the police here try to get the most aggressive drivers, but there are just so many. I get tailgated, honked at, and passed constantly at 10 over, when it's not even empty out. When it's an empty road I think some (many, here?) people go as fast as possible (if other people are doing it. That's a good excuse, really). I don't know how common it is, but I see many people not signaling around here, since it's just as likely to get the gap closed, often dangerously, rather than let the person merge.

I think driving so fast (with other people, who you can't control, around) is scary, but I'm not the best driver in the world. It's not that I can't handle my car fine. I can. But I can't control what people are doing around me, and I worry about reacting in time to multiple incoming problems. Like tailgating and them someone cutting in front of me and hitting the brakes. That's always a sticky situation when going 60+.

This is pure horsepucky. I feel quite comfortable doing 50+ through residential areas...that doesn't make it safe or smart.


Nor would I ever claim that you driving 50 MPH through a residential area is smart of safe. Or that anyone driving 50 in close proximity to children is smart or safe. For some reason you quoted me in your post, but you didn't reference anything I actually stated or implied. Bizarre.

I think a lot of the reason people speed is that they don't anticipate suprises, since they get complacent about yet another uneventful trip in the rolling living room. Everyone thinks 'it won't happen to me', and can't imagine how easily their life could end (maybe we need to see more graphic images from car crashes). They drive at a speed they can comfortably handle as long as everything stays predictable. Then, another driver does something stupid, or there's an obstacle in the roadway, and suddenly they're out of control.

I find that speed limits are usually very reasonable, and in residential areas, I often drive under the speed limit due to poor sightlines and the potential for a child or pet to run out from behind any parked car. On car-only freeways, I agree that the limit is lower than it needs to be in terms of driver ability, but I think it's reasonable in terms of making any collisions survivable.

Nor would I ever claim that you driving 50 MPH through a residential area is smart of safe. Or that anyone driving 50 in close proximity to children is smart or safe. For some reason you quoted me in your post, but you didn't reference anything I actually stated or implied. Bizarre.

This, which I quoted, was just as bizarre:

When you arbitrarily set a speed limit to say 30 MPH in an area where most drivers feel comfortable driving at 45 MPH, you create a scenario in which some drivers drive 30 MPH to obey the law, some drive above 30 but low enough to hopefully avoid a speeding ticket, and some drive to their comfort level of 45 MPH. Now, instead of having a majority of drivers driving at the natural traffic flow speed of 45 MPH, you have several groups of drivers all driving at different speeds, not to mention the road rage and aggressive driving that usually accompanies artificially low speed zones.

The point is that what drivers feel comfortable doing is irrelevant.

I agree with the statements above; People drive these speeds because they're reasonable IN THE CASE WHERE NOTHING UNEXPECTED HAPPENS. People do not drive in a manner that's safe if the unexpected happens. This is why you rarely see safe following distances, and why you see 40 car pileups caused by something stupid like a little fog or an animal in the road.

When someone comes around a corner and hits something sitting in the road, they're either distracted, or driving too fast for conditions. This is by definition. "Too fast for conditions" and "safe following distance" are DEFINED as not able to stop when something unexpected happens, though drivers can be forgiven when things actually spring out in front of them.

People say "it's safe to drive 65 on that 50 MPH section." Then you say "What if someone pulls out of that blind driveway at the top of that hill?" They'll usually say "Well, that rarely happens, does it?" But things like that are precisely the REASON that the road speed is set where it is. Someone who studies road design surveyed the area and decided that was the maximum safe speed, yet some yahoo whose qualifications are "took a few hours of driver's training 30 years ago" decides it's fine to go 20 over that.

This, which I quoted, was just as bizarre:


The point is that what drivers feel comfortable doing is irrelevant.

The scenario I described, bizarre as you may find it, occurs daily in many cities and counties through the US. It wasn't a hypothetical. I'm not advocating for anarchy on the roadways or for drivers to be able to do whatever they feel comfortable doing regardless of public welfare.

I'll agree with you that if everyone were to drive at or below the posted limit, we would probably have less accidents and related fatalities. But trying to force everyone to conform to the speed limit, via education, engineering, or enforcement, is not practical or in many cases financially possible. I'm simply suggesting - and I know it may be counterintuitive - that raising the speed limit and allowing most drivers to drive at one common speed may be more beneficial than having multiple sets of drivers all driving at different speeds in close proximity to one another.

Also, it's ok to disagree. I certainly disagree with your driving ideology, but I'll refrain from calling it "horsepucky" as you seem to be intelligent and compassionate, and it would be tasteless of me to insult your views.

In most accidents there was something that distracted the driver prior to the accident - driver over corrects and boom, you've got a fatal situation on hand.

It all goes back to the driver. Drivers need to be more alert and more responsible. I don't need limits in place to tell me that I can only go 65 when I know I can and have handled my car at speeds of 90+. Those of us that are more skilled at driving should not be limited by those that are less skilled. If you can't safely handle a vehicle at 65, or you feel anxious at all while doing it, please do us all a favor and get the hell off the road.
Right, because anyone who can't keep up on the road should get the hell off. Just like those pesky bicyclists who can't keep up on a 35mph road.

Also, it seems like many people think speed limits are set based on a whim. Most places have quite a few guidelines as to what speed limits should be for certain areas. Things like width of road, grade, radius of corners, etc, are all taken into account when determining speed limits. Particularly on interstates, there's also federal guidelines.

An example would be I-70 going through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado which has a speed limit of 50mph. Because of the grades and tight radii of the corners, federal guidelines required a 50mph speed limit which would be lower than the federal minimum for interstate standards in rural areas. An exception had to be made for this particular stretch of I-70.

People have a terrible time correctly assessing risks. Just because you might feel comfortable and safe going 90mph+ on the Interstate, doesn't necessarily mean it is safe.

In most accidents there was something that distracted the driver prior to the accident - driver over corrects and boom, you've got a fatal situation on hand.

It all goes back to the driver. Drivers need to be more alert and more responsible. I don't need limits in place to tell me that I can only go 65 when I know I can and have handled my car at speeds of 90+. Those of us that are more skilled at driving should not be limited by those that are less skilled. If you can't safely handle a vehicle at 65, or you feel anxious at all while doing it, please do us all a favor and get the hell off the road.

No, please do US all a favor and stay off the road. You want to do 90, go to a race track!

Those of us that are more skilled at driving should not be limited by those that are less skilled. If you can't safely handle a vehicle at 65, or you feel anxious at all while doing it, please do us all a favor and get the hell off the road.

You're completely missing the point. There may be hazards that are not obvious. Someone decided that the maximum safe speed on the road is X, then there's a reason for it. Maybe deer cross the road here a lot. Maybe there's a blind driveway around the next corner. I know of a road where just over a small hill the road bends hard to the left, and it's by a sandy bay and the road is often covered with wind-blown sand. The speed limit there is 25 MPH, and they mean it. But people drive 55+ through there all the time - that corner sees something like 100 accidents a year. It's completely the driver's fault, and friggin' Mario Andretti would wipe out there some days - it simply has nothing to do with the driver's skill.

The speed limits are set for a reason. The assumption is that the limit is for SKILLED drivers. If you're not skilled, you should drive SLOWER than the posted limit. If you are skilled, you should drive AT the limit or below; claiming that you're skilled is not an excuse for speeding.

Remember, 95% of the drivers on the road believe that they're above average.

The scenario I described, bizarre as you may find it, occurs daily in many cities and counties through the US. It wasn't a hypothetical. I'm not advocating for anarchy on the roadways or for drivers to be able to do whatever they feel comfortable doing regardless of public welfare.

I'll agree with you that if everyone were to drive at or below the posted limit, we would probably have less accidents and related fatalities. But trying to force everyone to conform to the speed limit, via education, engineering, or enforcement, is not practical or in many cases financially possible. I'm simply suggesting - and I know it may be counterintuitive - that raising the speed limit and allowing most drivers to drive at one common speed may be more beneficial than having multiple sets of drivers all driving at different speeds in close proximity to one another.

Also, it's ok to disagree. I certainly disagree with your driving ideology, but I'll refrain from calling it "horsepucky" as you seem to be intelligent and compassionate, and it would be tasteless of me to insult your views.

Your contention is still horsepucky, sorry. What is comfortable for drivers is irrelevant, hence my example of myself being quite comfortable doing 50 in areas that you mistakenly assumed were strictly residential. If you don't like the term horsepucky, you might want to consider not spreading horsepucky under the facade of factual information.

If a person can't overcome their natural urges and do something simple like obey a speed limit, any resulting danger is not the fault of the speed limit, but rather the fault of the idiot who can't control their natural urges.

You claim that way too many speed limits are 'arbitrary' and set by politicians. That is horsepucky as well. Yes, setting one to 25 rather than 29 may be arbitrary for the sake of commonality, but those politicians who set them are elected by their communities, and thus allegedly represent the will of those who are setting them. If you want to change the limits of some street where you feel that your natural urges are restricted, feel free to propose such to the appropriate governing body...but don't be surprised or offended if the people who live and work on that street call your proposal horsepucky.

In most accidents there was something that distracted the driver prior to the accident - driver over corrects and boom, you've got a fatal situation on hand.

It all goes back to the driver. Drivers need to be more alert and more responsible.

The skill of the driver has more to do with safety than speed, but speed is both easier and more profitable to quantify than competence. Someone zoned out with the cruise control set at 30 to avoid speeding tickets might be legal but sure isn't safe. I'll take someone alert and involved in their driving who's speeding over some oblivious driver who thinks they're a safe driver because the don't speed.

I know the cop in town who's specialty is catching intoxicated drivers. One of the things they look for is a driver who is going at or below the speed limit. He says the people he catches really believe they're safer and attracting less attention by not speeding. Speed's not the problem here, is it?

The most dangerous group of drivers on the road today is 80+ (age, not speed) and they're some of the slowest too. The slow pace might make them feel safer, but those oblivious oldsters easing through an intersection at 20 mph after the light has turned red are more dangerous than the people who weren't able to get around them.

You're right, it's probably just a chance link. Despite the fact that driving faster increases stop times, decreases reaction times, and makes collisions more fatal when they do occur. There's absolutely no context between speeding and accidents. :rolleyes:

Then why are accident rates in countries with both higher speed limits and better driver training lower? Shouldn't more of those faster drivers be dead by now?

You claim that way too many speed limits are 'arbitrary' and set by politicians. That is horsepucky as well. Yes, setting one to 25 rather than 29 may be arbitrary for the sake of commonality, but those politicians who set them are elected by their communities, and thus allegedly represent the will of those who are setting them. If you want to change the limits of some street where you feel that your natural urges are restricted, feel free to propose such to the appropriate governing body...but don't be surprised or offended if the people who live and work on that street call your proposal horsepucky.

I've yet to hear of a politician that used engineering or some sort of objective data in setting speed limits, but I have talked with several of them about receiving complaints from residents who got speeding tickets in their neighborhood after asking the politician to lower the speed limits and do something about "those people speeding by my house". Want to guess who wanted the speed limits raised after that?

So you're that guy! You know, you could be nice, pull to the side and let them around.

Or they could f'n drive the speed limit.

No, please do US all a favor and stay off the road. You want to do 90, go to a race track!

I do follow speed limits and I do not speed like that on public, open roads. My point was that I can and have handled driving at those speeds and all other drivers should get that experience as well. If the fastest you've ever driven is 65, then what happens if you skid down a hill with black ice and gain speed past that point? I'm not advocating the reckless drivers that you see weaving in and out of traffic, rather further education so that we all can drive safely at high speeds.

The speed limits are set for a reason. The assumption is that the limit is for SKILLED drivers. If you're not skilled, you should drive SLOWER than the posted limit. If you are skilled, you should drive AT the limit or below; claiming that you're skilled is not an excuse for speeding.

Remember, 95% of the drivers on the road believe that they're above average.

Speed limits are not set based upon what a skilled driver can do, same as 99% of US public schools do not base their curriculum upon their gifted students.

Again, I do not advocate reckless driving or even excessive speeding, however what I would like to see is better education of motorists so that they can handle higher speeds.