I have no idea - you said it was tailgating, I took your word for it. If you now say it's not, I guess I'll take your word for that, too. But I will be a bit confused. If, while doing this thing that isn't tailgating, you're getting closer to the car in front than you usually would, close enough that they apparently feel pressured to speed up... I don't know. I guess maybe you normally drive REALLY far away from the car in front? I'm not sure how to visualize what you're describing. It's obviously not perfect, no. But if I kept using my kids/partner/some such as an example of my loving and gentle behaviour, and then you saw me, in your perception, getting "fired up" by an internet argument (I'm not actually fired up, but, whatever, perceptions are important), then I would think you'd be right to wonder if I'm actually as patient as I claim to be. But you are driving safely, as long as you're driving within your limits. I live in a rural area and there are lots of old people fighting to hold onto the farms and cabins they've lived in their whole lives. If they can no longer drive, they can no longer live in the only home they've ever known. If they need to drive a bit slower in order to be safe, I'm okay with that. I can pass them when it's safe to do so. Nope. They're all just examples of times where an exception to the rule could possibly be justified. But the exceptions don't affect the general rule.
Hands down, one of the most cyclical, futile and pointless threads I've ever read on here. Well done chaps.
Legally, there's a speed limit and you should not exceed it, regardless of who is driving up your jacksey. That being said, if I was in that position on a motorway, I would pull into the slow lane at the first opportunity and let them pass. If I was on regular roads in towns, then the speed limit would be 20/30mph in which case, if it's night time I would put on my rear fog lights (to make them drop back), turn off onto a side road to let them pass or simply ignore them. If they drive into the back of me at 20/30mph, they will probably not write my car off and as an accident would be their fault, my insurance wouldn't suffer. I once got done for speeding, I've never done it since and am not prepared to break the law because the idiot behind me wants to get where they are going two minutes earlier than planned.
Our winter roads are horrendous. Someone with regular car cannot be expected to drive as fast as someone with a four-wheel drive. But, by the logic of some, the first driver is causing a safety hazard because they're not driving as fast as is safe for the 4W driver. Or is the first driver supposed to go into hock just so their vehicle is capable of the higher speeds on bad roads? And no one has really addressed the minimum speed limit - if the safety experts say 45 is safe on a freeway, how can anyone say it is not safe on a 2 lane? So you get stuck behind someone - big hairy deal! So you're in a long line of slow traffic - ever seen a freeway in California? (Hint - people take side streets because it's faster.) Medical emergency? Someone going the speed limit will be in the way! The reality is not that slower drivers are 'at fault' - the reality is that people nowadays don't want to accept responsibility for their anger and impatience. It has to be someone else's fault.
Urgh tailgaters are the worst people. I have a crappy little Citroen saxo that does the job and is not all too slow either. Due to the fact it is not a fancy car though, I feel that a lot of drivers try to bully me out of the way. If someone is practically bumper to bumper with me, blinding me with their lights, I will slow down to about 20mph, I do not care, if they want to get ahead, go ahead and take over. I stick to the speed limits, I do not go below the speed limit, I am right on it usually, if not over. Them going bumper to bumper is pathetic and trying to force me to break the law. When I have had someone do this for a long period of time without taking over, I will pull over and let them pass. If I am feeling really petty I will then put my full beams on, but *coughs* I am only human.
No real need to lighten up because I don't do what I do in anger or frustration, it's just a reaction to something I observe around me. It'd be different if there were emotions involved. Anyway, as long as I don't break laws or cause accidents, I consider my driving safe enough. Simple: take driving classes. You'll have a teacher sitting shotgun with their own pedals to help keep things safe. Another option is to rent some time on a driving track or then practice on your own on a private road if you can learn well enough that way, but originally I was mainly referring to driving lessons/classes. That's where I learned to drive safely and responsibly enough to drive in regular traffic where I keep observing my driving to find stuff to improve (a never-ending process, just like the improvement of any other skill). Oh yeah, computer driving simulators are starting to be so realistic nowadays, especially with something like the Oculus Rift plus a wheel plus pedals that that's a pretty good aid if you want to invest a bit more than usual into improving your skills in a 100% safe environment. You've misunderstood me: from the get-go, when talking about emergencies, I never advocated driving faster than the speed limit. All I said was that in an emergency, people usually don't appreciate being forced to drive below the speed limit. Unfortunately we don't have dedicated slow lanes here unless you just mean the right lane when the left one is reserved for passing? However, most of the time it's just one lane per direction, so there's usually no fast or slow lane to choose from, that's when things can get hectic if someone creates a traffic jam (which aren't as safe as some people seem to think). I've also, from the very beginning, pointed out the exceptions: difficult, curvy roads/sharp bends, unsafe roads (very narrow gravel road in horrible condition with a steep fall on one side, for instance), icy roads, heavy rain/snowfall etc. etc. I've only been criticizing people who drive well below the speed limit on well-maintained roads in broad daylight (or possibly a well-lit road at night), with no sharp curves, holes or other such hazards, in good weather, i.e. no ice, rain etc. Obviously I wouldn't speed up if I was already driving at the speed limit. If the conditions were good (e.g. like described in my reply to @ChickenFreak above) and I was still driving noticeably slower than the speed limit for god knows why, I see no reason why I'd feel unsafe speeding up to the speed limit. If I'm such a bad driver that I couldn't do that safely, I wouldn't drive except after improving my skills first (in ways described above). Actually, if you read my first post carefully, you'd find I asked near the end whether what I described counts as tailgating. Apparently it doesn't. And yes, usually I do drive a bit further from the vehicle before me than most because I'm a bit paranoid (when stopping before crosswalks to let pedestrians pass, I also stop a bit further from the crosswalk than most cars I observe when driving, just in case someone bumps into me from behind so I don't end up pushed on the pedestrians). Not REALLY far, but a bit further. And, as I said previously, the distance between me and the driver in front of me depends and changes according to our speed: the faster we drive, the greater the distances, even when I inch a bit closer. The idea there is not to stick my bumper onto theirs and that way spook them into driving faster, but what I considered basic "driving psych 101": if you see a vehicle behind you in the rearview mirror and its distance from you is static, you have no reason to react in any way if they aren't too close for comfort. However, if you see the vehicle getting closer, you tend to check your speed to see if you've slowed down or if you're going too slow to begin with, check the sign the next time one comes up etc. It's how our brains/eyes work: moving objects, especially ones that approach us, catch our attention more easily than objects that maintain a steady distance from us. And, as I said from the very start, even when doing what I described above, I still maintain a distance long enough that I can come to a full stop if need be if the driver before me hits the breaks suddenly without crashing into their car. And yes, I do take things like weather into consideration, i.e. I don't do it on slippery roads, in heavy rain etc; that would be stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible. And how do these slow drivers know there's not a single one of those myriad of examples in the long line of cars trailing behind them every single time they go drive in traffic which, to many, is every day (meaning they risk the lives of quite a few possible exceptions over the course of their lives)? Is e.g. someone's life worth that person's right to drive below the limit due to their incompetence? That's precisely why I don't "faux-tailgate" or flash high beams in bad weather, on icy roads etc. I don't have a 4-wheel drive either, our winter roads are skating rinks too, so I have a pretty good idea what it's like to drive under those conditions, especially since for a while our only car was a VW Golf II from 1988 (i.e. the car was the same age as @KaTrian back then, over 20 years), meaning it was small and all but the safest cart around. You horrible person, you! You're blinding the poor people!
But how do you know it's due to "their incompetence"? Going to the bad weather roads - to someone with a 4W drive, it could seem (and does, based on the number of tailgaters I've encountered) that the person ahead doesn't know how to drive on snowy/icy roads. The fact that they are driving legally and according to conditions means nothing to those folks. Again, while it may be an annoyance, driving below the speed limit (which, after all, is the maximum limit, not the required speed) isn't "dangerous" (based on the highway safety experts' decisions) unless the person behind them gets impatient or angry. And that's whose fault?
You can't. But if you were going at 40 mph when it was safe and legal to be going 60 mph then you might be.
I'm not clear on where you get the money for driving classes, a private track, or a simulator, if you're not allowed to drive to work. Maybe you live where there's plenty of public transit? N0, I'm rejecting the premise that the rules of the road should be substantially affected by emergency drivers. I simply don't accept the "what if it's an emergency" argument for denying someone the right to drive on the public roads. Right; that's what I mean. Surely if there's a passing lane, the faster drivers can, well, pass? How long is it likely to be before there's a turnout? (That's the word I was looking for!) At least in California and Oregon, the places where my memory is freshest, the one-land-per roads are usually designed with a "turnout"--an extra lane for a few hundred yards that allows the slow driver to pull over and creeeep along while the train of cars behind him passes---every few miles, wherever the terrain allows. In California, if more than five drivers are behind you, you are legally required to turn out--I believe irrespective of whether you're maintaining the maximum legal speed or not. When driving in twisty hills, I was usually the slowest driver even if I was at the maximum legal speed (I suspect that the speed limits were set based on drivers unfamiliar with the conditions), so I would generally turn out if I was trapping more than two vehicles, or if the one vehicle behind me had been stuck there since the last turnout or so.
The point that I'm trying to make is that the only concrete problem with slow driving, the only danger, is how other drivers will react to you. That is not a compelling reason to drive faster, or less safe. @Chinspinner and @T.Trian seems to believe that when I get into the drivers seat I'm assuming responsibility for the emotional state of every driver on the road. The only risk that anyone can point to in driving slowly is that it will somehow make other drivers more reckless, and therefore the cause of a greater number of accidents. If I take that fallacy to it's (ill)logical conclusion in order to point out how ridiculous it is, I'm only fulfilling a long tradition of satire. I guess that's what you call winning. I'll take it.
That's why my argument only applies when driving under good conditions, on good roads. I too often drive below the speed limit on icy, unsalted/unsanded roads, very twisty/bendy roads etc. Obviously the dickhead's who e.g. passes the slow driver dangerously. However, at least around here it's a sad reality that there will often be at least one of those dickheads around to endanger everyone driving close to said moron as well as the slow driver they're trying to pass. If they end up in a collision, everyone else near those two vehicles are in danger. Hence I try not to be the slow driver and I sure as hell won't be the dangerously passing idiot either, but I can't control the way others drive, so I wish people wouldn't drive recklessly OR so slowly that they significantly increase the chances of more people trying to pass them unsafely, i.e. I try to ensure I belong to neither the reckless or overly slow group of drivers (who drive slowly due to incompetence instead of extremely dangerous conditions like the aforementioned icy, unsalted, twisty mountain road etc). Usually it's possible to reach locations with public transport plus some walking up to a mile or two or so. Sure, that means instead of 10 minutes, your trip to work can stretch to something like 45-90mins, but that's better than endangering traffic and risking not only your life, but that of others since the reckless driver and the slow driver might not be the only casualties, it might also be a third driver driving perfectly, but they just happen to be close enough or the two dangerous drivers end up veering to the sidewalk, killing pedestrians etc. At least I don't want anything like that on my conscience; I'd rather spend more time on my way to work/school. As for where to get the money; you had to have some money to 1. get the original driver's license and 2. the car, right? Taking a few extra lessons isn't that expensive around here. Maybe buy a slightly cheaper car and spend what you save on those lessons? I could list a myriad of ways to gather the funds, but whose problem is it? I say it's the bad, i.e. dangerous driver's responsibility to ensure they are skilled enough to be as safe as a driver can be. I don't get the mentality that bad drivers have some inherent license to risk the lives of others just because they don't want to be inconvenienced or pay extra to get their sucky skills up to par. Why is it ok to endanger the lives of others? Why all the resistance to the idea of needing to be skilled enough that when you operate a potentially dangerous item/machine, you are as small of a safety risk to everyone as possible? Around here bad drivers are abundant enough that yeah, I'm sick of them and yeah, I do think they deserve whatever trouble comes to them from not driving before they become good enouugh to drive safely enough; it's on them to ensure they don't endanger others (incl. their passengers). I mean, isn't safe driving one of the things you're supposed to learn in driving school anyway? What did they do there to be such bad drivers? Sleep through the classes? And it's really not that difficult to find a skilled enough friend or relative, have them drive you to some place with nobody around where you can get additional practice with no other extra cost but time and gas. Maybe driving tests need to be more demanding? Here you need to renew your license every 5 years now (it's a recent change to the laws), and I think that's just a good thing. The riving tests just need to be demanding enough (I do wish they were cheaper, though, since now they're so expensive, e.g. students often can't afford a driver's license). As a car owner and frequent driver, I definitely don't mind, plus, it will help weed out those selfish assholes who endanger others' lives needlessly, both speeders and overly slow/unskilled drivers. If that someone else can't take others into consideration simply due to lack of skill of operating a dangerous piece of machinery, I'd say that person is incredibly selfish. I at least try to take others into consideration by driving safely, according to speed limits when possible, giving room for others to pass me safely when situation permits in case they really are in a hurry for good reason etc. I mean, what do I have to lose when, while nothing special, I'm good enough of a driver to do all that? If I wasn't, I can't think of a reason not to put in the effort to practice, even if it's driving (or having someone good enough drive me) to a remote location where I can drive with no or minimal chance of encountering traffic. After all, driving safely isn't rocket science, it's pretty easy. You can even improve your reflexes and shorten your reaction time outside the car; I can look for the research if you want, but if memory serves me right, they've found that certain kinds of video games do help improve your reflexes (albeit that the research was about soldiers playing FPS games, but according to my memory, the results did include faster reaction times/improved reflexes). Even that would help a little. I think everyone operating dangerous items/machines/materials should put in the effort to ensure they're good enough to do what they do as safely as possible, and why not? Usually, yes, but often I end up driving after two slow drivers driving side by side, preventing anyone from passing and eventually causing a traffic jam. Or, as is even more common, the slow driver speeds up when I try to pass them. I'd have to hit dangerous speeds to get past them, so in the end I have to give up in the name of safety. Of course they slow down once I do give up and move back behind them or the passing lane ends/a car comes from the oppositve direction (when the opposite traffic's lane is the only way of passing). For some people that seems instinctive 'cause as a passenger I've seen people do that who I know aren't mean, but there are some real assholes out driving out there too who feel all important when they force others to drive by their rules. That depends entirely on where you're driving. Some roads can go on for quite some time without a turnout, but those tend to be in more backwoods areas. That'd be fine and dandy if you understood the original point I was trying to make, but looks like you haven't: I don't hold slow drivers responsible for what others do anymore than I'd blame an African-American for getting mugged when he walks to the middle of a large group of drunken, aggressive skinheads: it's NEVER the victim's fault since nobody is forcing the bad guys to attack in that scenario, but we usually can at least influence our chances of ending up in a dangerous situation even if it's not our fault if something dangerous does happen. I'm talking about minimizing those chances and having the skills to do so safely. Furthermore, I'm pointing out the reality (at least it's a reality around here; if it's not where you live, lucky you) that people exist who do start driving recklessly when they end up behind overly slow drivers. I'm not one of them, but I can still end up in an accident with one if e.g. I'm between them and the slow driver. Because such drivers exist, I believe it's simply smart as well as considerate to ensure you don't have to drive below the limit under good conditions simply because you're a shitty driver. I'm also saying that being that bad is inherently dangerous because it also translates to slow reaction speed, poor control of the vehicle, bad driving habits etc. If you're a good, safe driver, you can drive according to speed limits under good conditions. It's surprising, really: rarely have I encountered such resistance to the notion that it's a good idea to improve your skill at thing x, driving in this case, and that it's likewise a good idea to insist that people who handle dangerous machinery are good enough at it that they can do so safely under normal conditions without needlessly endangering others or tempting the assholes among us to cause dangerous situations (and let's not forget the findings of the research I posted earlier; speeders are the most dangerous drivers, but slow drivers are more dangerous than those who do follow speed limits when the conditions allow it).
I think the problem many of us are having is figuring out what your definition of "slow" is. (Well, that and how driving below the speed limit indicates incompetence or why a legitimate medical emergency still demands not driving over the speed limit.) At any rate, I've mentioned several times (and had no response) that US safety experts figure 45 on a freeway is still a safe speed. What exactly do you consider a dangerously slow speed on a regular old two lane highway? And do you accept the idea that a speed limit does not mean the required speed, because that also seems to be a misunderstanding.
I feel as if there may be a lack of understanding of (1) the lousy transit in the United States, and (2) the very large number of working poor in the United States. I feel as if you may be coming from a culture where a car is, to some extent, a luxury. In many, MANY places in the United States, a car can make the difference between being able to work or not being able to work. And that bumps us up against the lack of a social safety net in the United States--work or not work is also home or homeless, medical care or not medical care...actually, no, that's too optimistic. There's no assurance whatsoever that working will enable you to get medical care. You may work sixty hours a week and still be unable to afford medical care. But why is faster inherently safer? If we increased the maximum speed limit on the highways from seventy miles per hour to ninety miles per hour, and required everyone to drive at that speed...we would not see a dramatic decrease in accidents, I assure you. If safety were the only criterion, we'd just reduce the speed limit to forty miles an hour and enforce that rigorously. Highways would be much, much safer. If the speed limits are so high that people have to play video games to get their reflexes up to snuff, then the speed limits are too high. Again, why is faster inherently safer? Edited to respond to: But that's not about slow drivers, that's about drivers with other issues. Slow drivers who drive above the legal minimum speed, who stay in the slow lane, who don't try to speed up when you try to pass them, and who take turnouts when there is no slow lane, have every right to use the public roads.
I'm not sure if people are wilfully misunderstanding each others posts here just to prolong the argument, but it certainly feels that way.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that if safety requires that we all drive at the same speed, and fast lanes and slow lanes and turnouts don't make different speeds OK, then the logical solution is to substantially reduce speed limits. But I don't think that safety requires that we all drive at the same speed.
Speed and safety issues aside, if someone is behind me, I don't need them to ride up on my tail even briefly, to know they would probably like to pass. I don't need them to blink their brights either. I'm not sure why the driver in back thinks they need to do that, and I think most of the time a driver who is tailgating is angry he can't pass. He's the one with the problem, not the driver in front.
@ChickenFreak, that's not what I'm saying at all. Driving fast is NOT inherently safer, I figured that much was obvious. However, driving according to the speed limit when possible (i.e. no ice, no curvy road, enough light, no lava etc) IS safer THAN driving slower than the majority of other drivers around you when they are following the speed limits and you are not. Likewise, the other bit you maybe overlooked or misunderstood is that if a person is such a bad driver that they cannot operate their vehicle safely at the recommended speed limits under good conditions, it likely means there are reasons for that, e.g. bad reflexes, lack of situational awareness, poor eye sight, night vision problems (like the aforementioned issue of being momentarily blinded by high beams), lack of understanding of traffic rules and regulations etc. All of those shortcomings make the driver dangerous even at slow speeds (yes, yes, not AS dangerous as they could be if they tried to drive even faster, but MORE dangerous drivers who CAN drive according to the speed limits and with the rest of traffic SAFELY) since driving e.g. 5-15 under the limit doesn't help much if your reflexes are poor and you lack situational awareness when a kid on a bike speeds in front of you "out of nowhere." If you are aware of your surroundings and can react quickly and decisively, you have higher chances of stopping/avoiding the bicyclist than if your only redeeming quality as a driver is driving a bit slower than everyone else. But that's just an example of a million other situations where lacking skills can bite you in the ass even if you drive a bit slower than others. Point being, a bad driver is a dangerous driver even if they try to compensate by driving a bit slower than the speed limits and the rest of traffic. And yes, it seems the situation is different in the States vs. Finland, but that only means US drivers have more reasons to keep driving even when they are so bad at it that they are a danger to themselves and everyone else. Yeah, we have "good" (when the bus/train doesn't break down, it arrives on time if at all etc) public transit systems in the capital area/in bigger cities, but the countryside is largely like you described; some folks can't go anywhere without driving, but is that reason enough to endanger pretty much everyone? Not in my opinion, which is why I think the folks who notice they suck at driving in driving school should put in the extra effort, preferably while they're still in driving school. But that's just me. Unfortunately not nearly all drivers are as considerate as you. Also, I'd say when some jackass tries to pass dangerously, it's everyone's problem who are close enough to be affected by a possible collision/accident stemming from that dangerous attempt to pass the slow driver. Yeah, the dangerous driver is ultimately responsible, but that doesn't help much if you happen to be the pedestrian who ends up crushed or the third, innocent driver who's pushed in front of a truck or whatever. At that point it's too late to go "yeah, the asshole passing dangerously is at fault, but my head would still be attached if the first driver hadn't driven too slowly in the first place."
How far back do you want this chain or responsibility to go? I mean, we all agree that it's the dangerous driver who's responsible for the accident. Good. But you think the slow driver should change his behaviour to prevent the dangerous driver from being dangerous. Does this rationale apply to ALL behaviour that might "activate" a dangerous driver's bad driving? Like, we should ban talk radio, because a lot of people listen to the radio while driving, and if they heard something that made them angry that might be reflected in their driving. And no one should ever call anyone on a cell phone, b/c the person you're calling might be in the car and might be stupid enough to answer while driving; the pedestrian who gets killed doesn't care that you didn't know the person was driving, or didn't make him answer the phone. I could come up with other examples, but I think we all get the general idea. We can't control all the factors that might make a person drive like an asshole, so the potential asshole needs to control him or herself. Slow drivers don't cause accidents any more than talk radio or non-drivers making phone calls. The bad driver is responsible. And I think you know this. You've told us over and over that you're a safe driver, so you know about taking responsibility for your own vehicle. Is it possible that you've just gotten backed into a bit of a corner and are arguing something you know is ridiculous because you can't find a way out of the corner?
I haven't seen any research data about talk radio affecting traffic safety. Got any to show to back your claim? Obviously we can't know when someone is or isn't driving, so we can't do anything about inconvenient phone calls, but we CAN learn to drive well enough that we don't need to slow below the speed limit just because we suck so horribly at driving. Do you disagree? What do you think about what I said about the other things that make a bad driver dangerous besides speed? Or do you claim all the faults I listed are magically fixed by slowing down a bit? Maybe we just need to agree to disagree since, funnily enough, I don't feel cornered one bit. Nobody has convinced me that bad drivers aren't dangerous even at a slightly reduced speed and it's unlikely anybody ever will without at least some research data (since we have mentioned research in this thread that shows speeders are the most dangerous drivers, and overly slow drivers are more dangerous than those driving according to speed limits when conditions allow). In fact, let the poor, cornered me pose you a question: do you dispute the research that says overly slow drivers are more dangerous than those capable of safely following speed limits and the flow of traffic?
Road speed limits in the United Kingdom From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Minimum speed limits[edit] ... Rarely, minimum speed limits are used, such as through the Mersey Tunnels... My emphasis on Rarely.
At the risk of being repetitious - what, in your opinion, is "overly slow"? You keep saying that but don't state what you think that is. Do you really believe that people should always drive the maximum speed allowed by law - yeah, yeah, with perfect driving conditions (based, I'm assuming, on the opinion of the person in a hurry)?
In the study I cited ("Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle"), I believe they counted driving slower than the average as driving slow enough to increase your chances of ending up in a car accident. I'm not sure how my subjective opinion counts, but if you want it, I need a specific scenario because it really varies depending on the speed limit, location, time of day, the weather (incl. wind speeds, temperature etc), and a myriad of other conditions, of course. ETA: I believe people should drive according to the speed limits when it's safe to do so, and that if remaining safe requires them to drive slower than the average, they need to improve their driving skills if they wish to minimize the chances of an accident.
I disagree with the "suck so horribly" part, yes. I think an important driving skill is knowing what's safe for you, your car, your situation. I wouldn't say that people who are able to use that skill to assess their own safety suck at driving, not at all. I don't think there's anything magical about driving more slowly. I think it's completely scientific. All else being equal, driving more slowly is safer. Not magic, just science. Introducing other variables can affect the safety of different situations, but they don't affect the impact of speed. Do we have those studies? I saw a reference to one about speed differential, but obviously that's not specifically about slow drivers, it's about slow drivers combined with fast drivers. The thread's long and I disengaged for a chunk of it, but did you ever answer my question... if you were driving at a speed you felt was appropriate for the conditions and your abilities, and someone behind you clearly wanted to drive more quickly than you were, do you feel it would be the safest thing for you to speed up and drive more quickly than you felt was appropriate?
You're saying driving too slow causes accidents - so what's too slow? "driving slow enough to increase your chances of ending up in a car accident". Well, duh. All you're saying is that people should drive the speed you think is safe based on conditions. And if they're driving slower than you think they should, they're bad drivers. You see why so many of us are skeptical, right?
Ooh. And, while we're at it... I guess I DO dispute this research. Well, not me personally, but according to Wikipedia, which you've been using as your source for this research? "The curve based on research conducted by David Solomon in the late 1950s and published in 1964.[1]Subsequent research suggests significant biases in the Solomon study which may cast doubt on its findings.[2]" And, later in the same article... "In July 2001, Kloeden CN, Ponte G and McLean AJ of the Road Accident Research Unit, Adelaide University quantified the relationship, "... between free travelling speed and the risk of involvement in a casualty crash in 80 km/h or greater speed limit zones in rural South Australia" using a case control study design. They found, "..the risk of involvement in a casualty crash increased more than exponentially with increasing free travelling speed above the mean traffic speed and that travelling speeds below the mean traffic speed were associated with a lower risk of being involved in a casualty crash." Outlining past research in this area, they suggest that in the Solomon research, "Both the numerator (number of crashes in a particular speed band) and the denominator (number of vehicle-miles travelled in that same speed band) may have been quite inaccurate for relatively low speeds." " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve#Subsequent_research Was that the wikipedia article you were using, or was there another one?
