Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

algorithmsoup.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#111

Post by jcgrillo »

techdmn wrote: post #75
jcgrillo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "flying by on the right" thing feels like a recent (within the last ~decade?) phenomenon. Am I imagining it?

Unpopular opinion: People fly by on the right because someone else is camping in the left lane. The disclaimer is that with too much congestion the whole thing breaks down, and some people are determined to drive like idiots regardless, but it's worth examing why the right lane is open when the left lane isn't.

I've noticed that moving right to allow such people to pass on the left (say, in a 3 lane highway) often results in them riding right up behind me, slamming the brakes, and then being blocked out of the left lane. If they were actually driving attentively they would instead merge left and overtake. I suspect what's actually happening is they're playing with their phones, and here in the US drivers sit on the left hand side of the car. So the worst blind spot is when you're merging right. If you're attention-compromised (e.g. because you're constantly checking myspace or tinder or whatever on your phone) then you'll want to spend all your time in the right lane. It's safest that way because nobody can sneak into the blind spot.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#112

Post by lsllc »

jstarfish wrote: post #89
lsllc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a total lack of "lane discipline" (as Clarkson would say) in the US. In fact I'd argue that it's not a lack of discipline, but just a lack of understanding of how you should drive on a highway. People tend to migrate to the "fast" lanes (the left), so you naturally end up with people either passing on the right or tailgating them. Of course, you should always be in the right lanes except for passing. I do won…

> Of course, you should always be in the right lanes except for passing. I used to adhere to this but it does not work in practice. Right lanes have the highest churn-- people getting off, people getting on. If you're not planning to do either, you have no business being on that side of the road. This idea about left lanes only being for passing only ever works when you're overtaking a tractor doing 15mph on a countr…

Agreed, TBH on a quiet 4 line highway I'm in lane 2 to allow the ramp traffic easy on-off. I'll move left to pass if needed, but if there's someone going slower in the far lanes, I'll usually pass on the right to avoid moving over 3 lanes.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#113

Post by iJohnDoe »

FWIW - just estimates. I had a 30 mile commute. If I drove 65-75 I could make in about 25 minutes.

One night I was on-call and drove really fast in the middle of the night and it took about 18-20 minutes.

I realized it was never worth it to shave off a handful minutes and drive way too fast to any destination.

Basic math. When you get to a certain speed, you’re shaving off seconds/minutes. 65mph is certainly better than 35mph. 90mph isn’t really better than 65-75.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#114

Post by I_Am_Nous »

bagels wrote: post #56
tra3 wrote: post #34

I’ve learned “slow is smooth and smooth is fast” from shooting sports, but I find it applies equally well to most (all?) areas of life. When I started driving, I used to speed to the next stop light, change lanes frequently. I stopped doing this when I got older, partially because I see people that zip around at the same stop lights anyway.

It is also a phrase used in motor racing, hah.

It makes such a huge difference when you can smoothly move through the corners, smooth keeps your tires in traction and so you actually HAVE grip to push with, if needed. Plus the flow you can get into when hotlapping is so meditative for me lol

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#115

Post by hansvm »

codeflo wrote: post #3

Why would you add the lost life expectancy to the length of the trip? That doesn’t make any mathematical sense to me. Edit (this might be wrong, see Edit 2 below -- I'm leaving this as is because otherwise, some of the responses don't make sense): I noticed that the calculation is wrong even within the article's own logic. Supposedly, this calculates "the expected length of the trip (including dead time) at different…

Most trips have no fatalities. Yes, you could make the point that 1/n trips should be half the length. It's a rounding error to consider that or not, and the rest of the post would still stand.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#116

Post by tonyedgecombe »

pseudo0 wrote: post #79
tasty_freeze wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is amazing when the driver says, "I just didn't see him!" and that is accepted as a reasonable explanation. I think it is because the overwhelming number of drivers (in the US) haven't ridden a bike since they were children. A judge and most of the jurors fall into that category, and they empathize with the driver, as they could imagine themselves doing the exact same thing that the driver did.

It's because a driver can do everything right and still miss a cyclist. Humans aren't infallible, and driving is an extremely complex task. In many cases it's an issue of bad road design or cyclists not following the rules of the road. For a driver to be held criminally responsible they have to be negligent, eg. using a cellphone, speeding, distracted, etc. From my own experience interacting with cyclists on the road…

>From my own experience interacting with cyclists on the road, the riskiest situations I saw were ones the cyclist created. Eg. Running reds, doing 15+ mph on the sidewalk, lane-splitting, etc.

In the UK the most common cause of cycling fatalities is being rear ended. Risky behaviour by cyclists is rarely to blame for accidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling...

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#117

Post by tonyedgecombe »

jstarfish wrote: post #90
konschubert wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure you don't mean it this way, but this suggests a false equivalency. If a cyclist does not wear a helmet and gets killed by a driver running a red light, it is still 100% the driver's fault. A kill is still a kill even if the victim didn't wear a bulletproof vest.

If we're talking US law, you are absolutely incorrect and making a false equivalence yourself. A murder victim is not a MVC victim. Only the collision is 100% the driver's fault (in most states). The death is up for debate. If you die because you weren't wearing a seatbelt/helmet, you were negligent, so fault is shared. There is no law mandating everyone wear bulletproof vests. All states have seatbelt laws, and most…

>and most have helmet laws

For cyclists?

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#118

Post by tonyedgecombe »

jdboyd wrote: post #101

I found this very entertaining. However he also forgot to include anticipated delays from speeding tickets. I'm sure there are other things that should have been factored in as well, such as sometimes increased waits at lights because you arrived earlier at it, so 25 or 65 would make no difference in how long it takes to get to the ither side of the light.

The big one is stress from the hustle and bustle in the outside lane. I tend to drive at 65mph on our motorways which is 5mph less than the limit. Fast enough to not get stuck between the trucks but you don't spend the whole journey trying to squeeze past people who are doing the same as you.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#119

Post by tonyedgecombe »

giantg2 wrote: post #80
bagels wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the same thing when researching motorcycle fatality rates. Yes, they are dangerous, but something like 50% of fatalities involved a drunk motorcycle rider. I don't recall the stats for not wearing gear.

It really is surprising to dig into the stats around alcohol, drugs, and non-use of existing safety systems. We end up with a lot of discussions on all sort of new laws but a lot of the problem is that the existing laws and tools aren't used. I was not aware of the 50% alcohol involvement in motorcycle fatalities, but it doesn't surprise me. About 35% of all vehicle fatalities involve drunk driving, 50% of all pedest…

>but 60% of cyclist fatalities did not use a helmet.

I wonder what portion of those would have been a fatality even with a helmet. Cycling helmets are flimsy things.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#120

Post by tonyedgecombe »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #102
photochemsyn wrote: post #14

The safest driving speed on busy roads is the speed everyone else is going. If everyone would drive this way, overtaking accidents (often very serious injury-wise) would be eliminated. This means slow drivers are just as dangerous as fast drivers, and also points to why self-driving cars would greatly reduce highway accidents. Assuming they'd all be monitoring each other's speeds, they could coordinate like swarms of…

In my country (the UK), the penalties for driving dangerously due to being too slow are usually greater than the penalties for speeding. Being unreasonably slow could make other drivers more likely to overtake and have a head-on collision, or hit other cars when re-merging back onto their side. Single-track country roads are the most problematic, though, as everyone has a different idea of what the safe speed is - an…

Most people have terrible overtaking skills, they sit too close behind the car they are going to overtake, are in the wrong gear and don't accelerate hard enough when they do go. Either that or are too timid and just sit behind slow vehicles causing a long tailback.
Post reply on HN