I could be wrong but it looks like a dual direction dash cam. Since it’s the internet, the text and pic might have never been related. Also, the person doing over 70 in a 50 couldn’t overtake at 20? The whole thing seems like rage bait.
I never really looked into this (relation between speed limits and accidents/safety), so I figured I’d verify your statement with a quick google search and it turns out you’ve got it all wrong. There is a deep well established link between speed limits and accident risk, see for example here:
We’re talking about speeding and you post some study about absolute speed? GTFO🤣.
You want to talk about absolute risk? What’s the increase in risk when you set an arbitrarily low speed limit on a highway clearly able to handle high speeds? When you look at the reality of induced road rage and creating large deltas in speed?
You’d be that politician giving yourself a pat on the back while ignoring the actual effects of your policy.
I would actually hear you answer these questions. I don’t see how lengthening break zones, decreasing reaction time and so on wouldn’t increase risks more than people being getting dangerously mad at the speedlimit. And as a cronic speeder i would like to have something other than shrugs and shitty excuse for my behavior.
Most people don’t drive speed limits. They drive the speed the road is designed for. When you put arbitrarily slow limits on highways most speed. Those that don’t then create dangerous speed deltas and road rage. These well known behaviors are already included and designed into the stats and engineering.
Typically highways will have higher percentage of fatal incidents but a much much much lower frequency and lower absolute number per mile. Well designed variable rate highways, even with a higher % fatality rate overall are safer.
NHTSA
Road Type Crash Rate (per 100M VMT) Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT)
By pushing traffic more quickly and reducing congestion you’ll lower the totals while increasing the frequency that an individual is killed.
The speed must be designed into the infrastructure and if you’re designing roads where you commonly have a 20 mph delta it’s likely a shitty designed urban artery. And unless you’re going to invest in trains and start kicking people off the road or put them into debt for speeding, people are going to do what makes sense at the time.
Oh hey, some guy mouthing off who doesn’t understand how relative and absolute risk work who just went off to have Google to search for the phrase that validates their assumptions. Rare sighting indeed.
Facts don’t care about your feelings. You’ve presented zero evidence to the contrary, how are you this confident about your assertion? This is such a joke
I mean, the text say the guy honked for going “70 in a 50”.
If you take it at face value, the person posting is the asshole and a terrible driver endangering everybody on the road.
She’s taking selfies while driving, clearly she’s the better person
I could be wrong but it looks like a dual direction dash cam. Since it’s the internet, the text and pic might have never been related. Also, the person doing over 70 in a 50 couldn’t overtake at 20? The whole thing seems like rage bait.
The other person would have to be doing 70 as well, in order to honk at them.
Sure. There can be more than one terrible driver endangering everybody on the road at the same time.
I’m constantly, endlessly disappointed at how hard it is for human brains to accept that two people disagreeing with each other can both be wrong.
The only thing I was in disagreement over was that you said “was the asshole”.
When they were both assholes all along.
The destination was the assholes we met all along.
The alternative interpretation is that the second driver was doing 50, and honked at the first driver when they passed doing 70.
I mean, fair enough, on a technicality at least.
Could’ve honked while being overtaken
And the other guy is the bigger asshole for honking at the poster for going too slowly when she’s doing 20 over.
If you take it all at face value, that is.
No one is in danger strictly because of 20 over. Please. Our speed limits are insane and not grounded in safety.
The forces involved in a collision grow exponentially with speed. It’s basic physics
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 bravo. Further showing the lack of understanding. Just fantastic.
More speed = more danger. Simple as that.
Source: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/speeding
👌👍
I never really looked into this (relation between speed limits and accidents/safety), so I figured I’d verify your statement with a quick google search and it turns out you’ve got it all wrong. There is a deep well established link between speed limits and accident risk, see for example here:
https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/eu-road-safety-policy/priorities/safe-road-use/safe-speed/archive/speeding/speed-central-issue-road-safety/speed-and-accident-risk_en
Now you know! :)
We’re talking about speeding and you post some study about absolute speed? GTFO🤣.
You want to talk about absolute risk? What’s the increase in risk when you set an arbitrarily low speed limit on a highway clearly able to handle high speeds? When you look at the reality of induced road rage and creating large deltas in speed?
You’d be that politician giving yourself a pat on the back while ignoring the actual effects of your policy.
I would actually hear you answer these questions. I don’t see how lengthening break zones, decreasing reaction time and so on wouldn’t increase risks more than people being getting dangerously mad at the speedlimit. And as a cronic speeder i would like to have something other than shrugs and shitty excuse for my behavior.
Most people don’t drive speed limits. They drive the speed the road is designed for. When you put arbitrarily slow limits on highways most speed. Those that don’t then create dangerous speed deltas and road rage. These well known behaviors are already included and designed into the stats and engineering.
Typically highways will have higher percentage of fatal incidents but a much much much lower frequency and lower absolute number per mile. Well designed variable rate highways, even with a higher % fatality rate overall are safer.
NHTSA Road Type Crash Rate (per 100M VMT) Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT)
Urban Local Roads ~350–500+ ~1.5–2.0 Rural Local Roads ~200–300 ~2.0–3.0 Urban Collectors ~200–300 ~1.0–1.5 Urban Arterials ~100–200 ~1.2–1.8 Rural Arterials ~80–150 ~1.5–2.5 Urban Freeways/Interstates ~60–100 ~0.5–1.0 Rural Interstates ~40–80 ~0.6–1.3
By pushing traffic more quickly and reducing congestion you’ll lower the totals while increasing the frequency that an individual is killed.
The speed must be designed into the infrastructure and if you’re designing roads where you commonly have a 20 mph delta it’s likely a shitty designed urban artery. And unless you’re going to invest in trains and start kicking people off the road or put them into debt for speeding, people are going to do what makes sense at the time.
Thank you for a well writen respone!
Oh hey look a guy on the internet who doesn’t when someone contradicts his baseless claims with evidence. There’s something you don’t see every day.
Oh hey, some guy mouthing off who doesn’t understand how relative and absolute risk work who just went off to have Google to search for the phrase that validates their assumptions. Rare sighting indeed.
Facts don’t care about your feelings. You’ve presented zero evidence to the contrary, how are you this confident about your assertion? This is such a joke
Get ratioed and take a stats class.