The author seems to acknowledge but then ignore how their strict adherence to the speed limit makes roads less safe overall.
The author is doing something that the rest of the drivers don’t expect, which is increasing speed differential by driving at unexpectedly slow speeds. The author is causing more danger by not following accepted cultural behaviors.
The culturally accepted speed is also 5-10 mph above the speed limit and not exactly at it, because that’s the maximum speed you can drive before risking a ticket.
The design of the road itself often dictates the speed at which people feel comfortable:
Speed limits are often arbitrary and based on some sort of government regulation on the area (a state speed limit for example) or just decreased where there are narrower or winding roads.
The driver seems to be unaware of the negative effect she is having on the roads, creating a hazardous speed differential and upsetting other drivers.
I feel as though this is an inappropriate and dangerous place for the author to take her activism, putting others' lives at risk.
There is a reason why places such as the autobahn exist and have statistically lower accident rates when compared to standard roadways, even when there is no imposed speed limit. If someone like the author were to drive purposely slower than the traffic, the risk of accident increases greatly.
So you imply the best way to improve safety is to turn every road into autobahn, disallowing access to everyone except cars? This is incredibly wanton view.
Nope. The drivers' job is to look out and calmly accomodate the driving to all obstacles. Whoever is upset by mere speed differential, is not fit to be a driver.
The Solomon curve describes the relationship between how likely one is to be involved in a vehicular accident based on their speed compared to the average speed of the road.
The author doesn't seem to take this into account. It appears she is attempting to drive slower to protect those using roadways in other means such as biking, which would benefit from added infrastructure such as bicycle paths.
I've been driving legally and defensively for more than a decade and have noticed few problems. It's relaxing in the moment, and even more so in the long run, given how bad I'd feel about killing someone with my car. Highly recommended.
Some people seem upset by this (on the Internet), which always baffles me. Do they also seethe in the elevator because it's not going fast enough?
5 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 12.1 ms ] threadThe author is doing something that the rest of the drivers don’t expect, which is increasing speed differential by driving at unexpectedly slow speeds. The author is causing more danger by not following accepted cultural behaviors.
The culturally accepted speed is also 5-10 mph above the speed limit and not exactly at it, because that’s the maximum speed you can drive before risking a ticket.
The design of the road itself often dictates the speed at which people feel comfortable:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3oP-Ndwv1zw
What the author is doing is not far off from refusing to tip at restaurants because they disagree with the practice in the first place.
The only difference is that there’s no human life risk to your dinner bill.
The driver seems to be unaware of the negative effect she is having on the roads, creating a hazardous speed differential and upsetting other drivers.
I feel as though this is an inappropriate and dangerous place for the author to take her activism, putting others' lives at risk.
There is a reason why places such as the autobahn exist and have statistically lower accident rates when compared to standard roadways, even when there is no imposed speed limit. If someone like the author were to drive purposely slower than the traffic, the risk of accident increases greatly.
Nope. The drivers' job is to look out and calmly accomodate the driving to all obstacles. Whoever is upset by mere speed differential, is not fit to be a driver.
Check out this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve
The Solomon curve describes the relationship between how likely one is to be involved in a vehicular accident based on their speed compared to the average speed of the road.
The author doesn't seem to take this into account. It appears she is attempting to drive slower to protect those using roadways in other means such as biking, which would benefit from added infrastructure such as bicycle paths.
Some people seem upset by this (on the Internet), which always baffles me. Do they also seethe in the elevator because it's not going fast enough?