Why do people take forever to accelerate to the speed limit after a red light?

[MonkeySage]

Few days ago when I was kind of in a hurry, I ended up stuck behind this driver in a pick up on the main road through town. Light hits green, he takes forever to respond to it. Speed limit is 45, he's going 20 most of the way. He wasn't even driving the speed limit when I finally turned off to my stop.

Why do people do this? Seems incredibly rude and it almost always makes me want to honk... not that I ever do.

[AMFV]

Clearly you never had a jackass pull out in front of you. The reason some people are cautious to accelerate to full speed is that not everybody stops when the light turns red.

[Xyril]

It's also possible that they can't go much faster. I didn't realize it, but my first car was apparently well above average in the torque department. The first time I rented a car (the cheapest I could find), I was pretty shocked by how slow it took to get to speed.

[Gnoman]

Slow acceleration is more fuel efficient, lowers wear on the tires, and is considerably safer. Just because you are impatient does not obligate anybody else to be in a hurry.

Of course, that is coming from somebody who will slow down if somebody is tailgating me, so I have a bit of a bias.

[Jormengand]

Because the upper limit on speed, c, cannot be reached by anything with any mass. Therefore, any attempt to do so would indeed take forever.

I'm sorry.

[Algeh]

Few days ago when I was kind of in a hurry, I ended up stuck behind this driver in a pick up on the main road through town. Light hits green, he takes forever to respond to it. Speed limit is 45, he's going 20 most of the way. He wasn't even driving the speed limit when I finally turned off to my stop.

Why do people do this? Seems incredibly rude and it almost always makes me want to honk... not that I ever do.

Did they have a bunch of stuff in their pickup bed? They may have been accelerating slowly to help keep the load from shifting.

The driver might also have been looking for an address, parking space, or cross street.

I also always give a little space and time before proceeding through a newly-green light, because lots of drivers around here will run "yellowish" reds, particularly when turning. (This seems to have gotten worse since the county added "blinking yellow" left turn arrows everywhere. I've been meaning to see if I can get stats on how that's changed accident rates.)

[BWR]

The above, and some of us like taking things easy while driving and don't care for speeding up and slowing down as aggressively as other people.

[Douglas]

Reasons I sometimes accelerate slowly:
I have a load I really don't want shifting (typically a bag of groceries that could spill, on rare occasions my computer).
I have a heavy load that my small car's engine can't push very quickly.
I see a red light ahead that I'll likely have to stop for so there's no point rushing to it.

Fuel efficiency is a reason I don't accelerate really quickly when I don't have a specific reason to.

[paddyfool]

People going a bit too slowly aren't really a problem. You may get where you're going a minute later because of their slowness, but otoh you'll have had better fuel economy and have been at less risk. Also, as has been stated, the speed limit is a limit, not a target, and they may well have had valid reasons to go slower. On the other hand, in this particular case, being slow to actually start moving at the lights might indicate the driver of the pick-up was distracted by something or over-tired, which wouldn't have been great for safety. Or they might just have been uncertain of their navigation and still unsure of which way to turn when the lights changed. EDIT: Or they might have been stoned, or texting the whole way, or over cautious if they hadn't driven much since passing their test, and/or hadn't driven in a long time and/or were in a new and unfamiliar vehicle. We could speculate forever, but we ultimately cannot know the answer to whether their speed was reasonable or not.

People driving too fast and too aggressively, otoh, are a menace to themselves and those around them.

[factotum]

Slow acceleration is more fuel efficient, lowers wear on the tires, and is considerably safer.

There's an argument to be made there, actually. I'm pretty sure I remember a test (done in Sweden?) where they found that it was more fuel efficient to accelerate up to the speed limit as quickly as safely possible and then cruise, rather than spend all your time accelerating up to speed. Not sure about the tyre wear argument--I suppose it might cause a little bit more tyre wear to accelerate hard (assuming you're not accelerating so hard you spin the wheels, of course), but even accelerating lightly is going to cause more tyre wear than cruising at a constant speed, so I suspect it will balance out.

I've always been in the "get up to speed as quickly as possible" camp anyway, but obviously it does depend on conditions and road layout. There's no point accelerating hard to 30mph (typical town speed limit in the UK) if you're going to have to slow down for another red light in a few seconds.

[Liquor Box]

Slow acceleration is more fuel efficient, lowers wear on the tires, and is considerably safer. Just because you are impatient does not obligate anybody else to be in a hurry.

Of course, that is coming from somebody who will slow down if somebody is tailgating me, so I have a bit of a bias.

Actually, I think driving slower than the speed limit (in normal conditions) is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit. It is the difference in speed between cars that creates the danger. You may not realise it, but you are actually increasing danger on yourself and others.

Slowing down because somebody is tailgating you, is also significantly more dangerous than merely continuing on. You probably know this and do it anyway.

Also, as has been stated, the speed limit is a limit, not a target.
In my jurisdiction you can (and people often are) fined for going too slowly and holding up traffic, and a quick google search indicates that that law applies in a lot of places. So a speed limit (although called a limit and not a target) is indeed an indication of expected driving speed in normal conditions, and a person driving more slowly can quite rightly be penalised for imposing their own ideal of what is safe, leisurely or economical speedon others.

[Knaight]

Actually, I think driving slower than the speed limit (in normal conditions) is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit. It is the difference in speed between cars that creates the danger. You may not realise it, but you are actually increasing danger on yourself and others.

It's the difference between anything in a collision that creates the danger, and while variation from speed limit creates it in lane with other cars in the lane there's also the small matter of cars in the opposite lane, cars entering from crossing streets, pedestrians, immobile objects, etc. Speeding is much more dangerous than going slowly.

[Razade]

It's the difference between anything in a collision that creates the danger, and while variation from speed limit creates it in lane with other cars in the lane there's also the small matter of cars in the opposite lane, cars entering from crossing streets, pedestrians, immobile objects, etc. Speeding is much more dangerous than going slowly.

Not to mention. It's harder to stop something moving 90 miles an hour than it is stopping something moving at 20 miles an hour. There's also something to be said about not being able to react at those speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that going over the speed limit is more safe than going under. It is true that going under the speed limit under a certain range is both dangerous and annoying to others on the road.

[Vinyadan]

Why should you reach the speed limit, though? It looks like a good way to be fined if the police is setting ambushes downhill, where you will likely accelerate without even noticing. Besides, the actual limit should be the one you need to drive safely, and I have seen many roads with stupidly high "legal" limits. Add to this possible problems with the car.
However, the driver could simply be old. Old people tend do drive slowly.

[Liquor Box]

Why should you reach the speed limit, though? It looks like a good way to be fined if the police is setting ambushes downhill, where you will likely accelerate without even noticing. Besides, the actual limit should be the one you need to drive safely, and I have seen many roads with stupidly high "legal" limits. Add to this possible problems with the car.
However, the driver could simply be old. Old people tend do drive slowly.

I think what you are saying is that attempting to go exactly the speed limit creates a risk that you will inadvertantly exceed it by a small amount and thereby be fined. To avoid that risk you need only go very slightly slower than the speed limit (say 42 in a 45 zone), and that was not the sort of thing I was referring to, nor what I think the OP was referring to. The OP said that the other driver was going less than half the speed limit quite some distance.

Someone going a couple of kmh below the speed limit doesn't create much extra danger (if any), but someone going half the speed limit, or even 35 in a 45 zone does increase the danger (in normal conditions) over going at exactly the speed limit.

[Razade]

Why should you reach the speed limit, though?

Because you're legally allowed to? Most places even allow 5 over the speed limit without much problem. In the city I live, people go ten over and there's rarely a problem. Obviously that depends on time and place, but going the exact speed limit isn't a problem.


It looks like a good way to be fined if the police is setting ambushes downhill, where you will likely accelerate without even noticing.

Could but that seems pretty rare. There aren't any hills in my city even.


Besides, the actual limit should be the one you need to drive safely, and I have seen many roads with stupidly high "legal" limits.

What do you mean "actual" limit? A posted limit is the actual limit no matter how high it is. If the sign says 45mph the limit is 45mph.

[Liquor Box]

It's the difference between anything in a collision that creates the danger, and while variation from speed limit creates it in lane with other cars in the lane there's also the small matter of cars in the opposite lane, cars entering from crossing streets, pedestrians, immobile objects, etc. Speeding is much more dangerous than going slowly.

A quick google shows a myriad of articles referencing studies suggesting that driving significantly slower than the speed limit is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit. Here's one:
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/18/is-driving-faster-safer/

"According to state and federal studies, drivers that are driving significantly below the average speed are the ones that are most likely to get involved in an accident. Studies show that the most accidents occur when the driver is driving at 10 mph slower than the speed limit. So someone going 45 in a 55 has a bigger chance of getting into an accident than someone driving at 65-70 mph"

I imagine it is very circumstantial when driving slower creates the greater danger (busy multi-lane road), and when driving at the speed limit (when ice or curves or other circumstances make the speed limit dangerous), but I have no doubt that there are some circumstances where driving slower than the speed limit increases the risk.

[Liquor Box]

Because you're legally allowed to? Most places even allow 5 over the speed limit without much problem. In the city I live, people go ten over and there's rarely a problem. Obviously that depends on time and place, but going the exact speed limit isn't a problem.


Could but that seems pretty rare. There aren't any hills in my city even.



What do you mean "actual" limit? A posted limit is the actual limit no matter how high it is. If the sign says 45mph the limit is 45mph.

Perhaps, that we are all from different countries creates some confusion In my country"
- You get 10km/h grace ordinarily and 4km/h grace in holiday periods
- There are lots of hills
- I have never heard of distinct legal limits and actual limits.

[Razade]

Perhaps, that we are all from different countries creates some confusion In my country"
- You get 10km/h grace ordinarily and 4km/h grace in holiday periods

As said, different jurisdictions are different. Anymore on that and we're probably breaking forum rules.


- There are lots of hills

Yep, different locations require different driving alterness and general cautions. Driving in the mountains isn't the same as driving in a valley.


- I have never heard of distinct legal limits and actual limits.

Me neither. I have no idea what the two are. The legal limit is the actual limit. At least where I'm from.

[Vinyadan]

"The actual limit should be" = the limit that you should apply and put into action while you are driving, i.e. the maximum speed you should drive at, is the one that allows you to drive safely. If that matches the legal limit, cool. If it's lesser, you should drive slower.
For example, rain can cause aquaplaning if you ignore the road's condition and keep driving at the legal limit. In a city, you should reduce your speed when driving near children, who can do stupid things without warning, or in narrow streets with house doors entering directly into the road, even if there is no explicitly lower legal limit.

I guess I'm just saying things you already know and which I had expressed with a very bad sentence.

[Razade]

Oh, sure then I guess. I wouldn't call it an actual "limit" as you're calling it. Me driving 30mph when the actual limit is 45 because of traffic flow or snow or something is just the speed I'm moving.

[gooddragon1]

+For the first 3-5 seconds it's understandable caution for people who run red lights.
+After that, pass them when it's safe to do so and let the police pull them over for driving too slow.
++It isn't your responsibility to discipline them and as per the words of my driving instructor "The horn is not an instrument of discipline, it is only to let someone who is unaware know of an unsafe condition such as if they are coming into your lane and didn't check their blind spot."
+The speed limit is the maximum speed you can go before you are breaking the law. You may go anywhere from the speed limit to the speed limit - 5 mph without a violation.
+There is no fast lane. The speed limit is the same in all lanes unless otherwise mentioned.
+I figure, if someone wants to be unsafe and break the above rules, they can get a ticket for their aggressiveness and I'll go my own way.

[paddyfool]

One thing I'd like to add: I hope I didn't come across as over-critical, as I think the OP was actually very reasonable in his response. Someone going at 20 in a 40 limit does pose a nuisance to other drivers, and although I wouldn't go so far as to say they pose a hazard, a lot of the potential reasons for going that slowly might better be addressed by pulling over to sort them out. With some vehicles (tractors, horses, bicycles etc) slower speeds may be unavoidable, but otherwise they're pretty unreasonable. For instance, if the pick-up has a load that can't safely be transported faster, then unless that load is something exceptional such as a passenger with a fracture being cautiously taken to hospital, the pick-up is probably not safely loaded.

The OP did the right thing by not beeping his horn at them, and presumably not flashing his lights or (most dangerous and generally objectionable of all) tailgating or overtaking in an unsafe manner. In general, any of these approaches would only make things worse, if, for instance, they make an already nervous driver panic or pressure a driver into going faster than they feel is safe.

All you really can do in this situation is wait it out until you find a safe place to overtake, imho.

[Brother Oni]

There's also the possibility that the driver was using their 'phone, thus the slow reaction to the light change and acceleration up to the speed limit.

[Peelee]

+There is no fast lane. The speed limit is the same in all lanes unless otherwise mentioned.
"There is no fast lane" is debatable. There is most certainly a passing lane, and a lot of states in the U.S. have "slowpoke laws," where a car in the passing lane can be pulled over for going too slow, even if they're going the speed limit.

[Chen]

A quick google shows a myriad of articles referencing studies suggesting that driving significantly slower than the speed limit is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit. Here's one:
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/18/is-driving-faster-safer/

"According to state and federal studies, drivers that are driving significantly below the average speed are the ones that are most likely to get involved in an accident. Studies show that the most accidents occur when the driver is driving at 10 mph slower than the speed limit. So someone going 45 in a 55 has a bigger chance of getting into an accident than someone driving at 65-70 mph"

I imagine it is very circumstantial when driving slower creates the greater danger (busy multi-lane road), and when driving at the speed limit (when ice or curves or other circumstances make the speed limit dangerous), but I have no doubt that there are some circumstances where driving slower than the speed limit increases the risk.

This doesn't really get into the "why" though. It just correlates those significantly below the speed limit with more accidents. You know what also correlates to going significantly below the speed limit? Nervous drivers (new) and/or old drivers. Somehow I think that would also be a pretty significant factor here.

[factotum]

"There is no fast lane" is debatable. There is most certainly a passing lane, and a lot of states in the U.S. have "slowpoke laws," where a car in the passing lane can be pulled over for going too slow, even if they're going the speed limit.

I imagine that anyone so pulled over would have quite a strong case to appeal any punishment in court, though, because it seems whatever they do they're breaking a law and that's not fair or just?

[snowblizz]

"There is no fast lane" is debatable. There is most certainly a passing lane, and a lot of states in the U.S. have "slowpoke laws," where a car in the passing lane can be pulled over for going too slow, even if they're going the speed limit.

Isn't that more a case of "the passing lane is for passing, not continuous travel", ie if you keep driving in the passing lane you are doing it wrong. Because if nothing else you are blocking it from others wanting to pass by others.


That said, I've noticed 90% of people who insist driving slow is dangerous are rather dangerous speeders by nature.

It's irrefutably proven that slower speeds are much less damaging in accidents. Especially at the slower scale like traffic in the city, where going 20km/h is much safer for pedestrians than being at the limit of 50 km/h.

[gooddragon1]

"There is no fast lane" is debatable. There is most certainly a passing lane, and a lot of states in the U.S. have "slowpoke laws," where a car in the passing lane can be pulled over for going too slow, even if they're going the speed limit.

Which is where "unless otherwise mentioned" enters the battlefield comes into play.


+There is no fast lane. The speed limit is the same in all lanes unless otherwise mentioned.

[Delicious Taffy]

If you're in town, there's usually no reason to go over maybe 35mph, honestly. I guess on certain stretches of road, it helps to pick up the pace, just because there's nothing much in the area, but in my experience, there's always that one pedestrian who you could swear spawned directly in your path like a glitchy NPC, practically begging to get ran over. It's too random to be anything but deliberate sabotage from a malicious AI director, and a lot of people are wary of it.

[Peelee]

I imagine that anyone so pulled over would have quite a strong case to appeal any punishment in court, though, because it seems whatever they do they're breaking a law and that's not fair or just?

Nope; they move out of the passing lane, they don't get pulled over, the faster traffic can pass on the left.

[gooddragon1]

If you're in town, there's usually no reason to go over maybe 35mph, honestly. I guess on certain stretches of road, it helps to pick up the pace, just because there's nothing much in the area, but in my experience, there's always that one pedestrian who you could swear spawned directly in your path like a glitchy NPC, practically begging to get ran over. It's too random to be anything but deliberate sabotage from a malicious AI director, and a lot of people are wary of it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TzPFC_1Jr0

Remember that the AI will always spawn at least 4 guards cops. Or is that just Skyrim?

[factotum]

Nope; they move out of the passing lane, they don't get pulled over, the faster traffic can pass on the left.

But by definition, that faster traffic must be speeding? Yet it's the guy who didn't get out of the way that's at fault? Bizarre traffic laws you have over there! :smalltongue:

[Chen]

But by definition, that faster traffic must be speeding? Yet it's the guy who didn't get out of the way that's at fault? Bizarre traffic laws you have over there! :smalltongue:

The laws are more to ensure you use the left lane to pass not to just stay driving in.

[cobaltstarfire]

But by definition, that faster traffic must be speeding? Yet it's the guy who didn't get out of the way that's at fault? Bizarre traffic laws you have over there! :smalltongue:

If it's working as intended, the traffic isn't speeding, but they would be going faster than the folks they are passing, which may be going slower for any number of reasons. If you can't or don't want to go the speed limit, you are expected to stay in the right lane (or left lane for those countries who have their road directions flipped) because it's not safe to pass a vehicle on the passenger side.

The way I see travel speed is that both going too fast and too slow are dangerous, they both create unsafe and unpredictable situations, especially when the two types of drivers mix, both behaviors should simply be avoided.

Driving is highly contextual in my opinion, one may need to go faster, slowly, or stay at the speed limit depending on how congested the road is, the conditions, what the flow of traffic is like, and whether it's city or highway, and what the condition of my vehicle and its load is like.

[Alent]

I've always thought the "driving slower causes more accidents" thing was a case of "correlation is not causation". Most slower drivers where I live are not blessed with good reaction time, but tend to not get into wrecks, Instead, it's the young speeding army guys who cause most of the wrecks.


But by definition, that faster traffic must be speeding? Yet it's the guy who didn't get out of the way that's at fault? Bizarre traffic laws you have over there! :smalltongue:

US traffic laws would make even the most robust Javascript interpreter give up and say "debug this code, moron!" :smalltongue: They're often times intentionally contradictory for reasons that only make sense to law enforcement pocketbooks.

In one part of Texas I remember the family RV being pulled over for going the speed limit because there were too many cars tailgating behind us on a road where they couldn't pass us, and we were told if it happened again they'd have to give us a ticket.

[Algeh]

In my state, we have a "basic speed rule" in addition to the posted speed limits. It says something like "drivers are not permitted to drive faster than is safe under current road conditions". This basically means that if you try to drive the speed limit in an ice storm, you will get a ticket for speeding (after you crash your car).

It also comes into play on rural/farm roads, which are not all signed with specific limits rather than the generic limits of "numbered highway is 55 unless otherwise stated, non-highway is 45 mph if not otherwise stated" around here, even though there are plenty of areas on them where it would not be safe or sensible to actually attempt to GO 45 or 55 mph on such a road. The driver is supposed to use the Basic Speed Rule and reduce their speed accordingly. (Winding roads over hills/mountains would be a good example of a place where the "speed limit" may not be posted as lower than 55mph, but that particular hairpin is unsafe to take at above 30 mph, or lower in a car with different handling. I once got rear-ended by an idiot going 55 mph on a farm road because it was garbage day, the garbage truck had stopped to pick up garbage from a farmhouse, and all of the cars behind it had stopped because there wasn't room to pass. I was maybe 5th or 6th in "line" behind the stopped garbage truck, and the freeway-mentality driver behind me hadn't thought about the fact that traffic might stop.)

[Bohandas]

Cars can only accelerate so fast from a dead stop, even if you floor it. Coming from a town with a lot of stop signs I know this from experience.

[Gnoman]

Actually, I think driving slower than the speed limit (in normal conditions) is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit. It is the difference in speed between cars that creates the danger. You may not realise it, but you are actually increasing danger on yourself and others.

Slowing down because somebody is tailgating you, is also significantly more dangerous than merely continuing on. You probably know this and do it anyway.

In my jurisdiction you can (and people often are) fined for going too slowly and holding up traffic, and a quick google search indicates that that law applies in a lot of places. So a speed limit (although called a limit and not a target) is indeed an indication of expected driving speed in normal conditions, and a person driving more slowly can quite rightly be penalised for imposing their own ideal of what is safe, leisurely or economical speedon others.

You seem to misunderstand me. The only time I go significantly slower than the speed limit is when somebody is tailgating me, which is when I am driving the speed limit and the other car's grill is practically in my back seat. This is because those speed-demon drivers have almost killed me on several occasions by trying to whip around me (while I am going the speed limit) into traffic and avoiding a ten-car pileup by inches.

As for "slower is more dangerous", that's bunk. The number-one cause of accidents is cars and/or pedestrians entering the road without warning - and the only way to avoid hitting those people is to be going slow enough to react.


"There is no fast lane" is debatable. There is most certainly a passing lane, and a lot of states in the U.S. have "slowpoke laws," where a car in the passing lane can be pulled over for going too slow, even if they're going the speed limit.

In most (currently all, unless I missed something) states, cars in the passing lane are still subject to the speed limit, with maybe a slightly wider cushion (if you're behind somebody doing 5 under, you can probably get away with going 10 over in the passing lane in order to pass the slower car as quickly as possible and reenter your own lane) as long as the driver is actively engaged in passing and not using the lane for travel.

[Tvtyrant]

There are also "speed of traffic" laws which override many other laws. Like if you have a 4 wheel drive SUV with studded tires and go 45 in a snow storm you can still get ticketed because the cruddy 4 cylinder rear wheel can't go that fast.

[Peelee]

But by definition, that faster traffic must be speeding? Yet it's the guy who didn't get out of the way that's at fault? Bizarre traffic laws you have over there! :smalltongue:

No. Let's say there's a two-lane road, and a car in both lanes. They are both going the same speed. Regardless of the speed limit, the car in the left lane is subject to a slowpoke law (if the state has one). They can both be going slightly under the speed limit, exactly the speed limit, or over the speed limit (in which case there's another thing they can be pulled over for).

ETA: Rereading my initial comment, I hadn't explained it well at first. The slowpoke laws are intended for people in the passing lane(s) who are going the same speed or slower than the people in the non-passing lane(s). It's about maximizing the flow of traffic, best I can tell. I like the concept, and kinda wish my stare had a slowpoke law (at night on the interstate, it's not unusual to see people in both lanes going 5-10 under. Even if they don't clog the lanes, they still usually don't keep right like they're supposed to either, so it gets annoying).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No. Let's say there's a two-lane road, and a car in both lanes. They are both going the same speed. Regardless of the speed limit, the car in the left lane is subject to a slowpoke law (if the state has one). They can both be going slightly under the speed limit, exactly the speed limit, or over the speed limit (in which case there's another thing they can be pulled over for).

The problem is in the name. It might be called "slowpoke law", but it would be more accurate to call it the "Don't block the passing lane" rule (as it is in my home country). It works as explained by Peelee (i.e. driving on passing lanes at the same speed as the cars in the driving lane), and the reasoning for it is thus:
1) If you are going at the same speed as the cars in the driving lane, you should be in it, not next to it
2) You ain't the Sheriff of the road. you don't get to stop other vehicles from driving just because you have decided to drive at a given speed, even if that happens to be the posted speed.

I literally got this question in a practice test for my driver's license: "You are driving on the far lane at the speed limit. A car indicates they want to overtake you. Are you obligated to let him pass?" to which the correct answer was "Yes".

As to who causes more accidents, these days I'd rather deal with speeders than slow pokes - because speeders are at least likely to be paying attention to the road. From considerable personal observation (well beyond the usual anecdote level), too many slowpokes in the roads these days are due to looking at their phones, which makes them bloody dangerous.

Grey Wolf

[Razade]

If you're in town, there's usually no reason to go over maybe 35mph, honestly.

The speed limit in my speed limit is 45mph and heavens help you if you're not going 50. Cops won't even bother to tag you going 55.

[Liquor Box]

You seem to misunderstand me. The only time I go significantly slower than the speed limit is when somebody is tailgating me, which is when I am driving the speed limit and the other car's grill is practically in my back seat. This is because those speed-demon drivers have almost killed me on several occasions by trying to whip around me (while I am going the speed limit) into traffic and avoiding a ten-car pileup by inches.


So the only time you go significantly slower than the speed limit is when it is most dangerous to do so? I think you are much more likely to be killed by a speed demon driver (either by them rear ending you while you slow down to teach them a lesson, or because they are more likely to try to "whip around you" if you have slowed down to teach them a lesson). if you slow to significantly slower than the speed limit to frustrate those drivers you disapprove of.

[Liquor Box]

This doesn't really get into the "why" though. It just correlates those significantly below the speed limit with more accidents. You know what also correlates to going significantly below the speed limit? Nervous drivers (new) and/or old drivers. Somehow I think that would also be a pretty significant factor here.

That's a good point - it may be that the reason slow drivers are more dangerous is not because they are driving more slowly, but because of the other factors you mention.

I am not invested enough in the issue to look for research that controls for the factors you mention, but I can say that in my own country the roading authority (who sets speed limits) is open that driving slowly can be dangerous of itself, and people do get fined for driving slowly. Even cyclists do.

[factotum]

ETA: Rereading my initial comment, I hadn't explained it well at first. The slowpoke laws are intended for people in the passing lane(s) who are going the same speed or slower than the people in the non-passing lane(s).

They don't have specific laws for that in the UK, but the police have the power to pull people over and give them penalty points on their licence for such things as lane-hogging, tailgating, and other delights of multi-lane roads. I know that I was told while learning to drive that driving too *slowly* could be considered cause for failing your driving test--the rule is you have to make "proper progress", which means driving at or near the speed limit so long as the road conditions merit it.

[Peelee]

They don't have specific laws for that in the UK, but the police have the power to pull people over and give them penalty points on their licence for such things as lane-hogging, tailgating, and other delights of multi-lane roads. I know that I was told while learning to drive that driving too *slowly* could be considered cause for failing your driving test--the rule is you have to make "proper progress", which means driving at or near the speed limit so long as the road conditions merit it.

I just love how British "proper progress" sounds.

[Starwulf]

On a different branch of this conversation, I got stuck behind some idiot last night on the interstate, who when we got into road work, instead of going the posted 60mph, decided "I"m going to go 30mph, the entire damn way, through 3 freaking miles of road work". I was so frustrated, annoyed, and even a bit angry by the time we got to the end of it, and will admit to blowing my horn at them as I passed them immediately. Was one of the most irritating(that didn't involve danger) things I've ever experienced in my nearly 20 years of driving.

Literally didn't even come across another vehicle until we had passed 2 separate on-ramps, and they were all semis, despite before the road work there having been a multitude of vehicles nearby.

[Aedilred]

Isn't that more a case of "the passing lane is for passing, not continuous travel", ie if you keep driving in the passing lane you are doing it wrong. Because if nothing else you are blocking it from others wanting to pass by others.


That said, I've noticed 90% of people who insist driving slow is dangerous are rather dangerous speeders by nature.

It's irrefutably proven that slower speeds are much less damaging in accidents. Especially at the slower scale like traffic in the city, where going 20km/h is much safer for pedestrians than being at the limit of 50 km/h.

What I have never seen mentioned in such studies, however, is whether frequency of accident occurrence is affected by lower speeds. If the speed limit is too low for the conditions, I think many people find themselves watching the speedo rather than the road. If someone steps out in front of them, the car will brake more quickly, but there might be a delay in noticing and applying the brake.

Something else that I think we need to consider is that there are factors other than road user safety which are relevant considerations but are never mentioned in such studies. After all, while reducing the speed limit may reduce the number of people injured in car accidents by a certain proportion, we could reduce that number to zero overnight by simply banning the car.* At a societal level we have clearly agreed - even if we don't want to admit it - that a certain number of casualties are an acceptable price to pay for the convenience and benefit that we derive from automotive transport. The question is where that balance is struck, but in discussions and lobbying over road safety the equation never comes into it, presumably because "well, if a few people have to die so that the rest of us can take our kids to school in comfort, that's fine by me" is something the villain in a Disney film would say, even though it's something that almost everyone actually believes.


*I am aware that other modes of transport are also dangerous and that statistically the roads were more dangerous before the car than they are now; however roads were also statistically more dangerous when cars had a much lower maximum speed than they are now. The roads are pretty much as safe as they've ever been, despite all appearances.

[tiornys]

It's irrefutably proven that slower speeds are much less damaging in accidents. Especially at the slower scale like traffic in the city, where going 20km/h is much safer for pedestrians than being at the limit of 50 km/h.
In a vacuum, you're correct that slower speeds are safer. In traffic, the safest speed to go is whatever speed the majority of the traffic around you is going. If traffic's going 5 under the limit, then going 5 over the limit is creating significant danger. If traffic's going 10 over the limit, then going the speed limit is creating significant danger. Here's a pretty good article explaining why (https://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits-slower-safer/).

[Razade]

On a different branch of this conversation, I got stuck behind some idiot last night on the interstate, who when we got into road work, instead of going the posted 60mph, decided "I"m going to go 30mph, the entire damn way, through 3 freaking miles of road work". I was so frustrated, annoyed, and even a bit angry by the time we got to the end of it, and will admit to blowing my horn at them as I passed them immediately. Was one of the most irritating(that didn't involve danger) things I've ever experienced in my nearly 20 years of driving.

Literally didn't even come across another vehicle until we had passed 2 separate on-ramps, and they were all semis, despite before the road work there having been a multitude of vehicles nearby.

Yeah...driving in construction zones (where fines are doubled) at night? Sounds to me like the guy was just trying to be cautious.

[Peelee]

Oh man, if you wanna talk about jerk drivers....

So this one morning, I hop on the interstate to go to work. I hit the on ramp, and I see a traffic jam. For some reason, they closed the left lane and only the right lane was open about a mile up ahead, but it's only closed for maybe a couple car lengths, so everything's clear after that. I merge into the right lane, right in front of this nice SUV. Right lane is understandably congested, and I notice that behind me in the left lane is a semi, with nobody between him and the lane closure. The odd thing is, he's doing roughly the same speed as the congested right lane, which is slighly more than a crawl. I know about the zipper method, and I figure if this guy is going almost as slow in his ~mile long free lane, he's probably not looking to zipper, and is just wanting to merge into the right lane.

Now, I have a soft spot for truckers. They're at work, and because they tend to be huge and slower than most traffic, a lot of people don't let them merge in, so I try to let them whenever I can. So as this guy slowly pulls ahead of me, I'm making enough space that he can merge into my lane. Nope. Guy just keeps goin' along. At this point I'm thinking, huh, maybe he is doing the zipper method and is going slow in case someone else tries to change lanes and dart right in front of him or something.

Until he starts going so slowly that we overtake him. Again, the right lane, my lane, is congested with all the people who merged into it already. The left lane, which is closed in now about half a mile, is free and clear until the closure, and this truck is somehow managing to go slower than the actual congestion.

Well, about a minute passes, and he starts to creep up again. And weird trucker or no, it's still a pain to get in, so I ease up again and offer enough space for him to go in again. With cars, I'll usually flash my lights to make sure they know what I'm doing, but this is a space big enough for an 18-wheeler to get in and still have minimum safe distance behind the guy. It's very, very obvious what I'm doing, especially now that it's the second time I do it. Flashing my lights ain't gonna do a damn thing. And again, he doesn't take it, and keeps on keepin' on.

So, another 30 seconds or so and we're finally at the lane closure. This time, he's just about matching me, maybe a bit in front. And he just starts edging into the right lane all of a sudden. I swerved a tiny bit to avoid the guy, but the SUV behind me gets literally run off the road onto the shoulder. Now, SUV handled this like a champ. Dude saw the truck start to hone in on me, so he was already edging to the shoulder and had more than enough space to be perfectly safe, lookin' calm as could be. Well, as safe and calm as one can be getting run off the road, at least.

Anyway, this SUV... let me tell you about this SUV. This SUV was right behind me. This SUV saw the trucker driving kinda strangely. This SUV saw me clearly give the trucker two changes to merge safely. This SUV saw me almost get run off the road by the trucker. This SUV actually got run off the road by the trucker. This SUV just waited for the truck to pass. And then, in my rear view mirror, this SUV suddenly exploded in white and blue flashing lights.

Not gonna lie, that made me smile.

[Liquor Box]

Something else that I think we need to consider is that there are factors other than road user safety which are relevant considerations but are never mentioned in such studies. After all, while reducing the speed limit may reduce the number of people injured in car accidents by a certain proportion, we could reduce that number to zero overnight by simply banning the car.* At a societal level we have clearly agreed - even if we don't want to admit it - that a certain number of casualties are an acceptable price to pay for the convenience and benefit that we derive from automotive transport. The question is where that balance is struck, but in discussions and lobbying over road safety the equation never comes into it, presumably because "well, if a few people have to die so that the rest of us can take our kids to school in comfort, that's fine by me" is something the villain in a Disney film would say, even though it's something that almost everyone actually believes.


This is very true.

It's a matter of weighing the benefits of travelling faster against the benefits of travelling slower.

In doing so we have the choice of adhering to the speed limit imposed by law (subject to unusual conditions like ice, or going around a sharp corner), or having each driver decide for themselves what speed is appropriate for a given stretch of road. The outcome of the second will either be that every driver will have to drive at the speed of the slowest common denominator (if there is nowhere to overtake) or all drivers will drive at different speeds, thus overtaking and probably increasing the risk of accident.

[blunk]

Slowing down because somebody is tailgating you, is also significantly more dangerous than merely continuing on.One good reason to slow down (carefully) when being tailgated is to shorten stopping distance and thus make it less likely that you'll be rear-ended if something runs out in front of you. Of course you also balance it with concerns about slowing down too much and being a road hazard to people coming up fast behind the tailgater.

[gooddragon1]

In a vacuum, you're correct that slower speeds are safer. In traffic, the safest speed to go is whatever speed the majority of the traffic around you is going. If traffic's going 5 under the limit, then going 5 over the limit is creating significant danger. If traffic's going 10 over the limit, then going the speed limit is creating significant danger. Here's a pretty good article explaining why (https://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits-slower-safer/).

I don't slow down for tailgating. I set my cruise control at the speed limit for the most part.

EDIT: I admit that I dislike hotheaded people, but it's important to look for the good in people rather than just seeing the bad. Slightly inspired by Luffy helping Nami. (deleted some stuff)

[lio45]

A quick google shows a myriad of articles referencing studies suggesting that driving significantly slower than the speed limit is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit. Here's one:
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/18/is-driving-faster-safer/

"According to state and federal studies, drivers that are driving significantly below the average speed are the ones that are most likely to get involved in an accident. Studies show that the most accidents occur when the driver is driving at 10 mph slower than the speed limit. So someone going 45 in a 55 has a bigger chance of getting into an accident than someone driving at 65-70 mph"

I imagine it is very circumstantial when driving slower creates the greater danger (busy multi-lane road), and when driving at the speed limit (when ice or curves or other circumstances make the speed limit dangerous), but I have no doubt that there are some circumstances where driving slower than the speed limit increases the risk.

Your conclusion is totally wrong; Chen is correct.

"The people who drive significantly slower than the speed limit are the people who get into accidents more frequently"

does not mean, AT ALL, the same thing as

"It is more dangerous, for a given driver of a given skill and ability, to drive significantly slower than the speed limit".

The former statement is factual, the latter is incorrect. Nervous, inexperienced, paranoid, oblivious, blind drivers are have a higher-than-average odds of getting into accidents, and they obviously also tend to drive slowly compared to average.

[Starwulf]

Yeah...driving in construction zones (where fines are doubled) at night? Sounds to me like the guy was just trying to be cautious.

At half the posted speed limit? 30 in a 60 is not cautious, that's almost deliberate antagonization in my book.

I feel like I should also qualify this by saying that it wasn't an inactive work zone where visibility might be low and a cone or barrel might have gotten knocked over and you couldn't see it, it was an active work zone, with a crap ton of lights posted the entire length(there must have been 20 or more work trucks and 2 separate cops there), but none of the trucks were coming into our lane or anything either. It was perfectly safe to drive the posted speed limit. Honestly, if he had gone 55, or even 50, I wouldn't be on the thread complaining, but he was going half the posted work-zone speed limit of 60. And no, I wasn't tailgating him either, he was actually a fair amount ahead of me at first(when we first entered the construction). He was literally going 30 right from the outset, all the way up until we exited the single lane and went back to two. By the time we got out of it, there was roughly 20-30 vehicles behind me, including 4 semi's that I could see.

[Xyril]

So the only time you go significantly slower than the speed limit is when it is most dangerous to do so? I think you are much more likely to be killed by a speed demon driver (either by them rear ending you while you slow down to teach them a lesson, or because they are more likely to try to "whip around you" if you have slowed down to teach them a lesson). if you slow to significantly slower than the speed limit to frustrate those drivers you disapprove of.

Perhaps you're not one to quibble with precise definitions of words, but he was talking about tailgaters, not "speed demon drivers." The key difference--the latter encompasses folks that drive quickly in general, with the strong implication that they're doing so beyond a reasonable level of safety, while the former describes a specific behavior, deliberately following too closely for the given speed.

Slowing down isn't only about frustrating those drivers--it's about taking yourself out of a dangerous situation. If you slow down gradually and deliberately, you can choose a pace that will allow them to react despite their proximity. If you keep driving as you were driving, with them following at an unsafe distance, you run the risk of a much more dangerous collision if you have to stop suddenly in response to an unforeseen road hazard. Yes, from a liability perspective, the guy behind you will be at fault anyway, but from a practical and safety perspective, you're the poor bastard who will be sandwiched between a guy who's driving too close and too fast, and whatever unavoidable object suddenly appeared in front of you.

As for "whipping around you," I frankly don't care. Slowing down gradually gives the tailgater an opportunity to pass you more quickly and safely than he would if you remained at speed. If he's simply in a hurry and has a different sense of safe following distance than you, he'll be grateful for a chance to get ahead of you, and you'll get out of an unsafe situation. If, however, he's the kind of jerk who feels the need to retaliate against any perceived slight, then yes, slowing down might set him off. But so will pretty much anything else you do. If you keep going the same speed you're going, and he keeps tailgating but still refuses to pass you, you'll probably be annoying him. If you suddenly have to brake for something and he hits you because he's following too close, he'll probably blame you for it. Heck, if you accelerate to a speed that you find unsafe in order to put some distance between you and your tailgater, he'll still probably find some way to interpret that as a provocation on your part.

[Rynjin]

After having moved to DC for a couple of years and being near Miami now I have very little sympathy or patience for people complaining about others "going too slow". I can't believe any tales of people being mad at someone going "20 in a 45" when personal experience has shown me it's more likely some **********'s doing 65 in a 45 and laying on the horn because the guy going 50 is "going too slow" for them.

Maybe that's unfair of me but when I hear the OP say "He was going 20 in a 45" I hear "He was going 40 in a 45 but I was REALLY in a hurry so I'm going to make a post about it to get validation for this minor inconvenience annoying me".

Don't get me started on "WHY WEREN'T YOU WATCHING THE ROAD!?!" complaints from people I KNOW will go 20+ miles over the speed limit, switch lanes in heavy traffic without using signals with barely space between cars, and get pissed when they cause, witness, or get involved in an accident.

[Xyril]

At half the posted speed limit? 30 in a 60 is not cautious, that's almost deliberate antagonization in my book.

Then, respectfully, it's quite possible you're misreading the situation. I consider myself a very capable driver, I still drive the car I used to take to the track (I consider it well above average in terms of handling), and I've been called slightly below average in terms of because cautious and risk averse. However, the posted speed limits for those construction zones are a crapshoot sometimes, and I've driven through quite a few construction zones where the single or double lanes were narrow, curving, poorly marked, with old reflectors or faded paint still faintly marking the numerous previous paths, and I barely felt comfortable driving around the posted speed limit.

All else equal, I find it much more likely that the guy was simply cautious and unconfident in his driving abilities to a ridiculous degree. While I'm sure deliberate antagonism for its own sake, I favor the old adage that incompetence tends to be more common than malice.



The former statement is factual, the latter is incorrect. Nervous, inexperienced, paranoid, oblivious, blind drivers are have a higher-than-average odds of getting into accidents, and they obviously also tend to drive slowly compared to average.

Also, drunk or otherwise intoxicated drivers are a confounding variable, and the studies don't always properly account for them. Drunk and high drivers often drive far slower when impaired, partly because they're perception of speed is off, and partly because they're aware enough of their impairment to drive slower in order to compensate. While I have no personal experience with this, I have noticed the former phenomenon when getting tired while driving: Usually, a good sign that it's time for me to take a break is when I glance at the speedometer, and it shows a lower speed than I expect.

[factotum]

"The people who drive significantly slower than the speed limit are the people who get into accidents more frequently"

does not mean, AT ALL, the same thing as

"It is more dangerous, for a given driver of a given skill and ability, to drive significantly slower than the speed limit".


Context definitely matters. If you were to look at the accident statistics I'm sure they'd show most accidents happen at low speed--because most accidents happen where there's most traffic, which will generally be in towns or on overcrowded motorways. A clear motorway or freeway is one of the safest roads to travel on, despite also being the fastest, because everyone's going in the same direction at roughly the same speed and so there's less opportunity for accidents.

(Of course, when an accident *does* happen on such a road it'll usually be a big one, but those are very, very rare).

[Vinyadan]

Returning to the working site driver: is it possible that he was worried about a truck or a working vehicle coming out of the working site?

Option B, he could have been texting.

[Liquor Box]

Your conclusion is totally wrong; Chen is correct.

"The people who drive significantly slower than the speed limit are the people who get into accidents more frequently"

does not mean, AT ALL, the same thing as

"It is more dangerous, for a given driver of a given skill and ability, to drive significantly slower than the speed limit".

The former statement is factual, the latter is incorrect. Nervous, inexperienced, paranoid, oblivious, blind drivers are have a higher-than-average odds of getting into accidents, and they obviously also tend to drive slowly compared to average.

There is a lot wrong with this post Lio.

First, I haven't said or implied anywhere that the first of your quotes means the same thing "AT ALL" as the second of your quotes.

Second, your post suggests that Chen and I were in disagreement, ignoring my reply to Chen at post #45, where I agree with him To quote my reply to him: "That's a good point - it may be that the reason slow drivers are more dangerous is not because they are driving more slowly, but because of the other factors you mention."

Third, you have not actually demonstrated that either of the quotes you make is "totally wrong". At best you might demonstrate that nothing posted in this thread supports either statement, but that is not sufficient to prove it wrong. I wouldn't usually call you out on something like that, but when are going to tell someone else they are wrong its best ot have your ducks lined up.

I'm not going to go too far into your bold statement at the end about drivers with all those characteristics obviously driving more slowly (I suspect at least some are wrong), but I do want to ask you where you got your statistics that all those blind drivers have a higher-than-average odds of getting into accidents?

[Liquor Box]

Perhaps you're not one to quibble with precise definitions of words, but he was talking about tailgaters, not "speed demon drivers." The key difference--the latter encompasses folks that drive quickly in general, with the strong implication that they're doing so beyond a reasonable level of safety, while the former describes a specific behavior, deliberately following too closely for the given speed.

I understand the difference between the words, but I think it is pretty clear from Gnoman's post that he was saying that tailgaters and speed demon drivers were one and the same. He says the reason he slows down when a tail-gater is behind him is because "because those speed-demon drivers have almost killed me on several occasions by trying to whip around me" (my emphasis). See his post #39.


Slowing down isn't only about frustrating those drivers--it's about taking yourself out of a dangerous situation. If you slow down gradually and deliberately, you can choose a pace that will allow them to react despite their proximity. If you keep driving as you were driving, with them following at an unsafe distance, you run the risk of a much more dangerous collision if you have to stop suddenly in response to an unforeseen road hazard. Yes, from a liability perspective, the guy behind you will be at fault anyway, but from a practical and safety perspective, you're the poor bastard who will be sandwiched between a guy who's driving too close and too fast, and whatever unavoidable object suddenly appeared in front of you.

There's a couple of assumptions here.

First, that by slowing down the tail-gater will not draw closer - most drivers (including most tailgaters) leave a greater following distance when travelling fast than when travelling slow. If we take the 2-second rule as best practice, a tailgater may travel only one second behind you - that is a lot closer at slow speed than at fast speed, so slowing down doesn't actually remove the risk.

Second, it assumes that the tailgater will simply accept that he or she must also now travel significantly lower than the speed limit without apparent good reason. I think also very likely the tailgater will be frustrated (even if you don't intend it) by your low speed and this may lead him or her to overtake in unsafe circumstances. Whether this is a problem depends on the nature of the road your on - less of a problem on a multi-lane road (where overtaking is simple) than on a single lane road which requires pulling into the oncoming lane to overtake.

So, I'm not convinced it is actually safer to slow down significantly below the speed limit here. But that is a little irrelevant, because my response addressed Gnoman, and it is pretty clear that he IS doing it to frustrate those drivers. See post #4: "Of course, that is coming from somebody who will slow down if somebody is tailgating me, so I have a bit of a bias."


As for "whipping around you," I frankly don't care. Slowing down gradually gives the tailgater an opportunity to pass you more quickly and safely than he would if you remained at speed. If he's simply in a hurry and has a different sense of safe following distance than you, he'll be grateful for a chance to get ahead of you, and you'll get out of an unsafe situation. If, however, he's the kind of jerk who feels the need to retaliate against any perceived slight, then yes, slowing down might set him off. But so will pretty much anything else you do. If you keep going the same speed you're going, and he keeps tailgating but still refuses to pass you, you'll probably be annoying him. If you suddenly have to brake for something and he hits you because he's following too close, he'll probably blame you for it. Heck, if you accelerate to a speed that you find unsafe in order to put some distance between you and your tailgater, he'll still probably find some way to interpret that as a provocation on your part.

Well you should care, because a person who "whips around you" is likely to endanger you more than a tailgater, by hitting you or running you off the road as he/she pulls back into your lane.

I suppose it depends whether you think you slowing down is likely to make the passing maneuvre safer (because it will take less distance to pass you) or more dangerous (because the tailgeter will be more impatient to get past a slow moving car, so will take more risks). I tend to think the latter, but I suppose that's your call to make.

[Liquor Box]

Context definitely matters. If you were to look at the accident statistics I'm sure they'd show most accidents happen at low speed--because most accidents happen where there's most traffic, which will generally be in towns or on overcrowded motorways. A clear motorway or freeway is one of the safest roads to travel on, despite also being the fastest, because everyone's going in the same direction at roughly the same speed and so there's less opportunity for accidents.

(Of course, when an accident *does* happen on such a road it'll usually be a big one, but those are very, very rare).

The bolded part reflects my thoughts. I don't think that driving slowly creates greater danger if everyone else also drives slower. I think that a few people driving slowly while others drive much faster creates the danger.

[S@tanicoaldo]

You know what I hate? Motorcycles that keep accelerating while I cross the crosswalk. Why? >:@

[Starwulf]

Returning to the working site driver: is it possible that he was worried about a truck or a working vehicle coming out of the working site?

Option B, he could have been texting.

Nah, none of them were moving, all the guys were out working with equipment from what I saw(and I saw pretty clearly, given the speed we were driving). The worst part of it is, the stretch we were on, had no curves or anything, it was pretty much all straight road the entire 3 miles(maybe one small curve, thinking about it), so it's not like visibility was an issue or anything either.

@Xyril: Yeah, I don't really think he was deliberately antagonizing me, I doubt he even realized how annoyed I was until it ended and I passed him(which, might I add, I had to do in the slow lane, because he stayed in the fast lane for approximately 400 yards past the road work before I passed him, and as I glanced back in my rearview mirror, he didn't get over at all after that either, he forced every single vehicle and semi to pass him in the slow lane). Just a really, really crappy driver that was oblivious to the rest of the world around him, and probably old to boot(I didn't get that good of a glance as I passed, if I had to guess, I'd say mid-50's maybe?).

[2D8HP]

So the only time you go significantly slower than the speed limit is when it is most dangerous to do so? I think you are much more likely to be killed by a speed demon driver (either by them rear ending you while you slow down to teach them a lesson, or because they are more likely to try to "whip around you" if you have slowed down to teach them a lesson). if you slow to significantly slower than the speed limit to frustrate those drivers you disapprove of.



One good reason to slow down (carefully) when being tailgated is to shorten stopping distance and thus make it less likely that you'll be rear-ended if something runs out in front of you. Of course you also balance it with concerns about slowing down too much and being a road hazard to people coming up fast behind the tailgater.


Back in the 1980's the California Drivers Handbook that you get from the DMV recommended slowing down slowly (don't suddenly slam on breaks) as the way to respond to being tailgated. They also recommended a minimum of a four second following distance. Knowing this was part of the test to get a drivers license.

Cars kill, and speed kills.

[Aedilred]

I'm also in the "slow down for tailgaters" camp. Particularly when I'm driving at (or above!) the speed limit and they're right up my back bottom, I derive something of a perverse pleasure from doing so.

Whether it's actually safer, I don't know, but when they're so close that I notice them, it's hard for them to get any closer anyway. So if I do brake suddenly and they hit me, at least it'll be at a lower speed, and thus less likely to result in injury. It also seems more likely to annoy them, which is good, because tailgaters deserve to be annoyed. And, by going more slowly, it makes it easier for them - or at least more likely that they'll try - to overtake, so I won't have to worry about them any more.

But mostly it's to annoy them.

[goto124]

In this context, what is the reason tailgaters tailgate?

[Peelee]

In this context, what is the reason tailgaters tailgate?

Some people are just bad drivers and will taigate as a matter of course. Some people tailgate because they want to overtake the person in front. Either way, they shouldn't be doing it, but if there are multiple lanes, and the person being tailgated is in the passing lane, that person should change lanes.

[factotum]

In this context, what is the reason tailgaters tailgate?

I imagine it's a passive-aggressive "You're going too slow, hurry up!" from the guy tailgating, at least when it happens on multi-lane roads. On country roads there's actually a legit reason for it, because if you're about to overtake someone you want to spend as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road--thus you get closer to them than you otherwise would; that's only valid if you're on a piece of road where you have a chance of overtaking, of course, tailgating through twisty blind bends is just ridiculous.

[blunk]

Back in the 1980's the California Drivers Handbook that you get from the DMV recommended slowing down slowly (don't suddenly slam on breaks) as the way to respond to being tailgated. They also recommended a minimum of a four second following distance. Knowing this was part of the test to get a drivers license.

Cars kill, and speed kills.First DL was in CA in '92. Go figure :smallsmile:

[Liquor Box]

http://www.wikihow.com/Handle-Tailgaters-on-the-Road

This website has some hints on dealing with Tailgaters, although I can understand why some people would find the answers that suggest kowtowing to the tailgaters (pulling over to let them pass) obhectionable.

[Florian]

Where I live, driving too slow, blocking the left lane or reducing speed to shake tailgaters are as serious infractions as tailgating or breaking the speed limit. We also have three different speed limits: Maximum (red sign), recommended (blue) and minimum (also blue). You´re actually not allowed on certain roads or highways if your vehicle can´t do a certain minimum speed (unless you get an official exception, like heavy-duty trucks, but those need an escort).
These are necessary precautions when having a generally high speed limit and a lot go highways without limits.

[Liquor Box]

Where I live, driving too slow, blocking the left lane or reducing speed to shake tailgaters are as serious infractions as tailgating or breaking the speed limit. We also have three different speed limits: Maximum (red sign), recommended (blue) and minimum (also blue). You´re actually not allowed on certain roads or highways if your vehicle can´t do a certain minimum speed (unless you get an official exception, like heavy-duty trucks, but those need an escort).
These are necessary precautions when having a generally high speed limit and a lot go highways without limits.

Germany, with its high speed limits, is pretty close to the gold standard in terms of road fatalities /inhabitant, /vehicle, or /kilometer traveled.**

It also suggests that the German roading authorities consider that traveling low speeds when other cars are travelling at high speeds is dangerous.

** From experience in this thread, I think I need to clarify that I am not saying the high speed limits cause the low fatality count. Only that high speed limits do not appear to be completely inconsistent with

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Germany, with its high speed limits, is pretty close to the gold standard in terms of road fatalities /inhabitant, /vehicle, or /kilometer traveled.**

Germany is also (in)famous for having the hardest drivers license exam of Europe (and likely the world). Unlike in the USA, where everything I have seen and heard suggests that their test are a joke (a friend was given a DL after invading the opposite lane on a left turn, missing a stop sign, and - to hear him tell - a bunch of other violations any of which would be an instant fail in my country. He also tells me that the theoretical was so shallow he passed it easily without studying). There are also rumours than in some of the less populated states, all you need to do to get your license is go to the local sheriff and pay the fee: no exam required (but this might be an urban legend)

My own theory is that the US can't make their test harder, because you can't survive without a car, so it is economically unfeasible to stop the worst drivers from owning one - they'll drive anyway. In Germany and other countries with solid public transportation options, the government has a lot more incentive to make sure anyone allowed to drive death machines knows what they are doing.

Grey Wolf

[Iruka]

Germany, with its high speed limits, is pretty close to the gold standard in terms of road fatalities /inhabitant, /vehicle, or /kilometer traveled.**

It also suggests that the German roading authorities consider that traveling low speeds when other cars are travelling at high speeds is dangerous.

** From experience in this thread, I think I need to clarify that I am not saying the high speed limits cause the low fatality count. Only that high speed limits do not appear to be completely inconsistent with

Are the speed limits in Germany in general higher than in other countries? Serious question. I only did some quick reading but my impression was that the various limits in place are not that diffenrent than in other countries. Only exception is of course the Autobahn, of which about two thirds are in theory without a limit. Constant construction work, bad road conditions and high traffic mean however a lot of temporary limits.

I assumed speeding was a major cause of accidents on the Autobahn, but could not find any data to support that or even if more accidents happen there than on other roads (normalised for road length).

[Liquor Box]

Germany is also (in)famous for having the hardest drivers license exam of Europe (and likely the world). Unlike in the USA, where everything I have seen and heard suggests that their test are a joke (a friend was given a DL after invading the opposite lane on a left turn, missing a stop sign, and - to hear him tell - a bunch of other violations any of which would be an instant fail in my country. He also tells me that the theoretical was so shallow he passed it easily without studying). There are also rumours than in some of the less populated states, all you need to do to get your license is go to the local sheriff and pay the fee: no exam required (but this might be an urban legend)

My own theory is that the US can't make their test harder, because you can't survive without a car, so it is economically unfeasible to stop the worst drivers from owning one - they'll drive anyway. In Germany and other countries with solid public transportation options, the government has a lot more incentive to make sure anyone allowed to drive death machines knows what they are doing.

Grey Wolf

I actually have no idea of the relaitive difficulties of the driving test (not being from either Germany or USA), except I will say that USA has very good public transport options in some urban areas, although perhaps not in some rural areas.

But it is clear that high speed limits does not automatically mean more fatalities - and that extends to a per capita basis. Because a per capita basis does not distinguish between drivers and non-drivers, it does not seem to me that excluding people from driving 9through testing) is a large reason for this.

[Liquor Box]

Are the speed limits in Germany in general higher than in other countries? Serious question. I only did some quick reading but my impression was that the various limits in place are not that diffenrent than in other countries. Only exception is of course the Autobahn, of which about two thirds are in theory without a limit. Constant construction work, bad road conditions and high traffic mean however a lot of temporary limits.

I assumed speeding was a major cause of accidents on the Autobahn, but could not find any data to support that or even if more accidents happen there than on other roads (normalised for road length).
I haveno personal knowledge, but instead was relying on Florian's comment (he is a German resident):

These are necessary precautions when having a generally high speed limit and a lot go highways without limits.
So it sounds like the speed limit is generally high in addition to their being no limit on the autobahn.

[Florian]

Are the speed limits in Germany in general higher than in other countries? Serious question.

Differences in infrastructure design. This is a very densely populated country, generating a lot of traffic, so things are designed to always funnel traffic to the next "higher order", meaning L > B > A with escalating speed limits and naturally more lanes. (The letters correspond to "street types" and allowed speed limits. In short, any street will connect you to an Autobahn (A)). So, yes, if you follow instructions (or your navi), you will use streets that have a very high speed limit.

You will find that we actually rank very low on accidents /vehicle /distance. A homogenous traffic flow will create fewer "obstacles" and reduce the need for drivers to actually react, reducing the amount of fatal accidents.

@Grey Wolf:

It is customary to take you DL training under the worst circumstances, either deepest winter or storm season. It´s common sense that when you´ve the opportunity to use a car for the fullest you should be able to handle it from the start.

[2D8HP]

Germany is also (in)famous for having the hardest drivers license exam of Europe (and likely the world). Unlike in the USA, where everything I have seen and heard suggests that their test are a joke


:amused:

I received my California drivers license without ever passing the driving test!

I had a motorcycle license, which I got back in the 1980's, by the written test and riding a little 50cc scooter between the lines in a circle (all you had to do back then for any motorcycle, including ones with sidecars), and much to my surprise when I renewed it in the '90's I had a car "endorsement" as well!

I've been driving me decades since, and have never been tested!

[Peelee]

Germany is also (in)famous for having the hardest drivers license exam of Europe (and likely the world). Unlike in the USA, where everything I have seen and heard suggests that their test are a joke.

I had to take the test twice. First time, on the driving section, I got this super strict guy who ran me through every single part of the test and failed me because when I parallel parked, I was a bit too far from the curb. Second time, a couple weeks later, I got the same guy, and was dreading it. He apparently didn't recognize me (understandable, he sees hundreds of people a day), and just mentioned how he was ready for the weekend so he could go fishing. So I slipped into redneck mode, started talking to him about fishing, and he ran me through maybe a third of what he made me do the first time (which I liked, because I'd just about run out of things to say about fishing by then). Easy pass.

[Bounty Hunter]

If you are in the left lane and not actively passing a car in the right lane you need to move over. :smallsmile:

[Mith]

I will be the first to admit that I can be an overly aggressive driver at times, although if I end up getting significantly over the speed limit unintentionally, I try to get back down as soon s possible. However, I have one pet peeve with slower drivers that I truly think is valid: Those that merge slowly from well designed merge lanes.

My reason for this is that the purpose for a merge lane is to get up to speed, sight where you will merge based on the traffic flow on the main road, and merge. If you are going 60 kph (37 mph) when looking at merging onto a 100 kph (62 mph) road, once you merge, the people behind you that were attempting to get up to 100 kph are now trying to get up to 100 kph and merge onto a 100 kph road without the advantage of distance and visibility the entire merge lane is supposed to provide to make the task easier. In heavy traffic flow, this can cause a phantom traffic jam in a merge lane, which can potentially spill onto the main road.

[paddyfool]

Yes, anything that forces the driver behind you to have to break suddenly / not-otherwise-necessarily is bad, excepting only having to brake suddenly yourself to avoid an unforeseeable potential collision. Be it erratic joining or erratic lane changes.

I think, on the whole we can agree on both this and bullying options such as the aforementioned tailgating as being bad things, right?

[Mith]

Yes, anything that forces the driver behind you to have to break suddenly / not-otherwise-necessarily is bad, excepting only having to brake suddenly yourself to avoid an unforeseeable potential collision. Be it erratic joining or erratic lane changes.

I think, on the whole we can agree on both this and bullying options such as the aforementioned tailgating as being bad things, right?

I can agree to that. If I seemed a bit confrontational in my last point, I apologize. I have had that problem every so often driving to and from work that drives me nuts. Caution I can understand and appreciate. Doing the slow merge when you have around half a kilometer of free space between you and the approaching vehicle front is a bit much.

[Silverraptor]

The reason I take for ever getting up to speed limit is because my car is all electric Nissan Leaf 2015 model and getting to speed limit slowly actually extends my range per charge.

[Glorthindel]

Oh man, if you wanna talk about jerk drivers....

So this one morning, I hop on the interstate to go to work. I hit the on ramp, and I see a traffic jam. For some reason, they closed the left lane and only the right lane was open about a mile up ahead, but it's only closed for maybe a couple car lengths, so everything's clear after that. I merge into the right lane, right in front of this nice SUV. Right lane is understandably congested, and I notice that behind me in the left lane is a semi, with nobody between him and the lane closure. The odd thing is, he's doing roughly the same speed as the congested right lane, which is slighly more than a crawl. I know about the zipper method, and I figure if this guy is going almost as slow in his ~mile long free lane, he's probably not looking to zipper, and is just wanting to merge into the right lane.


I may be responding to an old post, but I suspect I know why this happened.

Certainly in my country, it is very common when one lane is closed, or two lanes merge into one, that 90% of drivers will get in lane early, no problem. But that other 10% of drivers will see everyone else merging, but see a half-mile clear lane, and gun right to the end, effectively jumping the queue to get through.

My dad is a lorry driver, and when I used to go with him as a kid, I saw it was quite a common lorry-driver behavoir when this started happening for one to pull back in to the open-but-closing lane, but maintain speed with the congested lane, effectively becoming a roadblock to the impatient drivers, stopping them from speeding to the front of the line, and slowing everybody else up.

The behavoir of your semi seems to follow with that, with the unfortunate ending probably being a case of miscommunication - you weren't aware what he was doing (so weren't understanding his actions), but had slowed up a couple of times to create a return-space for him, so he presumably assumed you were letting him know you would let him back in when you reached the merge. Of course, that wasn't what you were communicating, and with lorries having difficult visability at the best of times (if you were in the spot between his passenger door, and about 2/3 down his trailer length, you were in his blind spot), there was a possibility he couldn't see you, and just assumed you were letting him in as you had previously offered.

Of course, he may have just been a moron :smallwink:

[Peelee]

I may be responding to an old post, but I suspect I know why this happened.

Certainly in my country, it is very common when one lane is closed, or two lanes merge into one, that 90% of drivers will get in lane early, no problem. But that other 10% of drivers will see everyone else merging, but see a half-mile clear lane, and gun right to the end, effectively jumping the queue to get through.

The 90% of drivers are wrong, and the 10% are right. This is the zipper method I talked about. It's much more efficient to have people in both lanes until the lane closure, and then merge. After all, if the lane closure is only 50 feet, why would one want a single-lane road for half a mile?

Regardless, even if he was trying to block people, he still drove the cop off the road (the cop who, to the best of his knowledge, was just some nobody who was where he wanted to be). Even if he tried to police others - and in effect made things worse - he had no problem being as horrible as possible himself. I cut that trucker zero slack.

ETA:

Tell your friends! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivme-_PE1d8)

....seriously, tell your friends. It's best for every driver to be aware of this

[factotum]

The only problem with the zipper method is that it relies on drivers in *both* lanes being nice and co-operating with each other--which they never do, let's be honest. You'll always get the recalcitrant *bleep* who won't let you out into his lane whether you come out early or leave it right to the cones...

[Douglas]

The only problem with the zipper method is that it relies on drivers in *both* lanes being nice and co-operating with each other--which they never do, let's be honest. You'll always get the recalcitrant *bleep* who won't let you out into his lane whether you come out early or leave it right to the cones...
Yeah, it really needs a serious effort to make following it universal, and a grass-roots approach won't work well for that - it runs into a chicken and egg problem, since anyone who tries to zipper before everyone does is just making a problem for themselves without accomplishing anything.

Getting zipper merge reliably into practice would likely require a massive coordinated public education effort, combined with widespread frequent enforcement of consequences beyond any inherent delay in traffic.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Getting zipper merge reliably into practice would likely require a massive coordinated public education effort, combined with widespread frequent enforcement of consequences beyond any inherent delay in traffic.

Which is how we circle back to "make the driving exam challenging", and why that can't happen in a country with very poor public transportation options.

Germany has the zipper method, and I'd guess every learning driver is educated and possibly tested on it in the driver's exam. In contrast, the US doesn't even have a obligatory drivers ed process (I mean, it exists, but as I understand it most people are taught to drive by parents or friends, right?), and as vouchsafed by actual Americans earlier in the thread, the exam is a bit of a joke, so any bad habits taught by said family or friends are not going to be caught before the person gets their license.

Grey Wolf

[Douglas]

What I remember best from my drivers license exam (in America) is a specific unfairness by the examiner:
Right at the start, getting out of the parking lot, I asked which direction to turn.
He said he'd tell me when I had obeyed the law regarding the stop sign.
Through the entire test, I'd get to an intersection and then get told which way to turn.
He reported at the end that my turn signalling was weak because I didn't signal far enough in advance of a turn.

I still passed, but I was a bit pissed off about that. How the **** am I supposed to signal in advance of a turn if you won't tell me which way the turn is going to be until I'm already there?

[Iruka]

Getting zipper merge reliably into practice would likely require a massive coordinated public education effort, combined with widespread frequent enforcement of consequences beyond any inherent delay in traffic.

I am putting my hopes into the increased automation of cars. They could reliably communicate with each other to match speeds and orchestrate a smooth merge. Might still take a while to get there, however.



Germany has the zipper method, and I'd guess every learning driver is educated and possibly tested on it in the driver's exam.


It is usually taught during the mandatory lessons. You do however only get tested for it if the question happens to get drawn from the pool during the written exam or if your practical exam leads you into a situation where it is necessary.

I have to confess that I did it wrong for a long time when I was a beginner. Mostly because 90% of Germans merge early, too.

[BWR]

(I mean, it exists, but as I understand it most people are taught to drive by parents or friends, right?),olf

Most people in Norway are taught by parents. There are a few obligatory courses you have to take (a theory test, accident handling and first aid, dark driving, slippery road driving, long distance driving, and a set number of hours with a proper instructor which includes parking and city driving) but considering it will cost you upwards of 30 000 NOK (about 3750 USD) for the basic package, taking more lessons with an instructor than strictly necessary is generally avoided.

We're also supposed to use the zipper method, though I'm sure some people get annoyed at seeing people 'rush ahead' in a mostly empty lane.

[DataNinja]

It is usually taught during the mandatory lessons. You do however only get tested for it if the question happens to get drawn from the pool during the written exam od if your pracatical exam leads you into a situation where it is necessary.

I have to confess that I did it wrong for a long time when I was a beginner. Mostly because 90% of Germans merge early, too.

I'll be honest, in that I'd never even heard of the zipper method, until reading one of the editorials in the Driving section of our newspaper. It's not something taught here in Canada (or, at least not in British Columbia - Canadian education is not exactly unified in either teaching or traffic laws - my 'favorite' bit of dysfunction is how, in some provinces, a flashing green light indicates a pedestrian controlled intersection... while in others, it indicates an advanced left turn for the other side. :smallsigh:)

[Heliomance]

What do you mean "actual" limit? A posted limit is the actual limit no matter how high it is. If the sign says 45mph the limit is 45mph.

http://www.quick-break.net/c/2012/11/29/80_km_h_limit_sign_on_a_forest_road.jpeg

[AMFV]

The reason I take for ever getting up to speed limit is because my car is all electric Nissan Leaf 2015 model and getting to speed limit slowly actually extends my range per charge.

Same is also true for gas vehicles.

[Rogan]

Since somebody asked about the speed limits in Germany:

In town, in general the limit is 50km/h, but often this will be redused to 30km/h in housing areas.
There are some streets wher its even lower than that. The official term is "Schrittgeschwindigkeit" meaning the speed of a human on foot, but it will usualy be interpretet as 10km/h. My driving instructor suggested first gear, no gas, but this depends strongly on the type of car.

Outside of towns, the general limit is 100km/h. It will often be lowerd to 70 near crossings or when closing on a town.

On the Autobahn, there is no upper limmit unless a sign says otherwise. But it's suggested to keep it at 130km/h (and if you are going faster, your insurance agency might reduce paymant in case of an accident)

Sometimes, there will be conditional signs, reducing the speed limit for bad weather or at night.
Sometimes, there will be warning signs, that won't reduse the speed limit to a fixed value, but if you go at the nominal speed limit and there is an accident, you get partial blame.


No matter what the spesific rules say, there is always §1, with rougly translates to:
Every participant in the public transport has to behave in such a way that it does not harm anybody else or harras them more than is unavoidable by the circumstances.

So you are allowed to go lower than the speed limit IF you have a reason for doing so.
If there is no comprehensible reason for driving slower than the speed limit, it's illegal and you can be blamed for it.

all informations from above are without engagement

[Peelee]

Yeah, it really needs a serious effort to make following it universal, and a grass-roots approach won't work well for that - it runs into a chicken and egg problem, since anyone who tries to zipper before everyone does is just making a problem for themselves without accomplishing anything.

Getting zipper merge reliably into practice would likely require a massive coordinated public education effort, combined with widespread frequent enforcement of consequences beyond any inherent delay in traffic.

The dissemination of information is the easy part. That can be slapped in the test prep manuals, on the written test, on roadside signs, etc. Enforcement would be difficult at best. And it would likely be recognized about the same as the (AL) law that headlights must be on when raining. Which is to say, total crapshoot.

If it becomes truly universal, huzzahs all around. Til then, I'ma still do it, because why should I be penalized by other people not being efficient?

[2D8HP]

...I'ma still do it, because why should I be penalized by other people not being efficient?


I've lost track, is that fuel efficient, or time efficient?

[DataNinja]

I've lost track, is that fuel efficient, or time efficient?

Space efficient, I believe.

[Douglas]

If it becomes truly universal, huzzahs all around. Til then, I'ma still do it, because why should I be penalized by other people not being efficient?
My contention there was that you trying to zipper without everyone else doing it can be creating a penalty for yourself, not avoiding one. You go all the way up to the merge point, and all the non-zipper people refuse to leave room for you, leaving you stuck waiting until you get lucky with an unusually courteous driver arriving in the other lane. The fact that you "tried to cut the line" may even make people who normally would have let you in decide not to, as punishment for your perceived offense.

This factor is, obviously, weighed against the time saved by using a nearly traffic-free lane for a bit, and where the balance on that lies depends heavily on the local driving culture. In some places, you'll be let in pretty promptly. In others, you may be forced to wait several minutes or more.

[factotum]

On the Autobahn, there is no upper limmit unless a sign says otherwise. But it's suggested to keep it at 130km/h (and if you are going faster, your insurance agency might reduce paymant in case of an accident)


I may be wrong, but aren't most cars manufactured in Germany limited to a maximum 250km/h regardless?

[Rogan]

I may be wrong, but aren't most cars manufactured in Germany limited to a maximum 250km/h regardless?

I don't know, but it is possible. But come on... do you realy want to drive faster than that?

And I just remembered:
You also have to take into account the tires. They can impose a speed limit as well.

[factotum]

I'm pretty sure if you can afford a car that will do 250km/h (155mph for those of an Imperial measurement persuasion) you can probably afford tyres capable of going that speed as well. :smallsmile:

[Rogan]

Thats propably true.
Still, it's not common to drive at those speeds, even if you would be allowed to (and have a car capable of) going up to 250km/h

After all, you need a clear lane as well. And good weather, clear view and so on.
But it would be legal

[Peelee]

My contention there was that you trying to zipper without everyone else doing it can be creating a penalty for yourself, not avoiding one. You go all the way up to the merge point, and all the non-zipper people refuse to leave room for you, leaving you stuck waiting until you get lucky with an unusually courteous driver arriving in the other lane. The fact that you "tried to cut the line" may even make people who normally would have let you in decide not to, as punishment for your perceived offense.

This factor is, obviously, weighed against the time saved by using a nearly traffic-free lane for a bit, and where the balance on that lies depends heavily on the local driving culture. In some places, you'll be let in pretty promptly. In others, you may be forced to wait several minutes or more.

Ah. My bad! But yeah, I'm usually not too put off by it. Never had to wait more than a few car lengths.


I've lost track, is that fuel efficient, or time efficient?

Rule of thumb: never assume I'm fuel efficient. I love my hybrid, because I'm getting 1.5-2x the mileage my old car got, but it'd be even greater if I drove for fuel-efficiency. I dont. On a related note, I also love the beastly power my hybrid can have. Not as much as my old car, but not far off.

[spinningdice]

http://www.quick-break.net/c/2012/11/29/80_km_h_limit_sign_on_a_forest_road.jpeg

We get those all over the place (but with 60MPH limits). Our police have a policy of only reviewing the 'default' (60mph on roads with no pavement) if there is an accident on there, so in the rural area I live there's roads that you'd need a death-wish to drive at the speed limit on.

As I was recently drafted onto a road safety course to escape gaining points on my licence (I was doing 34 in a 30 zone fyi), they do iterate that speed limits are limits not targets and reminded that you can legally be fined for doing 1mph over the limit. The +5mph or +10%+2mph are complete myths. Apparently in Wales at least they are pretty draconian at enforcing this, less so in the rest of the country, but ubiquitous speed camera's are uncaring.

[Vinyadan]

Apparently in Wales at least they are pretty draconian at enforcing this

Well, it's even in their flag, isn't it? :smallbiggrin: [/badjoke]

[Fiery Diamond]

We get those all over the place (but with 60MPH limits). Our police have a policy of only reviewing the 'default' (60mph on roads with no pavement) if there is an accident on there, so in the rural area I live there's roads that you'd need a death-wish to drive at the speed limit on.

As I was recently drafted onto a road safety course to escape gaining points on my licence (I was doing 34 in a 30 zone fyi), they do iterate that speed limits are limits not targets and reminded that you can legally be fined for doing 1mph over the limit. The +5mph or +10%+2mph are complete myths. Apparently in Wales at least they are pretty draconian at enforcing this, less so in the rest of the country, but ubiquitous speed camera's are uncaring.

It makes so much difference where you live. Where I live (which is in the USA) it's almost expected that you'll be driving 5 mph over the speed limit in some places.

[danzibr]

Huh. This thread makes me feel like a bit of a bad driver. I accelerate quite quickly to speed limit+4, then set cruise.

Even going 4 over, people always pass me.

[factotum]

While it's no excuse for always going to speed limit + 4, speedometers in cars almost invariably over-read--e.g. when your speedo is showing 75mph you're probably only doing 70. You can see the difference if you use a sat nav, because those generally measure your speed quite precisely (although the manufacturers invariably have a disclaimer that they're not liable if you're caught speeding when their satnav showed you were doing the correct speed).

[danzibr]

While it's no excuse for always going to speed limit + 4, speedometers in cars almost invariably over-read--e.g. when your speedo is showing 75mph you're probably only doing 70. You can see the difference if you use a sat nav, because those generally measure your speed quite precisely (although the manufacturers invariably have a disclaimer that they're not liable if you're caught speeding when their satnav showed you were doing the correct speed).
Thanks for the info!

Time to start going 6 over 8)

[The Fury]

Speaking only for myself, my car is old and is showing her age in a lot of ways. Going from idle to full throttle can actually cause the engine to die in the middle of the intersection. No fun for you, or for me. So accelerating up to the speed limit from a dead stop can be difficult, though it usually depends on what the speed limit actually is. 25-35 mph? Usually not a problem, unless it's uphill. 45 mph or more? I'd better use the slow lane.


While it's no excuse for always going to speed limit + 4, speedometers in cars almost invariably over-read--e.g. when your speedo is showing 75mph you're probably only doing 70. You can see the difference if you use a sat nav, because those generally measure your speed quite precisely (although the manufacturers invariably have a disclaimer that they're not liable if you're caught speeding when their satnav showed you were doing the correct speed).

According to the road signs that display your speed, the opposite is true for me. 45 on the speedo, usually mean closer to 50 mph in actual speed. Maybe it's just another side effect of previous owners' (mis)treatment of this particular car.

[Vinyadan]

According to the road signs that display your speed, the opposite is true for me. 45 on the speedo, usually mean closer to 50 mph in actual speed. Maybe it's just another side effect of previous owners' (mis)treatment of this particular car.

It could also mean that your speedo is right, and the signs overestimate your speed. A way to check this out, if you aren't alone in the car, is to ask your passenger to count the milestones (or whatever they use now to signal the mile or km of the road in which you are), and use the time needed to desume speed.

[Dewm]

Slow acceleration is more fuel efficient, lowers wear on the tires, and is considerably safer. Just because you are impatient does not obligate anybody else to be in a hurry.

Of course, that is coming from somebody who will slow down if somebody is tailgating me, so I have a bit of a bias.

Sometimes people are in a hurry. For example I often drive with Doordash and other food delivery serives, and I need to make it on time, otherwise my account will suffer, and sometimes the restaurant takes longer than expected. Sometimes I tailgate, but when you're in a hurry, it's hard not to. I get it, it's an ******* move, but you'll piss the person off even more when you pull that kind of ****. But then again I'm admittedly an aggressive and fast driver, so I have a bit a bias.

[jayem]

This doesn't really get into the "why" though. It just correlates those significantly below the speed limit with more accidents. You know what also correlates to going significantly below the speed limit? Nervous drivers (new) and/or old drivers. Somehow I think that would also be a pretty significant factor here.

You've also got two other issues:

How do they find out the speeds? Self reporting seems risky, I know I'd round down if I was in an incident. Whereas at other times I'd give my peak speed.

[already mentioned]
Safe driving speeds vary more than speed limits. If you have a region of 60mph national speed limit that includes a corner that (to actually have a decent stopping distance) should be taken at 40mph, but is actually taken at 50mph by most drivers (which is safe 99% of the time, cars rarely turn off). Then you'd get a similar effect, the driver can honestly report that they were going well under the speed limit. While the straight sections will boost the stats and give a false average speed.
Similarly with snow, etc...

[Evil DM Mark3]

Of course, that is coming from somebody who will slow down if somebody is tailgating me, so I have a bit of a bias.

That's actually required by the UK Highway Code. If someone is tailgating you should slow down to increase the gap (and thus reaction time) between you and the car in front so you have to break less hard if they stop suddenly, meaning you are less likely to get rear-ended.

[Rynjin]

Sometimes people are in a hurry. For example I often drive with Doordash and other food delivery serives, and I need to make it on time, otherwise my account will suffer, and sometimes the restaurant takes longer than expected. Sometimes I tailgate, but when you're in a hurry, it's hard not to. I get it, it's an ******* move, but you'll piss the person off even more when you pull that kind of ****. But then again I'm admittedly an aggressive and fast driver, so I have a bit a bias.

Generally speaking the solution to "needing" to speed because you're late is to manage your time better and plan your route properly rather than endanger everyone around you.

Go with the flow of traffic by all means, but if you're going significantly faster than all the other cars around you and weaving in and out of traffic (an especial peeve of mine) to eke out what is going to be, at best, a minute or two of extra time in most cases, you should rethink your approach to driving.

[Bohandas]

I feel that really the problem is even deeper than that and ultimately rests on modern society's relentless and unreasonable demands for everyone to always be on time for everything with clockwork precision.

[snowblizz]

This thread stopped at a red light in 2017. It took someone 2 years to accelerate it back to life.

[kovacsszandra]

And also when you are driving at a speed of 50km/h and need to slow down to zero, and wait with running engine a minute or so, then accelerate, this process probably consumes much more fuel than speeding up a bit in order to avoid the red light. ;) This might also be an explanation, especially in societies where fuel prices are crazy high compared to the salaries most people earn.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Necromanced threads get a permanent red light.