h a l f b a k e r yi v n i n seeks n e t o
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The roads are a dangerous place. Therefore to reduce your risk of getting injured it would seem sensible to spend as little time as possible on them.
Therefore when travelling by road drive as fast as you possibly can at all times, thus reducing the time you spend on the roads and also therefore
the risk you are exposed to.
The graph [micB] mentions.
http://www.ink.org/...mages/speed.gif?i=n
The minimum risk seems to be at "slightly above average" speed, not at "as fast as possible", so I'm not sure why this is supposed to support [benmac]'s theory. [jutta, Jun 28 2000]
[link]
|
| |
If the roads are so dangerous why drive on them at all? Speaking as an experienced pedestrian, I can tell you that I've never been involved in a crash. You should drive your car on the sidewalk, it's much safer. |
|
| |
I get it benmac. If you travel fast enough you get to spend zero time on the road, probably through being dead. |
|
| |
I've never seen the statistics, but I'd wager your chance of an accident increases exponentially or quadratically for each mile per hour on average that your speed is different from the speed of those around you, faster or slower, whereas the change in the amount of time you spend on the road changes only linearly. |
|
| |
If you think my reasoning sticks, that's probably due to its place of origin. |
|
| |
Your theory doesn't stink. Over 40 years of research support it. Take a look at the
graph on http://www.ink.org/public/kdot/images/speed.gif?i=n |
|
| |