mefoster wrote:MGF wrote:Quite. No need for a long discussion on this one.
No. NOT quite. Travelling on a busy motorway where all other traffic is flowing freely at around NSL. Is it safer to travel at 70 or 40.
mefoster wrote:Blanket statements like, "slower is always safer" are rarely absolutes and merely serve to demonstrate limited thinking.
Silk wrote:mefoster wrote:MGF wrote:Quite. No need for a long discussion on this one.
No. NOT quite. Travelling on a busy motorway where all other traffic is flowing freely at around NSL. Is it safer to travel at 70 or 40.
It's safer if everyone travels at 40. The more you increase speed in relation to the static environment or other vehicles, the more you increase the risk.mefoster wrote:Blanket statements like, "slower is always safer" are rarely absolutes and merely serve to demonstrate limited thinking.
I accept that driving slower isn't the answer to all our problems when it comes to road safety. But the vast majority of the motoring public have rejected further training, so speed is all we have left. People simply don't care how well they drive, so we have to reduce their speed in order to mitigate the inevitable. It's a shame for those of us who believe that being a better driver is the answer, but there you go.
mefoster wrote: No. NOT quite. Travelling on a busy motorway where all other traffic is flowing freely at around NSL. Is it safer to travel at 70 or 40?
MGF wrote:The net result of less speed - all other things being equal - is less harm ( not necessarily fewer accidents).
Silk wrote:akirk wrote:to return to the point - lower speed doesn't always equal safer...
Actually, it does. If everything else is equal.
akirk wrote: lower speed = safer is a theoretical concept only - it is not reality...
exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan, with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances
Horse wrote:Which bit of this is incorrect?exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan, with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances
How can that not be safer?
mefoster wrote:Horse wrote:mefoster wrote: No. NOT quite. Travelling on a busy motorway where all other traffic is flowing freely at around NSL. Is it safer to travel at 70 or 40?
Errr . . . isn't any danger as a result of dangerous driving by the faster drivers approaching from the rear?
Are you seriously contending that if a driver has the option flow at 70 along with everyone else but makes a conscious decision to travel 30mph slower, then they are not the danger... it's everyone else?
Gareth wrote:Horse wrote:Which bit of this is incorrect?exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan, with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances
How can that not be safer?
Oh, an easy question I can answer! If, as a result of being forced to travel slower, a driver is bored and/or paying less attention.
Horse wrote:akirk wrote: lower speed = safer is a theoretical concept only - it is not reality...
You can't seriously think that?
Which bit of this is incorrect?exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan, with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances
How can that not be safer? *
* Excluding suicidal pedestrians with a bag full of scrambled egg and broken biscuits
lower speed = safer
& exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances
akirk wrote: the key in all of this discussion is that some points are accurate - but only in isolation - and real life is never that simple...lower speed = safer
& exposure to fewer hazards in the same timespan with shorter reaction distances and stopping distances
sounds logical
. . . but that is so far away from normal reality that it is not helpful - in reality situations that simple rarely lead to accidents
akirk wrote:The slower we drive, the more likely he is to overtake us - increasing risk of an accident
If we are doing 60 - he might decide not to overtake
akirk wrote:And as advanced drivers we should be driving our car for the whole scenario - ie we should be conscious of and take into account not just ourselves and the road, but other road users and those around...
mefoster wrote: [quote="Horse] Drivers approaching from behind have, apparently, carte blanche to drive into another vehicle because they're not looking ahead and reacting? That seems to be your alternate view.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests