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

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#121

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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…

>The safest driving speed on busy roads is the speed everyone else is going.

That's a recipe for pileups. People lose concentration in a convoy and as soon as something bad happens up front everybody piles in. People aren't computers, they need some variability to keep them alert.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#122

Post by tim333 »

theamk wrote: post #51
alexwhb wrote: post #16

While the methods in this post may not be a super accurate depiction of reality.. I did find it entertaining. Additionally I agree generally with the point the post is making. It is shocking to me that we accept so whole heartedly the risk associated with driving when, comparatively, it is shockingly unsafe relative to other modes of transportation. In the US somewhere around 41,000 people die per year from traffic a…

I think that analysis captures why people drive very well actually. Let's assume trains are 32x safer in US as well: Car: 2 hour 32 minutes driving door to door + 37 minutes of death = 3 hour 9 minutes Train: 2 hour 37 minutes on train + 1 minute of death + 30 minute early arrive buffer + 30 minutes public transport to departure + 30 minutes public transport to destination = 4 hours 8 minutes Trains already lose, unl…

I guess it depends on the details. I do a journey regularly that is about the same time, an hour, by car or by train + tube + walk. I tend to do the train because I can sit and work on something whereas in the car you can't. It's changed with time - I used to like driving but find it a bit tedious now.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#124

Post by giantg2 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #117
jstarfish wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most do have some cyclist helmet law. However, only a few have laws that apply to adults. Most are only applied to children of various ages.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#125

Post by giantg2 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #119
giantg2 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are not flimsy, mnless you are buying some sort of uncertified junk (rare). There are several different rating agencies that test and rate the helmets. Wearing a helmet isn't foolproof, and one could certainly die if the impact raring is exceeded or if they suffered severe trauma to another area. However, studies seem to indicate a 60-70% reduction in head and brain injuries and about a 65-70% reduction in fatalities. Clearly they are a significant factor.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#126

Post by alexwhb »

jethro_tell wrote: post #27
kragen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i just spent three hours on the bus today and i would much rather have spent an hour in a car instead, though my risk of dying would surely be higher there are a lot of places within 100 km of my house that i'd enjoy visiting but where public transport doesn't go. if i had a car, i could go there easily. if that means shortening my life expectancy by 20 minutes, that seems like a worthwhile tradeoff. the risk i'd be…

I'd you shorten your life expectancy by 20 min but get 2 hours back today it seems like a fair trade. And that's why public transit in the us is such a mess, if you want people to use it, you have to make it fast and frequent before people need it, so when you do use it, you thin, huh, that's not too bad.

This I definitely agree with. A bus is the worst mode. Most of the downsides of a car with very few if any of rail especially in places with significant traffic. If you replaced that bus experience with light rail, almost certainly you’d be at your destination several times faster

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#127

Post by alexwhb »

mcmoor wrote: post #106
kragen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i just spent three hours on the bus today and i would much rather have spent an hour in a car instead, though my risk of dying would surely be higher there are a lot of places within 100 km of my house that i'd enjoy visiting but where public transport doesn't go. if i had a car, i could go there easily. if that means shortening my life expectancy by 20 minutes, that seems like a worthwhile tradeoff. the risk i'd be…

Bus, specifically, has the worst UX of both worlds. You still get the unreliability of being on road (so still getting/contributing traffic jams) and the suffocation of train (due to being crowded public transportation). I mostly avoid it in favor of trains or cars, or even motorbikes since it's ubiquitous in my country, unless that's literally the only option I can get.

Totally agree. The only exception to this is buses with dedicated lanes. Not say they are as good as trains, but at least don’t have the traffic issues.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#128

Post by alexwhb »

theamk wrote: post #51
alexwhb wrote: post #16

While the methods in this post may not be a super accurate depiction of reality.. I did find it entertaining. Additionally I agree generally with the point the post is making. It is shocking to me that we accept so whole heartedly the risk associated with driving when, comparatively, it is shockingly unsafe relative to other modes of transportation. In the US somewhere around 41,000 people die per year from traffic a…

I think that analysis captures why people drive very well actually. Let's assume trains are 32x safer in US as well: Car: 2 hour 32 minutes driving door to door + 37 minutes of death = 3 hour 9 minutes Train: 2 hour 37 minutes on train + 1 minute of death + 30 minute early arrive buffer + 30 minutes public transport to departure + 30 minutes public transport to destination = 4 hours 8 minutes Trains already lose, unl…

I think it depends on what type of rail you’re referring to here. If you’re in a city like LA where more or less no matter what your car drive will take hours… I think a dedicated rail would actually save people time. Obviously there would need to be huge investment in new infrastructure for that to happen.

When I lived in NYC same dynamics… it would have actually taken significantly longer in most cases to drive than take the subway.

So I think it depends on how a city is laid out and planned. If public transportation was not a priority and kinda shimmed in then totally, but in cities where they prioritize public transportation generally it’s a better experience than driving.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#129

Post by alexwhb »

afiori wrote: post #110
theamk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that analysis captures why people drive very well actually. Let's assume trains are 32x safer in US as well: Car: 2 hour 32 minutes driving door to door + 37 minutes of death = 3 hour 9 minutes Train: 2 hour 37 minutes on train + 1 minute of death + 30 minute early arrive buffer + 30 minutes public transport to departure + 30 minutes public transport to destination = 4 hours 8 minutes Trains already lose, unl…

for any random trip it is far more likely that the car will be a better choice, but likely trip choice is a power law with most trips focusing on few routes. This to say that the purpose of trains is not to be better than cars at what car do, but rather to allow as many people as possible not to need a car for most trips. Depending on how trips are distributed this can be anywhere from easy to impossible.

I think this is true in the US where everything is designed around the car, but not as true in Europe. Somewhere like Amsterdam it’s actually generally faster to ride a bike than anything else. Also for longer trips high speed rail can be significantly faster and cheaper. So I think it really depends on the city context.

Re: Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)

#130

Post by alexwhb »

wongarsu wrote: post #32
alexwhb wrote: post #16

While the methods in this post may not be a super accurate depiction of reality.. I did find it entertaining. Additionally I agree generally with the point the post is making. It is shocking to me that we accept so whole heartedly the risk associated with driving when, comparatively, it is shockingly unsafe relative to other modes of transportation. In the US somewhere around 41,000 people die per year from traffic a…

> it’s pretty interesting to me that especially US society has accepted these facts so seemingly easily Because in the 1960s and 70s the US was rebuilt to be entirely car-dependent. And most Americans today accept that as the norm, because the only places they know that are different are New York and those quaint European and Asian cities rich people travel to.

Very true. Actually fun fact… historically LA had the biggest rail network in the U.S. i believe it was over 1000 miles. The ripped it all out for lots of reasons, but arguably one was that the car companies bought many of the rail lines and scrapped them. What a shame.
Post reply on HN