Justice for an idiot driver

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

No, that's not similar to what I was saying. A similar plane analogy would be like me saying you are safer from airplane accidents if you spend less time on airplanes.

Except plane crashes are caused for the most part by mechanical failures.
So sure I'd accept that the shorter time aloft = lower chance of a problem (increased stress on mechanical components aside).
But on the road the most important factor is roadside hazards (traffic, deer, potholes, broken glass). Things that are dependant on distance traveled, not how long it took you to go by them.
So they aren't really related at all.

[ken0042]

But Jagger- from your article:
Speed is a factor in 30 per cent of fatal crashes and 12 per cent of all crashes.

Which means that it is you non-speeders who cause 70% of all fatal crashes, and 88% of all crashes. So by speeding; I reduce the likelyhood of being involved in a crash by 88%. I like those odds!

(And yes, I am being silly here.)

[Cube Inmate]

Jagger,

I don't think it's about flouting the law...I think it's simply the risk/reward balance of the given individual. People evaluate the likelihood of a risk, the potential harm of that risk, and the reward they get from taking it. Everyone's scale is calibrated differently.

For many drivers, the only risk that they see in speeding is that of getting a ticket. So, in a way, their level of speeding is defined by the *amount* by which they're flouting the law, but not the very fact of doing that.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

About the math, I don't really care. I didnt' calculate any numbers, I just threw them out there to represent the pattern that I was working with.
Reaction time and stopping distance do increase with speed. You don't need to convince me of that. Reaction time also increases with age.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Citation
If reaction time is all we are concerned with, perhaps 20 year old males should be permitted to drive faster than anyone else.
It should also be self evident that spending less time on the road leaves you open to less potential danger. Using myeself as an example, regardless of the distance I travel, everybody else in Calgary will drive the exact same distance and in the exact same fashion on any given day. Some of these other drivers will pose a danger to me. If I am only on the road for 9 minutes instead of 10 they have less opportunity to hit me or cause me harm. I am a young male (so I have better reaction time than most) and I have an above average car, (so it will stop quicker than most). I will concede that regardless of that, driving faster is relatively more dangerous than driving slower, but likely by not as much as being on the road at the mercy of other drivers for the extra amount of time would.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Except plane crashes are caused for the most part by mechanical failures.
So sure I'd accept that the shorter time aloft = lower chance of a problem (increased stress on mechanical components aside).
But on the road the most important factor is roadside hazards (traffic, deer, potholes, broken glass). Things that are dependant on distance traveled, not how long it took you to go by them.
So they aren't really related at all.

I didn't bring up the airplane comparison, I just thought the bomb comparison was way off.

As I've said in my other post (i'm sure you hadn't read it when you posted this one because I hadn't posted it) many car accidents are caused by other cars too. Spending less time on the road leaves you less open to accidents caused by other cars. Also, as far as deer are concerned, on a 10km stretch of road in a 10 minute period you would find more deer on the road than you would in a 9 minute period. That's the only point I was making.

[REDVAN]

Yes, actually I have taken more than one defensive driving course. One was for a 5-ton truck with a 20ish foot box on the back, and the other was for regular cars.

I understand how to drive those vehicles at the speed limit perfectly safely. People who speed are not some anti-Christ that slow drivers think. Ken found the quote "Speed is a factor in 30 per cent of fatal crashes and 12 per cent of all crashes." To me, that means that 88% of all crashes, and 70% of all FATAL crashes are caused by driver error. And weather doesn't count because if it was poor weather, then they would take that into account for speeding. So my point is, that poor driving skill is to blames in most cases, and not the speeding drivers.

I am sick and tired of you "safe and slow" drivers not understanding that speeding doesn't ALWAYS mean more dangerous. I am automatically not as good of a driver as you, or I am a menace to society because I go 10 over or 20 over? No. I am tired of people thinking that because I speed I am dangerous, when in fact I am pretty safe.

I have gotten zero accidents and zero tickets Jagger. And two defensive driving courses for different sized vehicles. To me driving is an art, it is something I take very seriously.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

About the math, I don't really care. I didnt' calculate any numbers, I just threw them out there to represent the pattern that I was working with.
Reaction time and stopping distance do increase with speed. You don't need to convince me of that. Reaction time also increases with age.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Citation
If reaction time is all we are concerned with, perhaps 20 year old males should be permitted to drive faster than anyone else.
It should also be self evident that spending less time on the road leaves you open to less potential danger. Using myeself as an example, regardless of the distance I travel, everybody else in Calgary will drive the exact same distance and in the exact same fashion on any given day. Some of these other drivers will pose a danger to me. If I am only on the road for 9 minutes instead of 10 they have less opportunity to hit me or cause me harm. I am a young male (so I have better reaction time than most) and I have an above average car, (so it will stop quicker than most). I will concede that regardless of that, driving faster is relatively more dangerous than driving slower, but likely by not as much as being on the road at the mercy of other drivers for the extra amount of time would.

Okay, but you're working on the false assumption that the time on the road is the determining factor.
Think about what causes the accidents? Road hazards.

Let's say your drive home is 10 km.
You drive at 60km/h and it takes you 10 minutes.
in that time you had to avoid junk flying out of one truck you passed, three pot holes, broken glass, and 1 guy driving at well below the speed limit.

Now you're doing the same drive, but at 80km/h.
Since you're going faster you're passing more cars over the same distance, so the chance of having to aviod flying junk out the back of a truck is greater, as well as the chance that you'll have to pass someone doing well under the speed limit. The broken glass will be there no matter how fast you go, as will the potholes.

As I said, the time on the road is irrelevant as the determining factor is road hazards, which are a factor of distance, not speed.
In the case of bad drivers, or freak occurances involving other cars, it is the number of cars you pass that is the determining factor, not the time on the road. The more Cars you pass (which increases with your speed) is increased.

So the example of driving faster being quicker hence safer is not even close to the reaction time arguement. The main difference being that the premis of one is true while the premis of the other is false.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

I didn't bring up the airplane comparison, I just thought the bomb comparison was way off.

As I've said in my other post (i'm sure you hadn't read it when you posted this one because I hadn't posted it) many car accidents are caused by other cars too. Spending less time on the road leaves you less open to accidents caused by other cars. Also, as far as deer are concerned, on a 10km stretch of road in a 10 minute period you would find more deer on the road than you would in a 9 minute period. That's the only point I was making.

Okay, but you're wrong.
Here's a thought experiement to determine if you will hit more deer or less deer by going faster.

I am driving on a road going at 120kph.
You are passing me doing 150kph.
At this exact time, at some point along the next 10 km of road a deer starts to cross the road. It takes the deer 1 minute to cross ther road.
Now lets assume that the sight of a deer on the road will cause the driver to panic and crash. Who is more likely to panic and crash, the guy who is on the road longer? NOPE.

Examples to illustrate.
Case 1)
The deer is crossing the road 1km down the road.
In that one minute it takes the deer to cross the road I would have gone 2km if I had not seen the deer at km-1 and crashed and died. Unfortunetly you also saw the deer, crashed and died.

Case 2) The deer is crossing 10km down the road.
In that one miute I've gone 2 km, and am happily oblivious to the close brush with death I have just had. You have traveled 2.5 km and are likewise happy and safe.

Case 3) The deer is crossing 2.25 km down the road.
In that one minute you would have traveled 2.5km if you hadn't had an unfortunate run in with a poor deer. Meanwhile about 15 seconds later, I pass by and wonder what caused all the carnage.

So who is more likley to run into a road hazard? Not the guy who will be on the road for a shorter period of time as you suggest.

Some road hazards are stationary (such as potholes and rocks), they will be the same no matter how fast you go, and others depend on the chance of you passing an event when it happens, and the faster you're going, the greater the distance you travel and the better the chance that you'll run into one of those hazards as they happen.

[Cube Inmate]

I edited my airplane post to be clear...I wasn't saying the bomb example was analogous to your speeding example, but that they're the same "class" of comparison...that is, fallacious. You can make it sound logical on the surface with all kinds of arguments, but the facts are just plain wrong. BBS has just addressed that point.

Your risk increases with speed -- both in likelihood of an incident and the consequences of said incident. Your risk does not decrease with decreased time on the road, unless you encounter fewer hazards. Will you encounter fewer deer in 9 minutes than 10 minutes on the same stretch? Nope...not unless the deer are somehow communicating with each other and agree to only pop out of the forest every 10 minutes.

Is there any hazard that decreases with increased speed? The only possible one is the risk of getting nailed by someone speeding past you. Well, at least you don't have to think about that. I do, but it makes me feel good to know that it's you, a skilled 20-something male, driving past me and I'm really at no risk whatsoever.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I have gotten zero accidents and zero tickets Jagger. And two defensive driving courses for different sized vehicles. To me driving is an art, it is something I take very seriously.

And yet you still speed and are, seemingly, proud of the fact. If you speed like you say you do then you have just been lucky to not get a ticket at least. You will get tagged eventually.

I'm not actually just having a go at you. I also don't like the 'slow' drivers which, I agree, are a hazard too. I drive close to the speed limit (5kph) or so, not exactly a slow driver, and speeders who weave in and out of traffic, with no indication, and seemingly no respect for their fellow drivers drive me nuts. I've had way too many close calls with these types. If you're not like that, great. Good luck to you and drive safe.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, but you're working on the false assumption that the time on the road is the determining factor.
Think about what causes the accidents? Road hazards.

Let's say your drive home is 10 km.
You drive at 60km/h and it takes you 10 minutes.
in that time you had to avoid junk flying out of one truck you passed, three pot holes, broken glass, and 1 guy driving at well below the speed limit.

Now you're doing the same drive, but at 80km/h.
Since you're going faster you're passing more cars over the same distance, so the chance of having to aviod flying junk out the back of a truck is greater, as well as the chance that you'll have to pass someone doing well under the speed limit. The broken glass will be there no matter how fast you go, as will the potholes.

As I said, the time on the road is irrelevant as the determining factor is road hazards, which are a factor of distance, not speed.
In the case of bad drivers, or freak occurances involving other cars, it is the number of cars you pass that is the determining factor, not the time on the road. The more Cars you pass (which increases with your speed) is increased.

So the example of driving faster being quicker hence safer is not even close to the reaction time arguement. The main difference being that the premis of one is true while the premis of the other is false.

True, and I hadn't thought of it in this light, though time on the road will still be somewhat of a factor. For example, if you spend significant amounts of time driving on roads that are not divided highways, the less time you spend on the road the less oncoming traffic you will pass, so the less danger is posed by them. Also, as I said above, the number of dangerous incidents that occur on a given stretch of road will be higher over a longer time frame than a shorter one. It follows that the less time you spend on that strech of road, the less danger you are likely to face. That cannot be disputed...or can it?

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, but you're wrong.
Here's a thought experiement to determine if you will hit more deer or less deer by going faster.

I am driving on a road going at 120kph.
You are passing me doing 150kph.
At this exact time, at some point along the next 10 km of road a deer starts to cross the road. It takes the deer 1 minute to cross ther road.
Now lets assume that the sight of a deer on the road will cause the driver to panic and crash. Who is more likely to panic and crash, the guy who is on the road longer? NOPE.

Examples to illustrate.
Case 1)
The deer is crossing the road 1km down the road.
In that one minute it takes the deer to cross the road I would have gone 2km if I had not seen the deer at km-1 and crashed and died. Unfortunetly you also saw the deer, crashed and died.

Case 2) The deer is crossing 10km down the road.
In that one miute I've gone 2 km, and am happily oblivious to the close brush with death I have just had. You have traveled 2.5 km and are likewise happy and safe.

Case 3) The deer is crossing 2.25 km down the road.
In that one minute you would have traveled 2.5km if you hadn't had an unfortunate run in with a poor deer. Meanwhile about 15 seconds later, I pass by and wonder what caused all the carnage.

So who is more likley to run into a road hazard? Not the guy who will be on the road for a shorter period of time as you suggest.

Some road hazards are stationary (such as potholes and rocks), they will be the same no matter how fast you go, and others depend on the chance of you passing an event when it happens, and the faster you're going, the greater the distance you travel and the better the chance that you'll run into one of those hazards as they happen.

I will not assume that, because I have seen hundreds of deer on the road an have never crashed. I have also been a passenger for hundreds more deer and we have never crashed.

Let me add a case 4)

A deer comes out 2 seconds after I pass, I drive away, you crash into it.

Your last point doesn't make sense either. The chances of me being in the same spot as a deer at any point in time (a necessity for hitting it) are less than the chances of a slower driver being the same place as the deer at the same time, because a slower driver is in the same place for a longer time. It's not a significant difference, but it is in the opposite direction that you are professing. If there are 3 deer on a 10 km stretch of road ever 10 minutes, I spend 9 minutes on the road, you spend 10, I am only sharing the road with 2.7 deer, while you are sharing with 3 deer. Who is in more danger?
(the bold part is intended for CI as well)

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

True, and I hadn't thought of it in this light, though time on the road will still be somewhat of a factor. For example, if you spend significant amounts of time driving on roads that are not divided highways, the less time you spend on the road the less oncoming traffic you will pass, so the less danger is posed by them. Also, as I said above, the number of dangerous incidents that occur on a given stretch of road will be higher over a longer time frame than a shorter one. It follows that the less time you spend on that strech of road, the less danger you are likely to face. That cannot be disputed...or can it?

And I've given an example that shows that in fact this isn't true.

As for oncoming traffic, sure you'll pass less, but you'll pass more traffic going the same direction (requiring lane changes). What's more dangerous, passing a car going the other way, or having to pull into oncomming traffic to pass a car in your lane.

The time arguement is worthless because any decrease in the liklihood of an event occuring while you're on the road is at least canceled out by the incease in the liklihood that you'll encounter it in the time period that the hazard exists. And any traffic concerns are pretty much a wash because traffic goes both ways. At best the time factor is a wash, which STILL makes your point irrelvant.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I edited my airplane post to be clear...I wasn't saying the bomb example was analogous to your speeding example, but that they're the same "class" of comparison...that is, fallacious. You can make it sound logical on the surface with all kinds of arguments, but the facts are just plain wrong. BBS has just addressed that point.

Your risk increases with speed -- both in likelihood of an incident and the consequences of said incident. Your risk does not decrease with decreased time on the road, unless you encounter fewer hazards. Will you encounter fewer deer in 9 minutes than 10 minutes on the same stretch? Nope...not unless the deer are somehow communicating with each other and agree to only pop out of the forest every 10 minutes.

Is there any hazard that decreases with increased speed? The only possible one is the risk of getting nailed by someone speeding past you. Well, at least you don't have to think about that. I do, but it makes me feel good to know that it's you, a skilled 20-something male, driving past me and I'm really at no risk whatsoever.

You're joking aren't you? Do you have a better chance of seeing a goal scored in a hockey game if you watch for 10 minutes or 9? Do you have a better chance of seeing a shooting star if you look up for 10 minutes or 9 minutes? Does that depend if the stars are communicating?

I haven't said I drive at a very high speed, nor did I say anything about myself being a highly skilled driver, I linked an academic article that shows young men have better reaction times than older men and women. Therefore, if your concern is my reaction time because I'm driving faster than you, I should be equally concerned about yours, even though you're driving slower than me, because I am more capable of reacting quickly to traffic situations that may arise ahead of me. The only other thing I referenced is the fact that my car will stop faster than most.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by lifer

True, and I hadn't thought of it in this light, though time on the road will still be somewhat of a factor. For example, if you spend significant amounts of time driving on roads that are not divided highways, the less time you spend on the road the less oncoming traffic you will pass, so the less danger is posed by them. Also, as I said above, the number of dangerous incidents that occur on a given stretch of road will be higher over a longer time frame than a shorter one. It follows that the less time you spend on that strech of road, the less danger you are likely to face. That cannot be disputed...or can it?

Okay, I think you've admitted that physics is against you -- reaction and braking distances are increased at higher speeds, and available reaction time is decreased. Therefore, when exposed to a certain hazard, both the likelihood and consequences of the resultant collision are likely to be higher / worse at higher speeds. Yes?

Okay. Now, let's pick a specific 10 km stretch of highway and just drive it back and forth. We'll start at the same point...I'll drive the speed limit, and you drive 20% over the limit. Eventually, one of us will get into a collision with a deer or an oncoming car. Who do you think it's more likely to be? By physics, your reaction time and braking distance are significantly worse than mine, so it'll likely be you. We've spent the same time on the road, but you've driven 20% farther than me. You'll also be the first one to get in a collision the majority of the time.

It's all about distance driven, not time. Get used to it.

[ZDogg]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Driving is pretty simple.

Keep up with the flow of traffic. If you can't, don't use the road.

Be predictable when driving. You're not the only one out there.

If you miss a turn, take the next one.

A merge is not a yield. You do you honestly think your going to be able to merge when you're going 20km/h slower than traffic.

When merging have some balls. They will make room.

On free flowing roads, the left lane is for passing. Don't drive in it.

You don't have to pass me just to go the same speed.

No random highway breaking.

Don't be a ######.

I like this post. Everyone should use this as a basis for driving. We are all trying to efficiently go from point A to point B. It's like Communism... everybody needs to think of the group as a whole.

I just want to chime in a bit about Speeding vs Too Slow. I generally drive on Deerfoot doing 115 - 120km/hr with no issues. I have been in the vehicle with my grandparents as they are doing 80km/hr. That one drive with my grandparents had more close calls than my entire lifetime of Deerfoot driving.

For those wondering... roads are designed for speeds greater than the speed limit. Generally a road is posted 10-20km/hr less than the design speed. This is generally accepted as the 85th percentile driving speed meaning that approx 15% of people will be exceeding the posted speed. There are poor design situations where the posted speed is the design speed. The curve on Deerfoot at 17th/Blackfoot wasn't designed correctly when they built the south extension, I believe the design speed is 100km/hr. Also, I believe the curves at the Calf Robe Bridge were only designed for 100km/hr.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

I will not assume that, because I have seen hundreds of deer on the road an have never crashed. I have also been a passenger for hundreds more deer and we have never crashed.

Let me add a case 4)

A deer comes out 2 seconds after I pass, I drive away, you crash into it.

Your last point doesn't make sense either. The chances of me being in the same spot as a deer at any point in time (a necessity for hitting it) are less than the chances of a slower driver being the same place as the deer at the same time, because a slower driver is in the same place for a longer time. It's not a significant difference, but it is in the opposite direction that you are professing. If there are 3 deer on a 10 km stretch of road ever 10 minutes, I spend 9 minutes on the road, you spend 10, I am only sharing the road with 2.7 deer, while you are sharing with 3 deer. Who is in more danger?
(the bold part is intended for CI as well)

Wow, you really missed the point. Whether or not you'll actually die if you see the deer is irrelevant. The point is to illustrate that road hazards exist for a certain length of time. So for the life of any given road hazard, your increased speed means that you will have a greater chance of encountering it.

Road hazards have two variables, time and position on the road.

For any random hazard, any decrease in the chance it'll happen (caused by shorter time), is negated by the increase in chance you'll encounter it where it happens (caused by the greter distance traveled in the time frame that the hazard exists).

It all balances out, so using I'm on the road for a shorter period of time is just goofy because it is wrong.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Okay, I think you've admitted that physics is against you -- reaction and braking distances are increased at higher speeds, and available reaction time is decreased. Therefore, when exposed to a certain hazard, both the likelihood and consequences of the resultant collision are likely to be higher / worse at higher speeds. Yes?

Okay. Now, let's pick a specific 10 km stretch of highway and just drive it back and forth. We'll start at the same point...I'll drive the speed limit, and you drive 20% over the limit. Eventually, one of us will get into a collision with a deer or an oncoming car. Who do you think it's more likely to be? By physics, your reaction time and braking distance are significantly worse than mine, so it'll likely be you. We've spent the same time on the road, but you've driven 20% farther than me. You'll also be the first one to get in a collision the majority of the time.

It's all about distance driven, not time. Get used to it.

Ok, so you know a lot about physics. That's fine. Why pretend that the same speed limit should apply to everybody then? Do you think a corvette going 110 will stop faster or slower than a Caravan moving at 100km/h? Do you want to adress anything to do with age and reaction time?
You're example is insane. You keep telling me that the factor to consider is that distance travelled puts the driver at risk, not time spent driving. Then you use an example where I would travel 20% greater distance than you and say I would be in more danger. Here's the thing though, if we were both driving to the same place, I would have stopped driving before you did, so I'm sitting in the parking lot waiting for you, where my risk of hitting a deer is 0, while you're still driving. I have no trouble agreeing that if I'm driving faster than you are, other things being equal, I am more likely to hit a deer than you are. However, why can't you admit that I'm safer parked than you are driving?

The other problem that you face with your example is that you are not bypassing any of the deer on the road. You miss them one time, finish the 10km, then turn around and try to miss them again. When I am driving somewhere, I don't go back an forth, so once I get through the first time I keep on going. As I've said above, if there are 3 deer on that stretch of road every 10 minutes (on average), a car that spends 10 minutes on that stretch is more likely to see a deer than somebody who only spends 9.

[Burninator]

lifer. Let's simplify this.

If I am travelling 100kph and you are travelling 200kph on the same road. By your logic you are safer, because you will be on the road for less time, in fact half the time as me. Come on, you don't actually think that do you? You are looking at this with way too small of a perspective.

Originally Posted by lifer

You're joking aren't you? Do you have a better chance of seeing a goal scored in a hockey game if you watch for 10 minutes or 9? Do you have a better chance of seeing a shooting star if you look up for 10 minutes or 9 minutes? Does that depend if the stars are communicating?

Your hockey example doesn't work. Because in every driving example the cars are going the same distance (length of hockey game) and the variable is the time travelled (you would have to change the speed at which the tape of the hockey game was playing). In fact you have just used your own logic against yourself. What you are saying is that the slow driver is the person watching the game for 10 minutes and the fast driver is the person watching the same 10 minute game but sped up into 9 minutes. So who is more likely to see a goal scored (get into an accident)? The person watching the game at normal speed (100kph driver) or the person watching the game at 1.1 times faster (110kph)? Logic would dictate the slower person is more likely to see a goal scored, and the slower driver is more likely to avoid an accident.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And I've given an example that shows that in fact this isn't true.

As for oncoming traffic, sure you'll pass less, but you'll pass more traffic going the same direction (requiring lane changes). What's more dangerous, passing a car going the other way, or having to pull into oncomming traffic to pass a car in your lane.

Passing the car going the other way. I only cross lanes to pass if no traffic is approaching.

The time arguement is worthless because any decrease in the liklihood of an event occuring while you're on the road is at least canceled out by the incease in the liklihood that you'll encounter it in the time period that the hazard exists. And any traffic concerns are pretty much a wash because traffic goes both ways. At best the time factor is a wash, which STILL makes your point irrelvant.