Originally Posted by Jay Turberville

Or the failure to actually calculate risk. In most situations, faster is riskier. And it tends to increase risk geometrically, not linearly. Reaction time, braking distance and even effective field of view are all worse. Yes, there are exceptions where faster is better - such as traveling at the same or very similar speed as accompanying traffic. For sure, slower is riskier in that situation.



Maybe looking at the statistics on the likelihood of death at different vehicle collision speeds you would have you reconsider. The kinetic energy of your body at 100 mph (I'm not counting any "plus") is 2.36 times that if it is travelling at 65 mph. And going 65 mph has about twice the kinetic energy of going 45 mph. If you actually collide with something solid head on at 45 mph, your risk of survival is about 50/50. So its important to get the car down to below that speed . At 100 mph, you need to scrub off about 75% of your kinetic energy to have a decent chance of survival.

And I guess that's my main point. I don't think most people understand how much adding speed multiplies the risk of death and injury and likelihood of having an accident. Dropping to 30 mph from 45 mph halves the energy once again. And this is why pedestrian deaths are so much less likely at 30 mph and almost nonexistent at 20 mph (another halving of kinetic energy). The kinetic energy of the car is low enough at those speeds to give the unprotected pedestrian a good chance of survival..