Highway to hell

[Abe]

This is a rant. Feel free to ignore, but there is a question at the end. 

I live close to my main work, but have to drive once a week to a clinic to provide better access for patients who don't want to or can't regularly drive downtown. That's all good and obviously important. The problem is that every time I've driven down there since starting in January, there has been at least one major accident either coming or going. Last week there were 5, including two pile-ups. It is not an especially crowded or poorly marked interstate highway, has 4 lanes each way, and is basically a straight line through flat fields. While rubber-necking, I've noticed almost all of these involve someone colliding into the back of someone else. This makes sense since I am almost always tailgated despite going 5-10 over the 65mph speed limit in the right-most lane. People seem to make a point of tailgating me instead of going to one of the other (usually empty) three lanes.

Most of the vehicles are pickup trucks and medium-sized delivery trucks. The semi-truck drivers do not tailgate and I prefer driving in front of them (but usually some jerk slides in between us for no reason). I drive a Prius, so feel like I'm a sitting duck. As a result, I'm thinking of upgrading to an SUV (hopefully an electric one, maybe the VW ID.4). I hate the idea of driving excess weight around, but one can't ignore physics. Being rear-ended by a F-350 going 75mph will not end well, but hopefully less unwell with a heavier vehicle.

Does buying an SUV make sense, assuming crash test ratings are similar for whatever I choose and the Prius?  Advice is appreciated!

[Metalcat]

You're seriously concerned about being aggressively rear ended by psychopaths on a weirdly aggro highway and your solution is to buy an SUV?

[NumberJohnny5]

I understand you may not want to give details of just where this road is...but there is a section of interstate that every time I've driven, I've seen someone do something so reckless it could cause an accident (crossing multiple lanes in order to take an exit is the last example...they barely missed hitting anyone and nearly got the barricade...another time someone hit the barricade for no good reason, just not paying attention, another time...). Anyway, I just avoid that section. If we're talking a mile or five section, could you do the same? If we're talking a long stretch...well, one accident coming OR coming in, say, a 60 mile stretch isn't that bad. Regardless of what vehicle you have, the best way to survive an accident is to avoid it in the first place.

That said, I'd rely on safety ratings. Make sure you can see well when driving that vehicle. You want a good bit of power to quickly maneuver out of the way (electric cars tend to be pretty good at this, the older Prius I used to have wasn't too shabby in Sport mode, maybe keep it in that mode when on this stretch of road?). But yeah, all else equal, the bigger the vehicle the safer YOU are. It becomes a bit of a game of chicken, but that's not what you asked.

[deborah]

Are you sure there's no alternative route? Even something that takes you twice as long? You only do it once a week.

[Metalcat]

^except, aren't SUVs only safer "for you" in a head-on collision?

Otherwise, aren't they much more prone to rolling, which is usually quite deadly? Which is something I would worry about being rear ended at high speed, since you're likely to end up sideways?

[Abe]

@Malcat: first comment: yes, as noted in my post. It is supported by this data: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/passenger-vehicle-occupants  (- they annoyingly don’t label the figures or tables, but there is one showing feather per million registered cars, and suv drivers have a substantially lower death rate. They don’t adjust for millions miles driven, but that’s what I could find.
Comment 2: Rollovers are the least common type of motor vehicle collision, but do account for a disproportionate death rate. Older SUV models were more prone to this but rates are similar to passenger cars now (last figure on that page).

This is the best data I could find, but don’t know much about crash statistics beyond what we learned for trauma, which wasn't much. Anyone have special expertise in this field?

I’ve looked at alternate routes to the interstate, but the only reasonable one is a rural highway that is poorly maintained. Appreciate everyone’s advice so far, though.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Anecdotally, I personally would not want an SUV because of the roll-over situation - or at the very least, I certainly wouldn't buy it for safety. I have a clear memory on an interstate of slamming on my brakes because of some sort of quick stoppage in front of me. I was fine - angled a little towards the median for more space (I was in the left lane), and everything was fine. I distinctly remember the SUV behind me not being able to stop, trying to do the same thing, and all I saw was as it angled to the left and hit its brake, it skidded to a 90-degree angle to me and then it started a full-on action movie roll. Anything that can roll that easily (I didn't feel anywhere close to that in my car in the same situation) does not excite me for safety.

[NumberJohnny5]

You'd be surprised at what they call an SUV nowadays. Some just look like a large car. In fact, I've had full-sized cars that had more room than what can be called an SUV nowadays.

I'm going to throw out the idea of a minivan if you want something that actually has the utility of an SUV, but tends to be safe (again, and I can't stress this enough, do your own research on safety ratings on whatever you look to buy...what if the stranger on the internet was WRONG and the minivan you picked is a death trap?). I have a 2017 Kia Sedona, the thing has EXCELLENT safety ratings, and I do feel safe driving it, even with the whole family. I also have a 2018 Chevy Bolt, and I do feel pretty safe but in a different way. If I knew I was getting in an accident, I'd want to be in the Sedona. If I knew I might get in an accident, I'd probably go with the Bolt. The Sedona is tougher, the Bolt is more maneuverable (hit the "gas" and it'll take off, even if you're already going 70mph). Taken another way...if you kinda zone out on your drives and are paying close attention to what YOU are doing but maybe not so much what everyone else is doing...Sedona. If you're hyper-aware of everything going on and are ready to swerve into an empty lane if someone suddenly tries to sideswipe you (because you are always keeping a mental note of what lanes are open for such a maneuver)...Bolt.

[Metalcat]

@Malcat: first comment: yes, as noted in my post. It is supported by this data: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/passenger-vehicle-occupants  (- they annoyingly don’t label the figures or tables, but there is one showing feather per million registered cars, and suv drivers have a substantially lower death rate. They don’t adjust for millions miles driven, but that’s what I could find.
Comment 2: Rollovers are the least common type of motor vehicle collision, but do account for a disproportionate death rate. Older SUV models were more prone to this but rates are similar to passenger cars now (last figure on that page).

This is the best data I could find, but don’t know much about crash statistics beyond what we learned for trauma, which wasn't much. Anyone have special expertise in this field?

I’ve looked at alternate routes to the interstate, but the only reasonable one is a rural highway that is poorly maintained. Appreciate everyone’s advice so far, though.

My point was that if your life is literally in that much danger, I would be looking at lifestyle modifications to change that, not just driving a bigger car.

[scantee]

^except, aren't SUVs only safer "for you" in a head-on collision?

Otherwise, aren't they much more prone to rolling, which is usually quite deadly? Which is something I would worry about being rear ended at high speed, since you're likely to end up sideways?

They are also much less safe for pedestrians. In the US at least, we’re increasingly doing worse in terms of pedestrian safety and a big reason for that is the rise in popularity of SUVs which are heavier and hit higher up on the body.

When does this vehicle size arms race end? Over the last few years there has been an explosion in the number of comically large trucks in my urban neighborhood. The grill on these things comes up at least to my shoulder and I’m not short. Vehicles that were considered roomy 10 years ago are now considered small because everyone keeps sizing up so they can feel safe. In 10 more years everyone will be driving tanks.

[norajean]

Rear-end collisions tend to be minor because of the physics of both vehicles moving the same direction. On highways they typically occur during braking when following too close. Typical damage is to the rear of the struck car and injuries restricted to whiplash. I would just make sure your head restraints are in place and watch your review mirror. Use your brake lights to let people know you are braking well in advance. You are over reacting or displacing your frustration about the slow moving traffic or fact nobody likes a Prius in their way.

[Morning Glory]

^except, aren't SUVs only safer "for you" in a head-on collision?

Otherwise, aren't they much more prone to rolling, which is usually quite deadly? Which is something I would worry about being rear ended at high speed, since you're likely to end up sideways?

They are also much less safe for pedestrians. In the US at least, we’re increasingly doing worse in terms of pedestrian safety and a big reason for that is the rise in popularity of SUVs which are heavier and hit higher up on the body.

When does this vehicle size arms race end? Over the last few years there has been an explosion in the number of comically large trucks in my urban neighborhood. The grill on these things comes up at least to my shoulder and I’m not short. Vehicles that were considered roomy 10 years ago are now considered small because everyone keeps sizing up so they can feel safe. In 10 more years everyone will be driving tanks.

I'm in agreement here. All these larger vehicles make the roads less safe for cyclists and pedestrians.

Could you adjust the time of day in which you are on the road to avoid the worst traffic?

[Just Joe]

^except, aren't SUVs only safer "for you" in a head-on collision?

Otherwise, aren't they much more prone to rolling, which is usually quite deadly? Which is something I would worry about being rear ended at high speed, since you're likely to end up sideways?

I wonder how prone to rollover an SUV with a huge heavy battery under the floor is.

[EvenSteven]

Is it possible that the other cars are getting in position to exit the freeway, or have just merged behind you? If there are empty lanes as you say, I would try driving the second most right lane to allow cars to more freely enter and exit the freeway to see if that alleviated some of the tailgating.

[gooki]

^except, aren't SUVs only safer "for you" in a head-on collision?

Otherwise, aren't they much more prone to rolling, which is usually quite deadly? Which is something I would worry about being rear ended at high speed, since you're likely to end up sideways?

I wonder how prone to rollover an SUV with a huge heavy battery under the floor is.

Significantly lower than their gas powered siblings.

[Sibley]

You're getting tailgated going 10 over in the 65mph zone in the right lane.

I see 3 options:
1. Speed up. If traffic is moving at 85, and you're going 75, then you need to hit the gas. It doesn't matter if the posted speed limit is 65 - the practical limit is whatever the overall traffic is doing.
2. Move to the 2nd to the right lane. Yeah, you're still going slower than traffic, but you might be ok as they'll pass you on the right or left.
3. Find a different route.

Note that none of these options involve buying a different vehicle.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

If you are being tailgated frequently it means you are driving too slowly relative to all the other traffic. The practical solution - unless there is a speed gun pointed at your car - is to speed up or change lanes into the least-used lane.

[Abe]

I’ll try the second to right lane and see how that goes. I go after rush hour, so none of the lanes have much traffic, which just makes the tailgating weird. However I can see how the right lane should be kept open. There are literally three other lanes people could choose from when tailgating (and I’m not the only one being tailgated, so don’t think it’s related to my speed). Never seen anything like it elsewhere. Appreciate the advice on the maneuverability of whatever car I get. I have had to abruptly change lanes to avoid collisions in the past (surprising number of people don’t really look to see if the lane they are moving into is occupied or not). The Prius isn’t especially maneuverable but is reasonably good.

Regarding the arms race: I’d be the equivalent of Bhutan on this highway (or Texas in general). Rear-end collisions have low fatality rates regardless of car type, but that isn’t the only outcome of a tailgating collision on a highway, due to the speeds involved. Spin-outs are common, especially if hit at a slight angle. The data suggest (with the limitation of not being per million miles travelled, which is probably a more useful statistic) that SUVs have a lower fatality rate in most types of collisions, and rollover rates are equivalent to cars now. Going well over the safe limit isn’t an option I’m going to consider. The highway is already littered with enough accidents.

[Metalcat]

I’ll try the second to right lane and see how that goes. I go after rush hour, so none of the lanes have much traffic, which just makes the tailgating weird. However I can see how the right lane should be kept open. There are literally three other lanes people could choose from when tailgating (and I’m not the only one being tailgated, so don’t think it’s related to my speed). Never seen anything like it elsewhere. Appreciate the advice on the maneuverability of whatever car I get. I have had to abruptly change lanes to avoid collisions in the past (surprising number of people don’t really look to see if the lane they are moving into is occupied or not). The Prius isn’t especially maneuverable but is reasonably good.

Regarding the arms race: I’d be the equivalent of Bhutan on this highway (or Texas in general). Rear-end collisions have low fatality rates regardless of car type, but that isn’t the only outcome of a tailgating collision on a highway, due to the speeds involved. Spin-outs are common, especially if hit at a slight angle. The data suggest (with the limitation of not being per million miles travelled, which is probably a more useful statistic) that SUVs have a lower fatality rate in most types of collisions, and rollover rates are equivalent to cars now. Going well over the safe limit isn’t an option I’m going to consider. The highway is already littered with enough accidents.

If your highway is legitimately more dangerous than other stretches of similar highway, then you should also be complaining to whatever local authority is responsible for it.

[Abe]

Yeah, that's a good point. They really should have more traffic cameras to encourage people to slow down or something. The road is well maintained, it's the drivers that are the problem. I guess all the other big cities I've lived in had traffic that was so jammed that tailgating didn't matter (bumper to bumper, etc).

[Travis]

A crowded highway with frequent pile ups also means the bigger the vehicle, the larger missile you become to the cars around you if you're ever thrown off course.

[GuitarStv]

This makes sense since I am almost always tailgated despite going 5-10 over the 65mph speed limit in the right-most lane. People seem to make a point of tailgating me instead of going to one of the other (usually empty) three lanes.

If you're in the right most lane, moving above the limit and someone is tailgating you while there are empty passing lanes - there's an easy fix.

Put on your hazard lights, and let your foot off the accelerator.  Your vehicle will lose speed as it coasts down, and the person behind you will be forced to either come to a stop with you or pass.  Since the tailgater is just being an asshole, my money is on them not really wanting to make themselves late for whatever they're driving to.

Once they've passed, you can slowly come back up to speed with nobody tailgating.

[Metalcat]

This makes sense since I am almost always tailgated despite going 5-10 over the 65mph speed limit in the right-most lane. People seem to make a point of tailgating me instead of going to one of the other (usually empty) three lanes.

If you're in the right most lane, moving above the limit and someone is tailgating you while there are empty passing lanes - there's an easy fix.

Put on your hazard lights, and let your foot off the accelerator.  Your vehicle will lose speed as it coasts down, and the person behind you will be forced to either come to a stop with you or pass.  Since the tailgater is just being an asshole, my money is on them not really wanting to make themselves late for whatever they're driving too.

Once they've passed, you can slowly come back up to speed with nobody tailgating.

This is how I deal with tailgaters as well. I slow down steadily until the person gets fed up and passes.

That said, I never stay in the right lane on a multi-lane highway with a lot of on-ramps and exits, that's just silly. Stick to the middle lane and you'll have fewer people tailing you in general.

[RWD]

Studies have shown that driving at the 85th percentile speed is safest (i.e. you are faster than 85% of the other cars on the road). Faster or slower than this has a higher risk of being in an accident. It sounds like you may need to speed up a bit to get to this safer speed.

I agree with others that replacing your vehicle out of a concern for safety is probably misplaced. Changing driving habits and/or routes will go much farther to increasing your safety than changing the vehicle.

If you are getting a new(er) vehicle anyway then sure think about safety. But keep in mind that bigger isn't always better. There is something to be said for a nimble car that can more easily avoid an accident in the first place. That said, I don't particularly consider the VW ID.4 to be a large vehicle (its classified as a compact crossover) and its probably a very reasonable middle ground between tiny econobox and ginormous SUV.

[dougules]

It would be one thing if you did that commute daily, but are you sure the risk is really that high for something you only do once a week, especially if you're doing what you can do to be safer than the average driver on that stretch of road?  Buying a completely different vehicle is pretty drastic. 

[ericrugiero]

Your best safety improvement is probably in how you drive.  A busy highway is a different animal and there is a specific skill to driving safely. 

Drive with the flow of traffic.  Going much slower than other people is more dangerous.  The odds of a wreck go down and the odds of a ticket are still low if lots of people are passing you. 

Don't drive in the far right lane.  If it's busy enough that there are 4 lanes, there are probably lots of exits and entrances.  Leave the right lane open for people merging.  You are probably being tailgated by people who are preparing to exit.  One of the middle two lanes is your best bet. 

Leave plenty of room in front of you.  Even if you are being tailgated, the odds of being rear-ended are low if you don't have to stop suddenly. 

Slow gradually if you are being tailgated so that the tailgater goes around you. 

[Wrenchturner]

This makes sense since I am almost always tailgated despite going 5-10 over the 65mph speed limit in the right-most lane. People seem to make a point of tailgating me instead of going to one of the other (usually empty) three lanes.

If you're in the right most lane, moving above the limit and someone is tailgating you while there are empty passing lanes - there's an easy fix.

Put on your hazard lights, and let your foot off the accelerator.  Your vehicle will lose speed as it coasts down, and the person behind you will be forced to either come to a stop with you or pass.  Since the tailgater is just being an asshole, my money is on them not really wanting to make themselves late for whatever they're driving too.

Once they've passed, you can slowly come back up to speed with nobody tailgating.

This is how I deal with tailgaters as well. I slow down steadily until the person gets fed up and passes.

That said, I never stay in the right lane on a multi-lane highway with a lot of on-ramps and exits, that's just silly. Stick to the middle lane and you'll have fewer people tailing you in general.

Same here.

Alternatively, can you offset your departure times by several hours to displace your commute out of rush hour?

[Abe]

I’ll try the slowing down technique if it’s a really close tailgate. Interesting anecdata- I drove on on the loop around downtown and didn’t have any issues. My colleagues say that’s true for their daily commute, too. The one who goes on the same highway as I do says he has the same problem. Will report if the techniques help tomorrow! I drive to the clinic after rush hour (and it’s also a reverse commute, hence the rampant reckless speeding in my direction).

 @RWD do you recall the study’s name or what group published it? Just curious about that, makes sense that being way too slow is dangerous.

We’re thinking of switch cars anyway to take advantage of the tax break on EVs and high resale value of the Prius currently. So there are other reasons to buy separate from safety factors. The final cost will be low and benefit overall (safety and cost savings in the long run) seem reasonable.

[RWD]

@RWD do you recall the study’s name or what group published it? Just curious about that, makes sense that being way too slow is dangerous.

The original is from research published in 1964, the Solomon Curve. There is some debate over the validity of this study.
It is also discussed heavily in this 2012 technical report (PDF) on the DOT website, mostly concerned with the setting of speed limits.
And if you do a Google search for 85th percentile speed you can find quite a few articles (and opinions) about it.

There are essentially two sides to use the 85th percentile. One is what you should drive to be safe. The theory is that less passing / being passed reduces the risk for accidents. Presumably the ideal point is around the 85th percentile (as long as that speed is appropriate for the road design and conditions). The other is in road design / setting speed limits. If there are hidden dangers to faster speeds on a given road usually it is best to change the design to slow down the mean travel speed rather than try to enforce it with speed limits.

[Morning Glory]

What would happen if everyone tried to hit the 85th percentile? Wouldn't the bar just keep increasing? Where would it end?

[Metalcat]

What would happen if everyone tried to hit the 85th percentile? Wouldn't the bar just keep increasing? Where would it end?

You're never going to have everyone try to do the same thing though, so it doesn't matter.

[GuitarStv]

@RWD do you recall the study’s name or what group published it? Just curious about that, makes sense that being way too slow is dangerous.

The original is from research published in 1964, the Solomon Curve. There is some debate over the validity of this study.
It is also discussed heavily in this 2012 technical report (PDF) on the DOT website, mostly concerned with the setting of speed limits.
And if you do a Google search for 85th percentile speed you can find quite a few articles (and opinions) about it.

There are essentially two sides to use the 85th percentile. One is what you should drive to be safe. The theory is that less passing / being passed reduces the risk for accidents. Presumably the ideal point is around the 85th percentile (as long as that speed is appropriate for the road design and conditions). The other is in road design / setting speed limits. If there are hidden dangers to faster speeds on a given road usually it is best to change the design to slow down the mean travel speed rather than try to enforce it with speed limits.

It's also interesting, because increased speed limits appear to lead to increased deaths.  Just from a physics standpoint you would expect accidents to be more severe if the vehicles involved are travelling at a higher velocity.

"5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways"
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years#:~:text=Farmer%20found%20that%20a%205,percent%20increase%20on%20other%20roads.

[Paper Chaser]

What are the on/off ramps like on this section of highway? Everybody travelling around the same speed probably isn't too bad, but if there are on/off ramps that require a driver to drive pretty slowly, or ramps where drivers exiting have to cross over drivers entering the highway, then you've got high speed traffic and low speed traffic trying to intermingle, and that leads to problems.

Overall, I wouldn't be too concerned about being rear ended. It's not typically a very serious collision, and there's really not much you can do to prevent it if you're already driving defensively and keeping yourself aware of your surroundings.

[RWD]

@RWD do you recall the study’s name or what group published it? Just curious about that, makes sense that being way too slow is dangerous.

The original is from research published in 1964, the Solomon Curve. There is some debate over the validity of this study.
It is also discussed heavily in this 2012 technical report (PDF) on the DOT website, mostly concerned with the setting of speed limits.
And if you do a Google search for 85th percentile speed you can find quite a few articles (and opinions) about it.

There are essentially two sides to use the 85th percentile. One is what you should drive to be safe. The theory is that less passing / being passed reduces the risk for accidents. Presumably the ideal point is around the 85th percentile (as long as that speed is appropriate for the road design and conditions). The other is in road design / setting speed limits. If there are hidden dangers to faster speeds on a given road usually it is best to change the design to slow down the mean travel speed rather than try to enforce it with speed limits.

It's also interesting, because increased speed limits appear to lead to increased deaths.  Just from a physics standpoint you would expect accidents to be more severe if the vehicles involved are travelling at a higher velocity.

"5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways"
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years#:~:text=Farmer%20found%20that%20a%205,percent%20increase%20on%20other%20roads.

That study doesn't appear to take into account that people have likely started to drive faster over time regardless of whether the speed limits were raised during the same time period. Either due to better roads and/or more stable-at-speed vehicles. It also doesn't explicitly state that it is the faster traveling vehicles that are getting in accidents (so driving slower while everyone else is going fast may not help your own risk). Studies have shown that adjusting the speed limit doesn't result in an equal change in driver speeds. I maintain that if the mean travel speed is too fast on a road its the road design that should be changed, not the limits. As too-low speed limits will just result in a larger differential in speed between people that exactly follow the limit and those that drive what feels comfortable for the road. In cities, separated bike lanes are a good example of changing design to improve safety (average motorist speeds decreased).

The study says that in 2017 there were 1,934 deaths that would have been prevented by not raising the speed limits. Based on the percentage breakdown about 718 of these would be attributed to highway/interstate driving. In 2017 in the US vehicles traveled roughly 3.2 trillion miles on highways. Increasing speeds from 65 mph to 70 mph saves 66 minutes every 1,000 miles. So the amount of time saved by driving faster in 2017 was roughly 4,000 lifetimes (100 years per life)! And that's assuming only a 5 mph increase. The study is calculating estimated deaths over a period where the speed limits have increased by much more (up to +20 mph). I'd say the tradeoff has been reasonable, even if we take the study at face value.

[GuitarStv]

I maintain that if the mean travel speed is too fast on a road its the road design that should be changed, not the limits.

Definitely.  Roads should be designed narrower, and with more curves/turns to naturally lower speed limits.  That's the approach that has been taken to great success in the Netherlands.

In cities, separated bike lanes are a good example of changing design to improve safety (average motorist speeds decreased).

I've seen far too many poorly designed separated bike lanes that end up putting cyclists at greater risk to support them out of hand, but agree that they can be done well in some circumstances.  It's interesting that motorist speed decreased after the installation though.  I wonder if this was related to reduced lane size/removal of driving lanes, or something else.

The study says that in 2017 there were 1,934 deaths that would have been prevented by not raising the speed limits. Based on the percentage breakdown about 718 of these would be attributed to highway/interstate driving. In 2017 in the US vehicles traveled roughly 3.2 trillion miles on highways. Increasing speeds from 65 mph to 70 mph saves 66 minutes every 1,000 miles. So the amount of time saved by driving faster in 2017 was roughly 4,000 lifetimes (100 years per life)! And that's assuming only a 5 mph increase. The study is calculating estimated deaths over a period where the speed limits have increased by much more (up to +20 mph). I'd say the tradeoff has been reasonable, even if we take the study at face value.

You're not adding in all the factors here.

First of all, you're assuming that increasing ease of travel by reducing time spent is a good thing.  I'd argue that it's a negative, because it encourages more and more wasteful travel - people who live further away from their work, people who will go from city to city regularly, etc.  This is a huge environmental negative, not a positive.

Reducing speed by 5 mph reduces fuel consumption by about 7% on average (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp).  The average mileage of a car in the us is 24.9 on the highway according to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report).  Using your numbers from above, that works out to 8,995,983.9 wasted gallons of gas due to the higher speed limit.  Again, pretty huge environmental negative.

[RWD]

The study says that in 2017 there were 1,934 deaths that would have been prevented by not raising the speed limits. Based on the percentage breakdown about 718 of these would be attributed to highway/interstate driving. In 2017 in the US vehicles traveled roughly 3.2 trillion miles on highways. Increasing speeds from 65 mph to 70 mph saves 66 minutes every 1,000 miles. So the amount of time saved by driving faster in 2017 was roughly 4,000 lifetimes (100 years per life)! And that's assuming only a 5 mph increase. The study is calculating estimated deaths over a period where the speed limits have increased by much more (up to +20 mph). I'd say the tradeoff has been reasonable, even if we take the study at face value.

You're not adding in all the factors here.

First of all, you're assuming that increasing ease of travel by reducing time spent is a good thing.  I'd argue that it's a negative, because it encourages more and more wasteful travel - people who live further away from their work, people who will go from city to city regularly, etc.  This is a huge environmental negative, not a positive.

Reducing speed by 5 mph reduces fuel consumption by about 7% on average (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp).  The average mileage of a car in the us is 24.9 on the highway according to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report).  Using your numbers from above, that works out to 8,995,983.9 wasted gallons of gas due to the higher speed limit.  Again, pretty huge environmental negative.

We are talking about highway driving risk in this thread so I just limited my math to that topic, but I'll admit it overlooks an increase in total driven miles as a result of higher speeds. I absolutely agree that more/faster highways is not an improvement to overall human well being. Ideally we would make our cities more walkable/bikable with good train systems for longer distances.

[GuitarStv]

The study says that in 2017 there were 1,934 deaths that would have been prevented by not raising the speed limits. Based on the percentage breakdown about 718 of these would be attributed to highway/interstate driving. In 2017 in the US vehicles traveled roughly 3.2 trillion miles on highways. Increasing speeds from 65 mph to 70 mph saves 66 minutes every 1,000 miles. So the amount of time saved by driving faster in 2017 was roughly 4,000 lifetimes (100 years per life)! And that's assuming only a 5 mph increase. The study is calculating estimated deaths over a period where the speed limits have increased by much more (up to +20 mph). I'd say the tradeoff has been reasonable, even if we take the study at face value.

You're not adding in all the factors here.

First of all, you're assuming that increasing ease of travel by reducing time spent is a good thing.  I'd argue that it's a negative, because it encourages more and more wasteful travel - people who live further away from their work, people who will go from city to city regularly, etc.  This is a huge environmental negative, not a positive.

Reducing speed by 5 mph reduces fuel consumption by about 7% on average (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp).  The average mileage of a car in the us is 24.9 on the highway according to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report).  Using your numbers from above, that works out to 8,995,983.9 wasted gallons of gas due to the higher speed limit.  Again, pretty huge environmental negative.

We are talking about highway driving risk in this thread so I just limited my math to that topic, but I'll admit it overlooks an increase in total driven miles as a result of higher speeds. I absolutely agree that more/faster highways is not an improvement to overall human well being. Ideally we would make our cities more walkable/bikable with good train systems for longer distances.

Given the deaths that pollution from automobiles cause each year, I figure it's important to take into account.  :P

[windytrail]

The 85% rule has been terrible for safety. Basically, speed limits on roads must be increased when 85% of drivers are going over the speed limit. So the rule requires speed limits to be set based on what drivers want it to be, rather than what is safe for all road users.

Combined with transportation officials' completely false belief that widening roads will reduce congestion (see the topic of induced demand), we have created mini-freeways in our neighborhoods, which has led to higher speed limits, more speeding, and many more road deaths.

Setting speed limits based on how fast people want to go is like setting nutrition guidelines based on what kids want to eat.

[GuitarStv]

The 85% rule has been terrible for safety. Basically, speed limits on roads must be increased when 85% of drivers are going over the speed limit. So the rule requires speed limits to be set based on what drivers want it to be, rather than what is safe for all road users.

Combined with transportation officials' completely false belief that widening roads will reduce congestion (see the topic of induced demand), we have created mini-freeways in our neighborhoods, which has led to higher speed limits, more speeding, and many more road deaths.

Setting speed limits based on how fast people want to go is like setting nutrition guidelines based on what kids want to eat.

Stroads - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

[RWD]

Given the deaths that pollution from automobiles cause each year, I figure it's important to take into account.  :P

True. I'm way too lazy to try to calculate the impact though. Going forward electric cars / renewable power will eliminate that variable.

[windytrail]

The 85% rule has been terrible for safety. Basically, speed limits on roads must be increased when 85% of drivers are going over the speed limit. So the rule requires speed limits to be set based on what drivers want it to be, rather than what is safe for all road users.

Combined with transportation officials' completely false belief that widening roads will reduce congestion (see the topic of induced demand), we have created mini-freeways in our neighborhoods, which has led to higher speed limits, more speeding, and many more road deaths.

Setting speed limits based on how fast people want to go is like setting nutrition guidelines based on what kids want to eat.

Stroads - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

That guy does an amazing job at communicating the links between transportation design, economy, and safety.

[RWD]

Stroads - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

Excellent video! It's really a shame we don't have better road/street and city design in the US. Even Eugene (Oregon), a place known for being very biker friendly, is filled with stroads...

[dougules]

I feel the need to ask the question that I'm pretty sure I know the answer to.

Is there a bus or train that runs the same route?

[GuitarStv]

The 85% rule has been terrible for safety. Basically, speed limits on roads must be increased when 85% of drivers are going over the speed limit. So the rule requires speed limits to be set based on what drivers want it to be, rather than what is safe for all road users.

Combined with transportation officials' completely false belief that widening roads will reduce congestion (see the topic of induced demand), we have created mini-freeways in our neighborhoods, which has led to higher speed limits, more speeding, and many more road deaths.

Setting speed limits based on how fast people want to go is like setting nutrition guidelines based on what kids want to eat.

Stroads - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

That guy does an amazing job at communicating the links between transportation design, economy, and safety.

Yeah, I was watching and nodding along at pretty much everything he was saying.  It would be lovely for better road design to catch on in North America . . . but there's so much momentum towards the current crappy design I don't see it changing appreciably pretty much in my lifetime.  It makes me sad.

[RetiredAt63]

Ideally we would make our cities more walkable/bikable with good train systems for longer distances.

You aren't in Canada, where freight trains have precedence over passenger trains.  So fun sitting absolutely still on Via Rail watching the freight train go by and your arrival time gets later and later.

[RWD]

Ideally we would make our cities more walkable/bikable with good train systems for longer distances.

You aren't in Canada, where freight trains have precedence over passenger trains.  So fun sitting absolutely still on Via Rail watching the freight train go by and your arrival time gets later and later.

We visited Japan two years ago and I have rail envy now. Their system is just so good everywhere you go.

[Morning Glory]

Ideally we would make our cities more walkable/bikable with good train systems for longer distances.

You aren't in Canada, where freight trains have precedence over passenger trains.  So fun sitting absolutely still on Via Rail watching the freight train go by and your arrival time gets later and later.

Sounds just like the US when you get west of the Mississippi.

[RetiredAt63]

Ideally we would make our cities more walkable/bikable with good train systems for longer distances.

You aren't in Canada, where freight trains have precedence over passenger trains.  So fun sitting absolutely still on Via Rail watching the freight train go by and your arrival time gets later and later.

Sounds just like the US when you get west of the Mississippi.

This is in our densest population corridor.  Quebec city and Ottawa to the east, through Toronto, to Windsor.

[chemistk]

The 85% rule has been terrible for safety. Basically, speed limits on roads must be increased when 85% of drivers are going over the speed limit. So the rule requires speed limits to be set based on what drivers want it to be, rather than what is safe for all road users.

Combined with transportation officials' completely false belief that widening roads will reduce congestion (see the topic of induced demand), we have created mini-freeways in our neighborhoods, which has led to higher speed limits, more speeding, and many more road deaths.

Setting speed limits based on how fast people want to go is like setting nutrition guidelines based on what kids want to eat.

Stroads - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

That guy does an amazing job at communicating the links between transportation design, economy, and safety.

Yeah, I was watching and nodding along at pretty much everything he was saying.  It would be lovely for better road design to catch on in North America . . . but there's so much momentum towards the current crappy design I don't see it changing appreciably pretty much in my lifetime.  It makes me sad.

Not Just Bikes is chock-full of great videos that make you feel real bad about the state of North American infrastructure - the 'Strong Towns' videos that cover why suburban sprawl is a train wreck in slow motion are particularly sobering...

[Just Joe]

The 85% rule has been terrible for safety. Basically, speed limits on roads must be increased when 85% of drivers are going over the speed limit. So the rule requires speed limits to be set based on what drivers want it to be, rather than what is safe for all road users.

Combined with transportation officials' completely false belief that widening roads will reduce congestion (see the topic of induced demand), we have created mini-freeways in our neighborhoods, which has led to higher speed limits, more speeding, and many more road deaths.

Setting speed limits based on how fast people want to go is like setting nutrition guidelines based on what kids want to eat.

Stroads - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

That guy does an amazing job at communicating the links between transportation design, economy, and safety.

His channel is very good. His videos are exactly why we should look beyond the USA for ideas.