Soooo we seem to be the most tolerant state to speeding.

[49erfan916]

Arizona should be up there too. Phoenix drivers drive like a bat out of hell.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Correct. Speed does not kill. Speed differential kills.

The survivability rate of a pedestrian being hit at 35 mph vs 45 mph shows pretty clearly that the higher speed does indeed kill.

If two Cars Crashed on the interstate going 80 and 70 mph respectively, all other things considered equal, that would be more dangerous than two cars having the same collision at 60 and 50 mph.

Being on a limited-access highway can make going 80 safer than driving 45 on an arterial road...sure...but that is obviously because they have removed conflict points. The danger of going 80 is smaller than the benefits of being limited access...but that doesn't mean there isn't an inherent danger of going 80.

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

The survivability rate of a pedestrian being hit at 35 mph vs 45 mph shows pretty clearly that the higher speed does indeed kill.

If two Cars Crashed on the interstate going 80 and 70 mph respectively, all other things considered equal, that would be more dangerous than two cars having the same collision at 60 and 50 mph.

Being on a limited-access highway can make going 80 safer than driving 45 on an arterial road...sure...but that is obviously because they have removed conflict points. The danger of going 80 is smaller than the benefits of being limited access...but that doesn't mean there isn't an inherent danger of going 80.

First, no one was discussing pedestrians, that has no bearing on any of this. If a pedestrian gets hit on a highway, they're not going to survive.

Most of this discussion has been oriented around the fact that higher speeds do not necessarily lead to more accidents. Driving 65 or driving 75, the accident rate is statistically identical.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by astrohip

First, no one was discussing pedestrians, that has no bearing on any of this. If a pedestrian gets hit on a highway, they're not going to survive.

Most of this discussion has been oriented around the fact that higher speeds do not necessarily lead to more accidents. Driving 65 or driving 75, the accident rate is statistically identical.

The rate would depend on the road and construction. If you were driving the exact same stretch of road and crashed in the exact same way...just different speeds, you would be better off going 65 at the time of the impact in almost any imaginable scenario.

Thinking that Pedestrians don't factor into car related deaths is exactly what is wrong with most Texans to begin with and it is why we have such high pedestrian kill rates...Peds are an afterthought at very best.

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

The rate would depend on the road and construction. If you were driving the exact same stretch of road and crashed in the exact same way...just different speeds, you would be better off going 65 at the time of the impact in almost any imaginable scenario.

Thinking that Pedestrians don't factor into car related deaths is exactly what is wrong with most Texans to begin with and it is why we have such high pedestrian kill rates...Peds are an afterthought at very best.

Again, you don't understand what I've written (and others). I didn't say you're better or worse going 65 or 75. I said the accident rate is the same. Insurance companies try to sell you on higher speeds equal more accidents, but repeated studies have shown modest speed increases (eg, 65 to 75) cause NO MORE ACCIDENTS.

Next... neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has said anything about pedestrians. Other than you. I'm not saying they don't factor into things. I said including pedestrians into a discussion about highway speeds is nonsensical. Whether they're hit at 50 or 75, they're dead.

And you're also wrong. Check it out, Texas is #14, not even in the top ten:
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/State...destrians.aspx

[Need4Camaro]

I will agree to an extent that higher speeds don’t necessarily mean more accidents. I believe Montana for example had fewer accidents before they employed speed limits and it was found that the speed limits were causing drivers to become bored or fall asleep while driving. Speed differential is definitely more dangerous than speed, although speed does carry an inherent risk, the faster you go the less reaction time you have should a split second emergency occur, and also the less capable your vehicle is of evading danger or steering to safety as it must first counter its own inertia.

I would however be more afraid of a vehicle weaving in and out of traffic doing 75 while traffic is doing 50 - 55 than I would be of a vehicle keeping up with the flow of traffic at 80. At the same time though I do have to note we seem to have an emphasizing expectation that everyone is capable and ready to do 80, and that isn’t necessarily the case, especially when elders are involved, they tend to drive slower. Speed limits are not employed based on what we feel safe with but what is best for the overall safety of everyone on the road, including those who may not be able to safely travel at the speed limit.