[IbnMardhiyah]

Abolished completely.

Out on the Autobahn in Germany, those parts of it that have no speed limit whatsoever have the exact same amount of crashes and fatalities as those parts of the Autobahn that do have speed limits.

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Abolished completely.

Out on the Autobahn in Germany, those parts of it that have no speed limit whatsoever have the exact same amount of crashes and fatalities as those parts of the Autobahn that do have speed limits.

It's not the rate of crashes that concerns me so much as the extent of the injuries sustained. Higher speed=more energy=worse injuries=greater burden on the healthcare system + more deaths

I wasn't a math major, don't ask me for proofs.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

It's not the rate of crashes that concerns me so much as the extent of the injuries sustained. Higher speed=more energy=worse injuries=greater burden on the healthcare system + more deaths

I wasn't a math major, don't ask me for proofs.

Yeah, but as ibnM pointed out, the rate of fatalities is the same. The only parts that really have speed limits on the autobahn are construction/work areas and specific zones where there are stops.

Besides, part of the reason that accidents occur when people are "speeding" is that everyone else around them is going 30mph slower and those people aren't prepared or ready for someone going 30mph faster.

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah, but as ibnM pointed out, the rate of fatalities is the same. The only parts that really have speed limits on the autobahn are construction/work areas and specific zones where there are stops.

Besides, part of the reason that accidents occur when people are "speeding" is that everyone else around them is going 30mph slower and those people aren't prepared or ready for someone going 30mph faster.

I agree that speed differences are dangerous. However, forcing everyone to go faster isn't really going to solve anything. If the slower drivers cause accidents because they can't react quickly enough, then giving them less reaction time by increasing speed isn't going to help the situation.

Also, comparing the US to Germany isn't very helpful either. The relationship between higher speed and lower accident rates is merely a correlation. The lower death rate may be caused by better vehicle safety standards, a better trauma treatment system, etc.

The American Journal of Surgery published a paper earlier this year which does show that lower speed limits are correlated with lower death rates.

A nationwide speed limit < or = 65 miles per hour will save thousands of lives.

Shafi S, Gentilello L.

Division of Burns, Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Mail Stop 9158, Dallas, TX 75390-9158, USA.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to measure the impact of higher speed limits on traffic deaths several years after the repeal of the 55 miles per hour (mph) National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL).
METHODS: Traffic fatality rates for 2003 were calculated for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and compared between states with speed limits < or = 65 mph versus greater than 65 mph, adjusted for state differences in vehicle miles traveled and other potential confounding factors using negative binomial regression.
RESULTS: In 29 states with speed limits greater than 65 mph, there was a 13% increase in the risk of traffic fatalities (risk ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.24, P = .009). An estimated 2,985 lives may be saved per year with a nationwide speed limit of 65 mph or less.
CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide restriction of speed limits to 65 mph or less will save almost 3,000 lives every year.

My criticism of this paper would be that they don't account for variations in trauma systems amongst states (there's a lot of variation - you simply don't want to be in accidents in certain states). However, they do show a significant difference in fatality rates that needs further study.

Of course, none of this accounts for enforcement. In some states, a speed limit is truly a legal limit. In others, it's merely a nice suggestion.

And finally, reducing drunk driving will have the biggest impact in reducing accident-related fatalities. But this is again fairly dependent on enforcement. The laws need to be much, much stricter too.

P.S. I usually go between 65-70. But when I was doing my trauma rotation (of all things ), I was usually doing 80 in the mornings. I kept running late because I had to get there between 4:30 and 5am.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

I agree that speed differences are dangerous. However, forcing everyone to go faster isn't really going to solve anything. If the slower drivers cause accidents because they can't react quickly enough, then giving them less reaction time by increasing speed isn't going to help the situation.

They'll be going faster once the speed limits are increased. Further, there are a lot of drivers on the road with extremely slow reaction times who just shouldn't be driving; it's less safe than speeding. For instance, people in their 80s probably shouldn't be operating a vehicle (like one of my neighbors, who drives slower than I walk).

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

Also, comparing the US to Germany isn't very helpful either. The relationship between higher speed and lower accident rates is merely a correlation.

.. Yeah, that was the point

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

The lower death rate may be caused by better vehicle safety standards, a better trauma treatment system, etc.

All cars here have to pass minimal crash test ratings.. the US has pretty rigorous safety standards. So does Canada.

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

The American Journal of Surgery published a paper earlier this year which does show that lower speed limits are correlated with lower death rates.


My criticism of this paper would be that they don't account for variations in trauma systems amongst states (there's a lot of variation - you simply don't want to be in accidents in certain states). However, they do show a significant difference in fatality rates that needs further study.

Of course, none of this accounts for enforcement. In some states, a speed limit is truly a legal limit. In others, it's merely a nice suggestion.

And finally, reducing drunk driving will have the biggest impact in reducing accident-related fatalities. But this is again fairly dependent on enforcement. The laws need to be much, much stricter too.

P.S. I usually go between 65-70. But when I was doing my trauma rotation (of all things ), I was usually doing 80 in the mornings. I kept running late because I had to get there between 4:30 and 5am.

The American Journal of Surgery is a bunch of communists who want me to be late to work and never have the pleasure of flooring it in 3rd gear. Also, they drive like old women.

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

They'll be going faster once the speed limits are increased. Further, there are a lot of drivers on the road with extremely slow reaction times who just shouldn't be driving; it's less safe than speeding. For instance, people in their 80s probably shouldn't be operating a vehicle (like one of my neighbors, who drives slower than I walk).

Agree that some people shouldn't be on the road. But I still don't get how increasing the speed limit is going to make everyone speed up to the same speed. Some people are still going to want to drive slowly. And merging would be more difficult/dangerous for those poor souls who can't afford cars with great acceleration.

All cars here have to pass minimal crash test ratings.. the US has pretty rigorous safety standards. So does Canada.

But how do we compare to Germany?

The American Journal of Surgery is a bunch of communists who want me to be late to work and never have the pleasure of flooring it in 3rd gear. Also, they drive like old women.

Trauma surgeons are nuts.

[heba]

we all hate slow drivers and speed limits
BUT. look at dubai for example. they all drive 160-200km/hour. and every single one of therr car crashes are fatal.

do we wanna live with more fatalities so we can get to our destinations quicker? hmmmm?

[Ilikemyscarf]

I agrees with Heba, I hate the speed limit and I think it's too slow, but I'd rather have it there for my and others' safety.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

It's not the rate of crashes that concerns me so much as the extent of the injuries sustained. Higher speed=more energy=worse injuries=greater burden on the healthcare system + more deaths

I wasn't a math major, don't ask me for proofs.

Extent of injuries is irrelevant, otherwise you're essentially arguing that the speed limits as they currently exist, are only so that there's a lower total cost on the health-care system of the nation ... like, wassup with that?

[Depending on a lot of variables], when you're driving a car there is a certain threshold after which, it won't matter how much faster you're going over that threshold - 10 km/h over that, or 100 km/h over it - it'll still be a freaking mun meat and metal sandwich if you lose control of the car.

Originally Posted by heba

we all hate slow drivers and speed limits
BUT. look at dubai for example. they all drive 160-200km/hour. and every single one of therr car crashes are fatal.

That's not true, and it has more to do with skill and safety - drivers in Dubai are just plain crazy, reckless and impatient. I told you, last time I was coming back from Windsor I was cruising at 175 km/h for a long time, I only slowed down when I was going through fog and when that nice OPP officer pulled me over to have some chai and biscuits.

[Bruinrab]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Extent of injuries is irrelevant, otherwise you're essentially arguing that the speed limits as they currently exist, are only so that there's a lower total cost on the health-care system of the nation ... like, wassup with that?

[Depending on a lot of variables], when you're driving a car there is a certain threshold after which, it won't matter how much faster you're going over that threshold - 10 km/h over that, or 100 km/h over it - it'll still be a freaking mun meat and metal sandwich if you lose control of the car.

I'm not arguing that speed limits exist only to reduce healthcare costs, although that is a desirable "side effect" of reasonable speed limits (which to me is between 70-80, depending on conditions); the primary positive outcome measured is a reduction in fatalities. However, having seen many motor vehicle traumas first hand, I can tell you that they are costly, and not only in the health finance realm. Factor in pain, disability, the emotional impact on families, potential legal costs, etc. and the extent of injuries does become significant. 10-15mph can be the difference between a broken arm and a near amputation. Guess which one is more expensive/painful/traumatic to deal with?

The other problem is that the point at which speed becomes irrelevant is more like >100mph. So there's still a difference between injuries seen with an accident at 65mph and 85mph.

I told you, last time I was coming back from Windsor I was cruising at 175 km/h for a long time, I only slowed down when I was going through fog and when that nice OPP officer pulled me over to have some chai and biscuits.

English Breakfast or Earl Gray? Mmmmm...

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Bruinrab

English Breakfast or Earl Gray? Mmmmm...

Neither.

Its was of the more upscale brand of biscuits, as in, one of those that are creamy yellow and rectangular ... aka a $400 speeding ticket, which was inapplicable because I gave him some BS story which he couldn't verify, and so he put down a non-existent address on the ticket [which I gave him, and he thought was real] - and then me and my buddy just drove off, laughing about it, and then we both stopped laughing real quick when he remarked that it was the duas of our mothers that had protected us.

[hijabihoodlum]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Should either be raised significantly, or preferably, abolished entirely.

They don't make anyone safer. The only reason they exist is to make money for municipalities.

Discuss

i wish they were abolished for just me and other smart(er) drivers. realistically, though, just raised significantly. around here, interstates are about 65mph; i think 80-90 is nice though for interstate driving. i do think that some speed limits (like in neighborhoods) are justified though. it's just highway speed limits that bother me.