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

New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

carexpert.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

#91

Post by toast0 »

jpc0 wrote: post #90
toast0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just convenience. AAA says > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 [1] If you reduce speeds and increase trip time by 1%, that's 930 million more hours, which is the equivalent of about 1000 lifetimes [2]. At some point you save lives from acute injuries but t…

> Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 I don't have a dog in this race but I want to spark conversation. I feel like assuming that saving 1% of those drivers time would lead to an increase in productivity, possibly a tiny increase in happiness but are you happy now dr…

I haven't watched numbers on many of my cars, but my Jetta SportWagen TDI had peak mpg right around 60 mph, at least it did when I had steered the wheel at all since startup ;). The gear ratios are setup to deliver peak efficiency at highway speeds, although you do hit a point where the v squared in drag wins. EV is different, because motors are strictly worse the faster they spin.

Vehicle provided instant MPG data is always a little suspect, of course.

Re: New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

#92

Post by dangus »

toast0 wrote: post #86
dangus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No of course that’s not my position, that’s quite a conclusion to jump to. But I’ve definitely seen a lot of drivers going 35-40mph in 25mph pedestrian-heavy zones where they should be driving the speed limit or possibly even slower. Those drivers are barely saving seconds of time in their travels while increasing the risk to bystanders dramatically. What I’m trying to say centers on this: You say you’ve seen restric…

It's not just convenience. AAA says > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 [1] If you reduce speeds and increase trip time by 1%, that's 930 million more hours, which is the equivalent of about 1000 lifetimes [2]. At some point you save lives from acute injuries but t…

By the sources I posted, about 1/3 of accident fatalities per year involved excessive speed.

Let's say slowing down saved a conservative 1/4 of those lives, that still beats the 1,000 lifetimes of sitting in traffic.

There are now around 40,000 fatal car crash deaths per year. Multiply 1/3 * 1/4 * 40,000 = 3,333 lives.

Plus, when you're sitting in traffic, you're not dead. If you have other people in the car it can be socializing time. If you're not the driver you could be working or playing video games, reading, or working. Or you can listen to podcasts/lectures/etc (I know how much HN loves their productive time).

Re: New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

#93

Post by hollerith »

dangus wrote: post #92
toast0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just convenience. AAA says > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 [1] If you reduce speeds and increase trip time by 1%, that's 930 million more hours, which is the equivalent of about 1000 lifetimes [2]. At some point you save lives from acute injuries but t…

By the sources I posted, about 1/3 of accident fatalities per year involved excessive speed. Let's say slowing down saved a conservative 1/4 of those lives, that still beats the 1,000 lifetimes of sitting in traffic. There are now around 40,000 fatal car crash deaths per year. Multiply 1/3 * 1/4 * 40,000 = 3,333 lives. Plus, when you're sitting in traffic, you're not dead. If you have other people in the car it can b…

But a road filled with idling cars has high pollution levels, so you have to factor in the reduction in life expectancy and increase in disability from exposure to that.

Re: New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

#94

Post by dangus »

hollerith wrote: post #93
dangus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the sources I posted, about 1/3 of accident fatalities per year involved excessive speed. Let's say slowing down saved a conservative 1/4 of those lives, that still beats the 1,000 lifetimes of sitting in traffic. There are now around 40,000 fatal car crash deaths per year. Multiply 1/3 * 1/4 * 40,000 = 3,333 lives. Plus, when you're sitting in traffic, you're not dead. If you have other people in the car it can b…

But a road filled with idling cars has high pollution levels, so you have to factor in the reduction in life expectancy and increase in disability from exposure to that.

Let's move the goalposts again I guess.

https://www.wired.com/story/is-there-an-optimal-driving-spee...

Even if your car is getting 45 mpg you shouldn't drive over 70mph if they want to conserve fuel/emissions, and if your car is getting a lower mpg rating than that you should be driving slower.

Re: New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

#95

Post by jpc0 »

toast0 wrote: post #91
jpc0 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 I don't have a dog in this race but I want to spark conversation. I feel like assuming that saving 1% of those drivers time would lead to an increase in productivity, possibly a tiny increase in happiness but are you happy now dr…

I haven't watched numbers on many of my cars, but my Jetta SportWagen TDI had peak mpg right around 60 mph, at least it did when I had steered the wheel at all since startup ;). The gear ratios are setup to deliver peak efficiency at highway speeds, although you do hit a point where the v squared in drag wins. EV is different, because motors are strictly worse the faster they spin. Vehicle provided instant MPG data i…

Ah so that is kind of the point I wanted to try and make.

The engine isn't any less efficient in lower gears. It's just that you are measuring MPG and not some other metric like hours per gallon.

If you are able to travel at 60 the entire time then sure, but at the same RPM your engine is consuming the same fuel in a lower gear.

I'm pretty sure that MPG value would also very aggressively change if you were constantly accelerating and deceleration to hit that 60 MPH number whereas it would in fact have been more efficient to travel at a lower constant speed.

Re: New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous

#96

Post by reportgunner »

DominikPeters wrote: post #83
reportgunner wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about ambulances, police cars and firetrucks, would you prevent them from speeding as well ?

No.

How do you stop people making speeding vehicles for firemen and medics from making speeding cars for themselves and their friends then ?
Post reply on HN