No of course that’s not my position, that’s quite a conclusion to jump to. But I’ve definitely seen a lot of drivers going 35-40mph in 25mph pedestrian-heavy zones where they should be driving the speed limit or possibly even slower. Those drivers are barely saving seconds of time in their travels while increasing the risk to bystanders dramatically.
What I’m trying to say centers on this:
You say you’ve seen restricted highways with posted speed limits below reasonable and appropriate speeds.
My point is that if all drivers are limited to that lower speed, there is nothing unsafe about going “too slow.” Your opinion that it’s unreasonable is based on convenience, not safety.
E.g., urban freeways where the speed limit is 50 but most drivers are going 70 and some drivers are going much faster. That’s a dangerous situation. What ISN’T dangerous is if everyone was governed electronically by 50mph by that road. If everyone is limited to 50mph that dangerous speed differential has been removed and it’s safer.
Presumably the government could wait until basically all drivers have a vehicle with this technology and then flip the switch on the actual governing feature.
Maybe this is “anti-freedom” and all that, but my hypothesis would be that road deaths would decrease.
On a tangent, I have a theory that drivers who demand high throughput and fast speeds want to avoid the uncomfortable truth that alternatives like public transit and cycling are more efficient modes of atransportation. When we look at some urban freeways that slow to a crawl during commuting hours and the local news tells me that the average speed is 27 mph, that just tells me that more people should be commuting on alternatives like e-bikes, buses, and trains, because these personal vehicles that supposedly save so much time and convenience are no longer doing so.
> Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers
made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 [1]
If you reduce speeds and increase trip time by 1%, that's 930 million more hours, which is the equivalent of about 1000 lifetimes [2]. At some point you save lives from acute injuries but take lives by wasting everyone's time on the road. There's also issues with the current fleet where a gasoline car is going to be much less fuel efficient at say 25 mph vs 50 mph, and you're killing people with emissions; although EVs and hybrids turn that around.
> Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022
I don't have a dog in this race but I want to spark conversation. I feel like assuming that saving 1% of those drivers time would lead to an increase in productivity, possibly a tiny increase in happiness but are you happy now driving 20 over the limit and on high alert all the time during your commute? Generally I am less tired going 100 km/h in a 120 than I am doing 140km/h in a 120 for the exact same trip... And usually I would just move my commute a bit, have breakfast close to work / at work and hit the gym after work at work and you significantly cut down your commute time... It also reminds me just a little of Brook's law...
I'm never going to believe a car is more fuel efficient at say 35 vs 50... Maybe 25 but where are you driving that the majority of your trip is at 25? The few minutes you spend at 25 won't even put a dent on your efficiency numbers if you have a reasonably long commute and if you don't what the hell are you complaining about.
At least where I am 25 would only be used i residential areas or places where high pedestrian activity is expected... The limit is almost exclusively 35/50/75 and you may get 60 in rural areas...
I haven't watched numbers on many of my cars, but my Jetta SportWagen TDI had peak mpg right around 60 mph, at least it did when I had steered the wheel at all since startup ;). The gear ratios are setup to deliver peak efficiency at highway speeds, although you do hit a point where the v squared in drag wins. EV is different, because motors are strictly worse the faster they spin.
Vehicle provided instant MPG data is always a little suspect, of course.
Ah so that is kind of the point I wanted to try and make.
The engine isn't any less efficient in lower gears. It's just that you are measuring MPG and not some other metric like hours per gallon.
If you are able to travel at 60 the entire time then sure, but at the same RPM your engine is consuming the same fuel in a lower gear.
I'm pretty sure that MPG value would also very aggressively change if you were constantly accelerating and deceleration to hit that 60 MPH number whereas it would in fact have been more efficient to travel at a lower constant speed.
By the sources I posted, about 1/3 of accident fatalities per year involved excessive speed.
Let's say slowing down saved a conservative 1/4 of those lives, that still beats the 1,000 lifetimes of sitting in traffic.
There are now around 40,000 fatal car crash deaths per year. Multiply 1/3 * 1/4 * 40,000 = 3,333 lives.
Plus, when you're sitting in traffic, you're not dead. If you have other people in the car it can be socializing time. If you're not the driver you could be working or playing video games, reading, or working. Or you can listen to podcasts/lectures/etc (I know how much HN loves their productive time).
But a road filled with idling cars has high pollution levels, so you have to factor in the reduction in life expectancy and increase in disability from exposure to that.
Even if your car is getting 45 mpg you shouldn't drive over 70mph if they want to conserve fuel/emissions, and if your car is getting a lower mpg rating than that you should be driving slower.
What I’m trying to say centers on this:
You say you’ve seen restricted highways with posted speed limits below reasonable and appropriate speeds.
My point is that if all drivers are limited to that lower speed, there is nothing unsafe about going “too slow.” Your opinion that it’s unreasonable is based on convenience, not safety.
E.g., urban freeways where the speed limit is 50 but most drivers are going 70 and some drivers are going much faster. That’s a dangerous situation. What ISN’T dangerous is if everyone was governed electronically by 50mph by that road. If everyone is limited to 50mph that dangerous speed differential has been removed and it’s safer.
Presumably the government could wait until basically all drivers have a vehicle with this technology and then flip the switch on the actual governing feature.
Maybe this is “anti-freedom” and all that, but my hypothesis would be that road deaths would decrease.
Almost 1/3 of all driving fatalities involve excessive speed: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
On a tangent, I have a theory that drivers who demand high throughput and fast speeds want to avoid the uncomfortable truth that alternatives like public transit and cycling are more efficient modes of atransportation. When we look at some urban freeways that slow to a crawl during commuting hours and the local news tells me that the average speed is 27 mph, that just tells me that more people should be commuting on alternatives like e-bikes, buses, and trains, because these personal vehicles that supposedly save so much time and convenience are no longer doing so.