Right, like a speeding car vs a stopped tree. What nonsense speeding isn't an issue if everyone is driving at the same speed. I have a gravestone in California I visit that says otherwise. They went too fast around a curve, slid out into an oncoming car. Killed 'em both. And that was just the closest person to me killed because someone was driving too fast. I know a few more. There are a few occasions when going too slow is a hazard. My grandfather driving on the freeway for example, was a slow-driver hazard when he slowed down to read the offramp signs.
No, no, no @GingerCoffee! They were probably killed because they weren't going fast enough. Slowness was definitely the cause of that accident, as it is with 30% of all accidents. I'm sorry for your loss, and hope you'll forgive my glibness.
I use it if I need to get people's attention when emotions are running high and I want to remind people to chill and stay on topic. A mod thing. The rest of the post was in response to the topic.
It happens. Much less often than someone driving too fast, but if you ever rode with my grandpa in his later years, you'd know how it could happen.
... Your grandpa did not, I think, account for 30% of all traffic accidents. We're looking for equivalent numbers. Or at lease I've glomed onto the looking because the looker has a good point.
I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp about what I said. Let me repeat my point: - People driving slower than the safe conditions can result in anger and frustration in other drivers, which may result in them driving more dangerously. As much as you might like everyone to be emotionless automatons behind the wheel (which apparently you are), it simply doesn't work that way. Some consideration is required for other road users, which is why slow driving is an offence in the UK. Now I am going to repeat verbatim the pertinent part of my original post: - Driving too slowly for the conditions causes anger and frustration which can result in dangerous driving. One might argue that these reactions are the fault of the other driver, but frankly that would be ignoring the fact that we are all subject to emotions and our actions have an effect on those around us including provoking their emotions. It would be quite an arrogant way to palm off all blame for our bad driving by castigating others for reacting to it. In response to this can you tell me why you are looking for "equivalent numbers"? Or are you just ignoring the original point and moving the goal posts around to suit your position? Some people seem to be more interested in having the last word than the actual debate, and when your points are twisted or bastardised to suit their angle you may as well leave the discussion altogether because it is no longer worth the time or effort.
I'm not seeing your logic, cs. Are you trying to say that if Person A is doing something legal but it inconveniences Person B and Person B loses their temper and acts out in a dangerous manner, it's the fault of Person A? Isn't that pawning off our lack of control on others who are doing nothing legally wrong? (I'm assuming you've never driven in rural areas during harvest...) If anything, when operating a vehicle weighing several tons at high speeds, one should take extra care to keep their emotions in check. That, to me anyway, is the responsible thing to do. I may swear under my breath, but I do remember what the consequences could be if I let it get further than that. (I've also been driving for over 40 years, so maybe that's the difference. ??)
Like @shadowwalker and @KaTrian (maybe others, can't remember) have pointed out, it seems what I'm doing doesn't actually count as tailgating after all. Do you disagree with them? Does that make me less careless of a driver at all? By the way, to me your assumption read as ludicrous as me voicing an assumption that since you seem to get fired up pretty easily in an internet argument, a mundane thing, you are just as likely to be snappish towards your possible children/partner/some such. It's based on the same amount of data, and I really don't think it's a good way to go about evaluating how someone does something unrelated to the issue being discussed. Sorry, I got confused since you mentioned some things I said I do (flashing long beams) and thought I do (tailgating) sometimes, i.e. it looked like I was part of the group of people you talked about. Good to hear I'm not one of the jackasses, then. Didn't mean that. If you can't drive safely, you shouldn't drive, no matter if you drive fast or slow, dangerous driving is dangerous driving. Those who can't drive safely except well under the speed limits, really shouldn't drive at all until they've learned to become better drivers (so no, they shouldn't speed up either). No need to reread that; I take those other possible hazards into consideration. I do what I do when I can clearly see there are no children playing in front of the slow car, no elderly people crossing the road, or any such thing because I drive safely. I never said high beams don't have any other function besides fog. Here, for example, we also use them on unlit roads during darkness except when another vehicle drives towards us from the opposite direction, but once they pass, we switch to highs again. But they still don't blind me even momentarily even if the opposite vehicle fails to switch to low beams when they pass me by. It's even less of a hindrance when the high beams are on the car behind me: I can still see clearly even after a glance into the rearview mirror. If you can't, I really honestly do recommend a check-up in case it's an issue with night vision or something. Are you seriously comparing all the possible medical emergencies one can have (in addition to any other emergencies that might make you want to get somewhere as fast as possible) to being as improbable as being chased by a fantasy creature? I already gave you plenty of real-life examples, one including a personal experience (and yes, those seizures can be lethal, so I wouldn't have appreciated sight-seeing at that time), another being when I almost bled to death (note: that accident was unrelated to anything discussed in this thread), so understandably my dad wouldn't have enjoyed the scenery during a slow drive to the hospital to see how badly his kid was hurt. That's just two examples from my life. How many times has a dragon chased you? Do you really care so little of the well-being of others that you put a bad driver's right to drive below the limit above everyone who might actually need to hurry (by driving according to the speed limits, not faster, but also not slower) for any reason at all? Or do you claim such emergencies are so incredibly rare, I might as well be talking about dragon chases? Yes, speeding causes more potentially dangerous situations than slow driving, but slow driving also causes more potentially dangerous situations than driving according to the recommended speeds when conditions allow doing so safely. Point being, I don't condone speeding because it's dangerous, but I don't condone driving too slow either because it's also dangerous albeit less so than speeding. Why should we condone dangerous driving at all, fast or slow? Oh, I'm familiar with that statistic and I've responded to it more than once with other statistics, so there's not even a need for a new thread, so that's that as far as I'm concerned. Conclusions made based on Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle by David Solomon, paraphrased by Wikipedia: In any case, that's what I was aiming at: driving slow can cause situations that lead into accidents, such as the one I described in my post and we've all probably seen (the bit about one car driving well below the limit on a narrow road with just one lane per direction so that a long line of cars builds up behind the first, slow driver). Personally, I don't pass anyone if I don't think it's as safe as can be (i.e. I see there's nothing in front of the vehicle I'm about to pass, I see enough of the opposite lane that I know for sure I'll make it or, if there are cars between me and the first car, I usually don't bother unless it's an emergency etc. etc). However, in this reality, at least in my country, it's a sad fact that there are plenty of drivers out there I can't influence, drivers who will pass even in dangerous situations because they get impatient with driving below the limit in non-challenging conditions, and when they start their suicidal pass attempts, it's my ass on the line too, not just theirs, not just the person's who instigated the whole clusterfuck. To reiterate: just because speeders cause more accidents than those who drive slowly and dangerously doesn't mean it's ok to drive slowly and dangerously. Everyone should drive safely and responsibly, preferably according to the recommended speed limits (sans exceptions like steep curves, during bad weather, when a baby is crawling over the road etc). As I said above, dangerous driving is dangerous driving regardless of whether it's slow or fast dangerous driving (yes, one is more dangerous than the other, but both are still dangerous and irresponsible).
Well, I certainly wasn't specifically talking about farm vehicles. And, no, I am not apportioning blame, I am saying that your actions affect other people and all drivers should take some responsibility for this and show some consideration. Driving too slowly and delaying other people is inconsiderate and can result in dangerous situations. EDIT: and I should note that no-one is asking people to drive faster than is safe, and often driving at a safe speed requires that you drive slower than the speed limit. I certainly would not expect to see a combine harvester bombing it along at 60 mph, that would clearly be unsafe. However, on a clear road with good visibility in a decent vehicle, trundling along at half the speed limit is unsafe (or can result in dangerous driving).
I was trying to look into this briefly, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to blame slow driving in the accident report if it was basically caused by some hothead getting frustrated and start passing unsafely. Even if it happened because someone failed to follow the traffic flow. In 1997 they apparently looked into car crash percentages due to speeding in Florida, and the number was found to be 4.4 % but I have trouble finding the original research / report. In both that and the report claiming 30 %, I wonder how accurately they've determined the cause of the accidents. And no, I'm not trying to claim speeding is not dangerous.
I said less often. Listen, you're preaching to the choir. My teenagehood was turned into a nightmare of depression and drugs because of a driver speeding. When you are sixteen and your boyfriend of two years is killed, it's the end of world. I'm just fortunate I wasn't with them because I'd have been killed as well. But I'll never forget the white knuckle drive home from Eugene to LA when my grandparents offered to visit then drive me home from college. Gramps literally almost came to a stop in the middle of a busy freeway to read the sign when we reached a need to take the bypasses.
I don't accept this either. Yes the slow driver can be a hazard. But to say that causes road rage, no. Road rage is the sole responsibility of the idiot who is enraged and I doubt slow drivers are the cause 99.9% of the time. Assholeness is the cause.
@T.Trian, yes I think what you described is that of a problem driver. Perhaps you need to consider you might need to lighten up when you are driving. Just sayin' ...
I was actually responding to this specifically. I agree the debate has progressed. It's progressed to the point where you have to back up your claim. So, along with @BayView, I'd like to see the "equivalent numbers" of accidents caused by slowness. Or is quoting you directly "moving the goal posts"?
If they're not allowed to drive, how do they become better drivers? I would assume that they improve their driving by going on a multi-lane road and mostly sticking to the slow lane, so that others can pass them. But in that scenario, they will likely still be driving slower than the maximum allowed speed. Do you call them dangerous? If so, again, where do they get their driving practice? In the US, high-speed driving for medical emergencies is generally something done by emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. The average driver is assumed to be just out there driving, not on an emergency. Driving regulations that assume that drivers must be permitted to drive at emergency speeds would be very, very different from the regulations that we have now. Where I live, slow drivers are expected to confine themselves to the "slow lane", except when passing even slower drivers. When there's only one lane in a given direction, there are nevertheless usually lanes that allow the slow driver to pull over and allow others to pass. And there are rules about when you have to do this. Would this be unacceptable to you? It could still lead to a situation where you, an experienced driver on a particular curvy mountain road, might be stuck for five or ten minutes behind someone with less experience on that road or kind of road, someone who has to drive slowly to get there safely. Would you say that that driver should not be driving? If so, then I would ask again, how does a driver get the experience to drive faster?
No, it has progressed to the point where I have to repeatedly identify the fact that you are skewing other people's points to suit your own. Now, if you want me to justify semantics then "those who drive too slowly for the conditions can be as dangerous as those who drive too fast". Yes, they can be, what is your point here? Are you suggesting that this means that exactly as many accidents are caused by slow driving as speeding, because I clearly did not state this. However, I can imagine a situation where someone driving slowly sets up a causal chain that results in an accident, if you can't then I would suggest that you are purposefully trying not to in order to further stoke this argument you are intent on having. You will notice that T.Trian identified research and circumstances which suggest this happens in his post above. Now, please stop scratching around for an argument, it is quite tedious.
I would suggest we need to determine what "too slow" is, actually. As I mentioned earlier, on freeways there is typically a maximum speed limit of 70 mph, give or take, and a minimum of 45 mph. That's set by the state or federal DoT, and I'm pretty sure they understand safe speeds, at both ends of the spectrum. Now, granted that there are always exceptions, it would seem that if someone going 25 mph below the maximum speed limit is not a speed hazard on a freeway, going 40 in a 55 mph zone certainly wouldn't be.
I have no idea. When I am driving I generally view too slow as those occasions when you have a huge tailback sitting behind one car. I mean you are always going to have boy-racers who overtake anything that moves, but when you have tens of cars all jamming up it suggests a general consensus that the guy in front could be going faster. I would struggle to identify an actual speed as this is dependent upon so many other factors. However, someone going slowly on the inside lane of a motorway isn't so much of an issue (except when they neglect to move out or make room at slip roads to allow cars to join).
On the main highway here, it's two lanes, one each way. During the morning and evening commutes, there are cars lined up one after the other for miles, and they're all going at least the speed limit, if not more. So no, the guy in front should not be going faster. On many roads, you just get stuck in a long line of traffic, no matter what the speed. Drivers going too slow for safety are not that common in my experience (and I've driven across the US). Drivers going too slow for the person behind them - that's the problem. And it's not the guy in front causing it.
it's a big issue when you're on the three-lane UK motorways and the third, inside lane (passing lane) is specifically for over-taking, not trundling along all the way, 20 mph under the speed limit and effectively, causing an obstruction. On the subject of holding up traffic, if you are at the front of a long line of traffic and the speed limit for that road is 40mph and you are doing 40mph, then how can you be holding anyone up? It's illegal to drive over the speed limit therefore no-one should be over taking you because everyone behind you is doing the same speed - i.e. the limit - and are unable to go faster which means, you are, technically, not holding anyone up. It's not your fault if you adhere to the rules but someone behind you wants to break them.
You know @GingerCoffee has arrived when your assertion is casually dismissed as 'nonsense' and her rebuttal consists of a description of something that may have happened to her. Try hard to imagine a stretch of freeway where half the cars are going 60 and the other half are going 80. The twenty-mile-an-hour speed differential will result in cars overtaking each other and having to pass, often after braking, causing snarls and backups. Now imagine the same stretch with all cars doing 80. Obviously safer, unless someone close to you is involved, I guess.
Ok, let's keep it cool, guys... @Jack Asher What you're asking and hoping to argue sounds so removed of reality you must be aware of it, and I can't see other reasons for you pressing for research than winning an internet argument. Congratulations, I think you have won. Does that mean driving slow never causes accidents? Does that mean not following the flow of the traffic never causes accidents? Or does that perhaps mean there is a risk, a smaller risk in comparison to speeding (I don't mean moderate speeding either. You go with the flow of the traffic, and sometimes it can require going a bit faster), but a risk nonetheless in not following the traffic, and that responsible drivers should be aware of this? Anyway... To me it's going la-la-la at what happens in real life if you (the passive you) think just because the law doesn't say I can't drive 20km/h under the speed limit, it's safe to do so. You will get pulled aside by cops OR if you're driving your license, not following the flow of the traffic might even earn you a fail OR you aggravate other drivers, incite them into passing, and risk accidents. I don't quite understand why the last one seems to be such a no-no to some of you guys, not from the practical standpoint. I can understand why you'd think "their rage is not my problem," yeah, it's not as such, but since it can be my problem if they lose control of their vehicle, not following the flow seems unwise. The real world isn't as PC as this little nook on the internet, so it's a good idea to at least be aware of what your actions may cause (If this isn't relevant to your area, then it's not, that's fine). Out of interest, and 'cause I couldn't sleep, I browsed several internet forums for opinions yesterday, and more people found it annoying than accepted it, and pointed out it can pose a risk in traffic. Granted, I looked up opinions relevant to my local traffic. And of course, not everyone will pass in throes of blinding rage. Just passing in and of itself is riskier than driving straight ahead, and like it or not, people unable to drive along the flow cause passing.
So, to look at this from a different angle... Let's say you're driving at the speed you believe is safe for conditions. Of course everyone in this discussion is an excellent driver, with perfect judgement, etc. You know what you're doing, and you've chosen a good speed. But there are a couple cars behind you, one of whom is starting to tailgate. So, at this point do you have an obligation to drive faster than you think is safe? In order to prevent their unsafe driving, are you obliged to accept the judgement of the drivers behind you, rather than use your own?
