Rules of Defensive Driving

Rezzy wrote:

If breaking the speed limit is part of your plan to get where you're going on time, then you have a terrible plan.

I doubt it is a plan, but rather a consequence for not having one.

PoderOmega wrote:
Nicholaas wrote:

I tend to drive at 10 and 2

Were you taught that way or is it just how you naturally hold the wheel? With airbags now 9 and 3 or 8 and 4 are supposed to be safer. 10 an 2 has an increased chance of messing up your arms if an airbag deploys.

I was taught that way. I should amend that by saying I try to use 10 and 2, but often end up with my left hand at like the 1 position. 3 and 9 could work, though. I'll try it on the way home.

I speed at times, and I typically stay out of the left lane to allow for faster traffic. However, if I'm passing, and already speeding, I won't speed up to pass faster. I'm already breaking the law, I feel no need to break it more so you can fly down the road at unsafe speeds.

If I'm hauling a trailer I stay out of the left lane completely, unless there is a car driving well below the speed limit on a 2-lane highway.

If I'm in my racecar on a highway I NEVER speed - that's asking, no, begging for a ticket. And I'm sure the ticket will include possibly numerous citations, warranted or not.

I'm not seeking to pour gas on the flames, but I did have a good laugh on the way home yesterday after the back and forth in this thread. I was behind an unmarked police car in the left lane. There was heavy enough traffic that the left lane was crowded, though moving a bit faster. The cop was tailgating (like 3 feet) off the back bumper of a minivan that was apparently nervous that they would get busted for doing more than 65mph and yet refused to move over to let the cop pass despite there being opportunities to do so. I don't believe that Maryland has mandatory "move over" laws otherwise I would have been scratching my head as to why the cop wasn't pulling him over.

Nicholaas wrote:
PoderOmega wrote:
Nicholaas wrote:

I tend to drive at 10 and 2

Were you taught that way or is it just how you naturally hold the wheel? With airbags now 9 and 3 or 8 and 4 are supposed to be safer. 10 an 2 has an increased chance of messing up your arms if an airbag deploys.

I was taught that way. I should amend that by saying I try to use 10 and 2, but often end up with my left hand at like the 1 position. 3 and 9 could work, though. I'll try it on the way home.

I drive at 6 and the beer in my lap.

Nevin73 wrote:

I'm not seeking to pour gas on the flames, but...

IMAGE(http://planetponzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gasoline-on-fire.jpg)

I came across this article a few days ago that has some relevance:
http://priceonomics.com/is-every-speed-limit-too-low/

Part of the article covers what a lot people already know, that speed limits are kept artificially low for revenue reasons. The part I found interesting was how traffic engineers would ideally set speed limits and why.

Interesting article. It should be noted, though, that people who can drive at 85 can also drive at 55. Many people who set their cruise control at the speed limit do so because they can't or shouldn't be driving faster. Because they either don't trust their ability to handle the car at higher speed, don't have as reliable of a vehicle or have some kind of visual impairment, injury, etc. that makes that unsafe. I guess I would err on the side of being safe rather than fast and would assume that someone that *has* to go 85 can probably be bothered to 65 for a few minutes versus asking the slower driver to drive fast or to deal with traffic going ridiculously fast in one lane.

That said, I would like to see tickets for people driving too slow and this article does point in that direction a bit, in terms of statistics on safety. But that's probably more relevant on the open highway. Within cities highway driving is so variable in terms of speed that I don't know if I want people driving 85 when the entire city can come to a halt in an instant.

That was an interesting article.

One factor that I think should also be considered is that today's cars have better road-handling, better brakes, and (recently) often better sensors to allow drivers to safely handle greater speeds and smaller braking distances. As an example, when I learned to drive, I was taught that I should have one car length for every 10 mph of speed. I think that is an archaic measure with advances in automotive engineering. Sadly those "rules of thumb" seem to take a long time in fading away.

Nevin73 wrote:

That was an interesting article.

One factor that I think should also be considered is that today's cars have better road-handling, better brakes, and (recently) often better sensors to allow drivers to safely handle greater speeds and smaller braking distances. As an example, when I learned to drive, I was taught that I should have one car length for every 10 mph of speed. I think that is an archaic measure with advances in automotive engineering. Sadly those "rules of thumb" seem to take a long time in fading away.

True, but only applicable in ideal-world-scenarios, where the driver is alert, paying attention and focused on the task of driving.

You need those extra car lengths when you're trying to pass some Goldfish crackers to your kid in the back seat while also getting the map on your phone to work.

DSGamer wrote:

Interesting article. It should be noted, though, that people who can drive at 85 can also drive at 55. Many people who set their cruise control at the speed limit do so because they can't or shouldn't be driving faster. Because they either don't trust their ability to handle the car at higher speed, don't have as reliable of a vehicle or have some kind of visual impairment, injury, etc. that makes that unsafe. I guess I would err on the side of being safe rather than fast and would assume that someone that *has* to go 85 can probably be bothered to 65 for a few minutes versus asking the slower driver to drive fast or to deal with traffic going ridiculously fast in one lane.

That said, I would like to see tickets for people driving too slow and this article does point in that direction a bit, in terms of statistics on safety. But that's probably more relevant on the open highway. Within cities highway driving is so variable in terms of speed that I don't know if I want people driving 85 when the entire city can come to a halt in an instant.

Bolded: Oooooor it's because they understand that the faster you go the more wind resistance you create and the lower the MPG you obtain.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Interesting article. It should be noted, though, that people who can drive at 85 can also drive at 55. Many people who set their cruise control at the speed limit do so because they can't or shouldn't be driving faster. Because they either don't trust their ability to handle the car at higher speed, don't have as reliable of a vehicle or have some kind of visual impairment, injury, etc. that makes that unsafe. I guess I would err on the side of being safe rather than fast and would assume that someone that *has* to go 85 can probably be bothered to 65 for a few minutes versus asking the slower driver to drive fast or to deal with traffic going ridiculously fast in one lane.

That said, I would like to see tickets for people driving too slow and this article does point in that direction a bit, in terms of statistics on safety. But that's probably more relevant on the open highway. Within cities highway driving is so variable in terms of speed that I don't know if I want people driving 85 when the entire city can come to a halt in an instant.

Bolded: Oooooor it's because they understand that the faster you go the more wind resistance you create and the lower the MPG you obtain.

Of course. I said "many people" which means "not everyone". If you're one of the people driving slow for your gas mileage then Nevin has a bumper that would like to say "hello".

Nevin73 wrote:

That was an interesting article.

One factor that I think should also be considered is that today's cars have better road-handling, better brakes, and (recently) often better sensors to allow drivers to safely handle greater speeds and smaller braking distances. As an example, when I learned to drive, I was taught that I should have one car length for every 10 mph of speed. I think that is an archaic measure with advances in automotive engineering. Sadly those "rules of thumb" seem to take a long time in fading away.

I'm pretty human reaction speed hasn't increased with advances in automotive engineering.

And only car length per 10mph? That feels extremely short. Like, half of the minimum you'd want at highway speeds.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

That was an interesting article.

One factor that I think should also be considered is that today's cars have better road-handling, better brakes, and (recently) often better sensors to allow drivers to safely handle greater speeds and smaller braking distances. As an example, when I learned to drive, I was taught that I should have one car length for every 10 mph of speed. I think that is an archaic measure with advances in automotive engineering. Sadly those "rules of thumb" seem to take a long time in fading away.

I'm pretty human reaction speed hasn't increased with advances in automotive engineering.

And only car length per 10mph? That feels extremely short. Like, half of the minimum you'd want at highway speeds.

To add to this: Yeah... your brakes have gotten better and theirs likely have, too. Who cares if you can stop faster now when the car in front of you can also? Human reaction time is the only thing to take into account.

With that said, That 1 car length per 10mph stuff is archaic. Now it's taught that you should allow 2 to 3 seconds of space between your car and the one in front of you. This gives you time to react, and the distance will automatically get longer as you go faster. To measure it: After they pass an object see how many seconds it takes before you do.

LouZiffer wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

That was an interesting article.

One factor that I think should also be considered is that today's cars have better road-handling, better brakes, and (recently) often better sensors to allow drivers to safely handle greater speeds and smaller braking distances. As an example, when I learned to drive, I was taught that I should have one car length for every 10 mph of speed. I think that is an archaic measure with advances in automotive engineering. Sadly those "rules of thumb" seem to take a long time in fading away.

I'm pretty human reaction speed hasn't increased with advances in automotive engineering.

And only car length per 10mph? That feels extremely short. Like, half of the minimum you'd want at highway speeds.

To add to this: Yeah... your brakes have gotten better and theirs likely have, too. Who cares if you can stop faster now when the car in front of you can also? Human reaction time is the only thing to take into account.

With that said, That 1 car length per 10mph stuff is archaic. Now it's taught that you should allow 2 to 3 seconds of space between your car and the one in front of you. This gives you time to react, and the distance will automatically get longer as you go faster. To measure it: After they pass an object see how many seconds it takes before you do.

Yeah. That was the rule of thumb I learned. I learned it when I got my license at age 14 (yes, you read that right, and I was driving before then). So in the almost 30 years I've been driving I've pretty much kept to the 2 second rule. So I can't begin to identify with tailgating people constantly. Which is why I said this.

me wrote:

IMAGE(http://38.media.tumblr.com/e072c5c47846da8aac990671e0c65429/tumblr_mvgdmhrMYT1s99dcoo1_400.gif)

deftly wrote:

I came across this article a few days ago that has some relevance:
http://priceonomics.com/is-every-speed-limit-too-low/

Part of the article covers what a lot people already know, that speed limits are kept artificially low for revenue reasons. The part I found interesting was how traffic engineers would ideally set speed limits and why.

The source in that article isn't very good. It's a police officer's opinion on the 85% rule, even while mentioning that many researchers disagree but completely disregarding why. Big reasons speed limits are lower: gas consumption and likelihood of fatality. The former is obvious, but many people glance over the second. Speed and force are an exponential relationship. Your chances of surviving a 55mph crash are significantly higher than a 75mph crash. It makes sense that 55mph be the speed limit on a congested urban highway (like 495 in DC) and 75 the speed limit on much less congested interstates, especially as you move westward. As the likelihood of a crash on a straight, non-congested road is low, speeds can be higher. Places like inner city highways have far more accidents, and should have lower limits, making those many accidents more survivable.

They even mention that speed disparity increases accidents, and that raising the limit won't actually change the speed of traffic... so, how is it safer again? This really reads as a poorly researched and poorly written article looking to prove a predetermined (by the author) philosophy, not actually present a valid argument.

I would love higher speed limits, especially in non-congested areas, but it will increase gas consumption and it will increase fatalities (at least as a percentage of accidents).

Wow, Shoal, you completely missed the thrust of the article: that people don't obey speed limits.

Your whole stance is based around the idea that imposing a lower speed limit will lower the speed. The entire article went right past you. That doesn't work.

Pass laws all you like: if people won't actually obey, you're wasting your time. And, in this case, it appears you're making the situation worse, not better, because a few people will indeed obey, making the road much more dangerous.

Technically, I feel like driving 79 in an 70 MPH zone is obeying the limits that are enforced. If you drop the speed limit to 60, the real speed limit becomes 69. And I think all of this is understood when the laws are written.

The point of defensive driving is self-defense. A lot of martial arts call themselves self-defense techniques, but driving defensively truly is founded on only defense of the self. An aggressive stance is "I do this, and if everyone else did the same thing, we would all be great!" Its inherent and implied will to dominate others is what makes the viewpoint so aggressive.

The foundation of defensive driving to protect the self. I don't care whether you're driving defensively or not. I'll craft a set of policies that will defend me and mine regardless of what everyone else is doing. For this reason, it cannot be timid, for that invites attack. It cannot be indecisive, for that invites misunderstanding.

If someone tailgates me or otherwise engages in violently aggressive driving in my vicinity whether or not it involves me, my overall policy is to distance myself from the violent motorist as soon as possible, by the safest possible means. Usually, this means just letting them pass. Do they "win?" Is that a good public policy? I do not care. I'm not on the road to boost my ego, and public policy is tackled at the level of policy-making and enforcement, not behind the wheel.

The only important thing is my own safety and the safety of my family. Violent motorist passes; I am safer. Mission accomplished.

Jayhawker wrote:

Technically, I feel like driving 79 in an 70 MPH zone is obeying the limits that are enforced. If you drop the speed limit to 60, the real speed limit becomes 69. And I think all of this is understood when the laws are written.

But what they're saying is that raising the speed doesn't actually change the speeds people drive very much, any more than lowering the speed limit to 55 got people to drive 55 on the freeway.

Around here, there are a lot of freeways that are mixed between 55, 65 and 70mph, and people mostly drive 70. There are some that go faster, and some that go slower, but by and large, the freeways move about 70mph if the traffic permits.

Its inherent and implied will to dominate others is what makes the viewpoint so aggressive.

That's not the way I learned it. That is utterly alien to what I studied.

Malor wrote:

Wow, Shoal, you completely missed the thrust of the article: that people don't obey speed limits.

Your whole stance is based around the idea that imposing a lower speed limit will lower the speed. The entire article went right past you. That doesn't work.

Pass laws all you like: if people won't actually obey, you're wasting your time. And, in this case, it appears you're making the situation worse, not better, because a few people will indeed obey, making the road much more dangerous.

Wow Malor, you completely missed the point of my post!

Your argument is confused, Shoal.

If the majority of people don't obey the law anyway, you should set the speed limit to be close to what people actually drive, because then the relatively few number of people who do slavishly obey the limit will be at the right speed for overall traffic.

People will drive at whatever speed they're going to drive; posting a lower or higher speed limit will have relatively little effect on the severity of accidents. All you can do is reduce their frequency, and the way to do that is by posting the correct limits.

Rephrasing that: we have very limited ability to control speed on roads, although we do have some. Whatever control we can exercise should be to improve safety as much as possible; this goal is served best by changing limits to match the speeds people are actually driving.

What the original article is pointing out is that speed limits are not being set to improve safety, but to increase revenue. They're causing people to be hurt and/or killed so that local governments can make more money.

Simple solution to the problem of enforcing speed limits: radar-activated rail guns.

Farscry wrote:

Simple solution to the problem of enforcing speed limits: radar-activated rail guns. :D

I actually thought about trying to make a paint-ball version of this to use in my neighborhood. I'm all for driving 80mph on the highway but it pisses me off when people do 35mph in a residential neighborhood where kids are around. Sadly I think I could be sued for pelting people's cars with paint balls. I also thought about a rig with a camera where I would submit a pic of the plate along with the radar data to the cops but I doubt that would be acted on as well. Plus I doubt I have the technical skills to actually pull it off. I guess I have to settle on the small bucket of stones I have next to my front bench.

Nevermind. I can see we're not really talking about how to be safe any longer. If the roads actually go this way I look forward to my tax dollars being diverted to mass transit and bike lanes. I welcome segregating our transportation and putting all the maniacs on the road together.

If the majority are doing 80 and tailgating we need to just yield the highways to them?

If the majority are doing that, then yes, that's what we should do, because that is what would be safest.

If the majority of people are doing 80 in a place, then that must be the right speed to drive there.

Tailgating is a different thing.

It looks like putting this in P&C was a good call. Or... self-fulfilling prophecy?

So you think 80 is too fast. What about those who think that 65 is too fast (as it is the speed limit). Does that mean you will be perfectly fine with a driver going 45 (the general minimum speed on the highway) in the left hand lane? I would guess not. That is why it is important for everyone to simply move over when they have the opportunity to do so. There will always be someone faster than yourself. There are people faster than me. When I see them coming up behind me, I move over when I can.

That brings up a question. What does everyone consider "tailgating"? For me, I think it is 1-3' off the other person's rear bumper. If I'm a car length behind the person (even if it does tend to be a SmartCar length), I don't see it as threatening, simply driving.

Nevin73 wrote:

That brings up a question. What does everyone consider "tailgating"? For me, I think it is 1-3' off the other person's rear bumper. If I'm a car length behind the person (even if it does tend to be a SmartCar length), I don't see it as threatening, simply driving.

But you aren't the person who gets to determine if driving that close is threatening. The driver of the other car gets to determine that. And I would say that one car length is threatening, especially at highway speeds. That and it's ridiculously unsafe.