[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

Ok, well, what if the same 2 drivers meet each other at point A. They each have to drive another 20 kms. The fast driver is off the road a couple minutes before the slow driver is, so he is exposed to the potential danger of deer on the road for a shorter amount of time, now who's safer? On a 10 minute drive, if you increase your speed by 10% you spend 10% less time at the mercy of the other "asshats" on the road. This is a bad argument, but so is the one posted above.

First of all, your math is wrong.
It's more like 9% less time on the road.

Either way, saying that an example of how reaction time/stopping distance is changed, and hence the risk involved, is akin to the old "If I drive really fast I'm not on the road as long" arguement is just plain goofy.

The arguement I presented (while being convoluted and somewhat rediculous in premis) illustrates that going faster is more dangerous based on concepts that any reasonable person should see are ALWAYS altered by speed, namely reaction time and stopping distance.

What you presented is a nice falacy, that time instead of distance are the factors that determines the likelyhood of an event on the road such as a deer crossing the road, that even you accept as false.