Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
No it doesn't. It slows people down. And that's safer every day of the week.
The less the speed differential between cars on the road, the safer the road. Someone said it earlier, an elderly dude going 45 when everyone else is going 65 is just as dangerous as someone going 85 when everyone else is going 65.
The speed differential is what limits reaction times. Eliminate that differential and you have a safer road.
Come on, argue the logic. You're all tied up in the fact that I'm a combative jerk. Cool your heads and debate. Explain to me how I'm wrong? GMScud said this point could be argued the other way, well I still haven't heard anyone argue it.
|
Ok. I'll take a stab at it.
First off, let me say that I don't really condone going 95mph. I'll go 85 in a 75 all day if conditions permit (very light traffic, no adverse weather, etc).
But if someone is in the fast lane going 95 in straight line, I think they are less of a danger to cause an accident than someone raging at 75mph.
A couple of things about that last sentence: 1) Someone going 95 is always going to be at risk of causing a wreck, I just contend it's LESS of a risk than a road rager going 20mph slower. 2) My definition of road rage involves things like aggressively weaving through slower traffic without signaling. Also tailgating, flashing your lights, and showing emotion at people who's driving you don't approve of (middle fingers, etc).
If someone is that overly aggressive, weaving through lanes, and so focused on other drivers rather than operating their own vehicle safely, I think they are WAY more likely to cause a wreck than someone focused on the road, going 20mph faster in a straight line. It seems like common sense to me really. You mention speed differential affecting reaction times. I don't disagree with that, but the I'd say the road rage behavior I discussed above would have a pretty adverse affect on reaction times as well.
Again, I don't approve of either behavior.