Originally Posted by
burnthesheep
Right or wrongly I tend to believe given equal traffic volume and other risks for a given route, speed differential must matter a lot.
Sure, there's 35mph streets or roads less safe than faster......but there's something very different about those two to cause that. Like volume, or sight distance (curves or hills), width, etc......
Isn't this why mopeds and vehicles under 45mph or 55mph aren't allowed on 70mph interstates? The speed differential?
I mean, if you're going 20 and the speed limit is 35 that's twice as long somebody has to see you and make a decision versus you're going 20 and they're doing 55. Not to mention the impact difference between those two also. Assuming in both situations the car is speeding.
Is there any sense in that thought? There must be a reason why bike lanes here are a real lane uphill then a shared use lane downhill in town?
Seems pretty damn reasonable to me--all other things being equal, speed differential is going to be inversely related with reaction time. . I also think that drivers on the faster road are less likely to slow down suddenly as they'll be more nervous about the possibility of being rear-ended by a motor vehicle behind them.