chekmate

1. I'm not sure where to put this, so if a mod could move it to the right forum, I'd be grateful.
2. I haven't thought this all the way through yet, so don't judge me. Just judge the concept.

Thinking about this while following someone going 10 under ont he freeway with a stiker espousing lower speed limits. I've always been amazed by the people that say that we should lower the speed limits, to save lives. Here's my view on that.

-The average person lives ~75 years or something like that.
-75*365*24*60 = 39,420,000 minutes in a life
-Population of USA = nearly 300,000,000
-For every person that dies in a car accident that could have been avoided by going a slower (55MPH) speed limit, the average person needs to be saved 7.8 seconds by going faster
-Therefor, if the averae person is saved 10 minutes a day by these higher speeds, 77 people are allowed to die.
Questions:
-Is my math completely flawed here? Probably...
-Are 77 people killed every day, due to the increased speed?
-Would all of these 77 deaths/day have been avoided, due to traveling slower?
-Is this a reasonable way to calculate the cost of a human life?
-Am I an insensitive bastard?

Also, I think the math may be flawed, in a way such that now everyone that dies will have their whole lives taken from them... Some will be 60 YO, some will be 6YO. Thus, the minutes figure is flawed in that regard, right? What would be a more appropriate figure? Would I have to get an average age of the people who died because of the speed difference, and use the remaining time to calculate the cost of their life, in time?

I think I confused myself... Will someone straighten me out?

MrFrosty

I'm not going to touch the math aspect of this but the road police usu. cite speeding as a MAJOR cause of road accidents. There are ofc other factors such as the time of day, road conditions, driving experience, condition of the car and even driving age. Also, you speak of changing the speed limit but how many ppl actually adhere to them as they stand?

More effective measures would be speed cameras or an increased police presence during critical times of the day or specific accident blackspots. I know that I am steering (no pun intended) perilously close to being off-topic. I'm not even sure what your intended message is; simply driving slower would not necessarily save the lives of those who die each day because not all daily road deaths are speed-attributed. Plus, road accidents can leave horrendous outcomes in terms of crippling and paralysing ppl.

Also, what do you mean when you refer to the "cost of a human life"? You mean in terms of the productivity that is potentially lost, the financial cost, the human / emotional cost (via impact to relatives and friends), the actual cost in time by driving slower or something else? Your OP is somewhat vague in that regard.

Jinto

Yes. However, keep in mind that the world needs insensiteve bastards: otherwise, we'd be spending all our money on trying to keep old people alive and the young would never have the chance to indulge in luxury. As one of the beneficiaries of insensitive bastards, I sincerely thank you.:notworthy

mongrel

Sorry if this is off topic.

The police and government here also cite speed as the great evil, so they reduce speed limits, increase the numbers of speed cameras, etc.

What they don't mention is, statistically, speed is one of the less common causes of accidents. Driver inattentiveness, driver experience, driver fatigue, failing to obey other(than speed limits) road rules, play bigger roles.

The speed cameras here never seem(to me) to be set up in "dangerous"(but then, I don't think there's such a thing as a dangerous road, just dangerous use of roads, ie, not driving appropriately for the conditions) areas.

My personal opinion is, the government have discovered what a great money-spinner cameras are, so they put a low speed limit on a road, then a camera to cash in on the people frustrated by it. I guess if they were to be used in areas where speed was a major cause of accidents, I'd be all for it.

BTW, I'm one of those who've been permanently injured by speeding(although someone else was driving), so I do know first hand the dangers involved.

echidna

As sanctimonious as governments might pretend to be, we place very simple values on human lives. Why do we sell vehicles which travel up to 180 kmh or even 240 kmh for some motorbikes ? We'd rather retain that freedom to drive a vehicle which is un-speed-regulated, than to give it up in order to save high-speed road deaths.

mongrel

Actually, 240 isn't all that fast, as far as top speeds go, for a lot of bikes these days.

The way I see it, a bike that is capable of handling 300+km/h(like a Suzuki Hayabusa- I had one), is safer at legal speeds than one which can't handle those sorts of speeds(like a Kawasaki Z1- I also had one of those, although there's a huge age difference). Brakes which are able to pull a bike down from 300 safely and quickly are considered overkill, but will always be more capable than those which can't, so on a less powerfull machine they wouldn't be fitted because of costs to the manufacturer which would obviously be passed on to the consumer. Also, engines which can reach these speeds don't have to work very hard at all to maintain legal speeds- therefore they don't wear as quickly. Overtaking ability is another bonus- the quicker you can get off the wrong side of the road, the better/safer.

I would suggest that most people who have machines like this realise that track days are the best times to actually use the full potential of their bikes. One thing you quickly learn when riding a powerful bike on the road is, to respect that power. It's one thing to ride a bike with the capabilty to exceed 300km/h- it's another thing entirely to do it. There are very few places and times when it's safe(ish) to do it on the road.

The Other Michael

Speed doesn't kill. Rather, excessive speed kills.

From what I've read around 85% of the driving population will drive at a safe speed for the road conditions, no matter what the posted speed limit is.

Driving too slow is dangerous as it disrupts traffic. Driving too fast for conditions is obviously dangerous.

I think a big problem, at least in the USA, is a lack of worthwhile driver training, especially in road etiquette. If you are sitting in the fast lane and people are moving to the outer lanes to get around you, YOU ARE GOING TOO SLOW! Slow cars to the outside lanes, fast vehicles pass on the inside lanes.

There should also be more training on accident avoidance and vehicle handling techniques. Just learning how to push the pedals and steer does NOT make you a good driver.

cheers,
Michael

Kinross

Excessive speed does not kill. A person not knowing how to drive kills. Also poorly designed roads kill.

US drivers do not take driving seriously. Drivers yap on the phone, put on their makeup, fiddle with gadgets, drink coffee all while operating a vehicle and failing to know what a "passing lane" is for.

The roads are in terrible shape with potholes and debris and designed without a thought to actually banking a turn.

Now lets look at a system that works, the German autobahn, a system with fewer deaths per mile. On the autobahn there are three lanes, slow, cruising, passing. Everyone knows what the lanes are and uses them accordingly.

The middle lane is cruising recommended at 130 km/h; trucks and slower vehicles go into the slow far right lane. Anyone wishing to pass does so in the far left lane, passes and moves over into the middle lane.

The roads are well maintained with no debris and have banked turns.

The drivers actually pay attention to the task of driving.

There are no police monitoring the speed limit, because there isn't one, so you don't have people slamming on the breaks at the sight of a cop car, possibly causing an accident.

As for stop light cameras this is the biggest scam going. The equipment manufactures have a contract with local municipality and take a cut of all the proceeds from the tickets. The manufactures also require a short yellow light to increase revenue. Guess what? It doesn't stop accidents it shifts them. There are fewer collisions in the intersection, which the municipality loves to tout but there is an increase in accidents before the intersection, which they fail to mention.

Edited to add:
Here is a report of the NHTSA caught lying about the autobahn to persaude states from not increasing the speed limit.

Here is a good book on the topic.

NialScorva

The worth of my life or your life?

The Other Michael

Hi AdamSmith,

Excessive speed is, by my definition (and how I've seen it used in columns in the enthusiast press), speed that is too fast for the conditions.

Excessive speed on a badly potholed/bumpy road could be 20mph, while on a wide open freeway with no traffic and perfect weather 180mph may not be excessive.

My point was that most people (it appears) will drive at a speed they feel is appropriate/safe for the current conditions.

Excessive speed may have little correlation with posted speed limits, and can be higher OR lower than the posted limit depending on the current conditions.

cheers,
Michael