Count of actual accidents caused by ecomodding, eco-driving or hypermiling

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I know not everybody has had the opportunity of taking a drivers ed or defensive driving course but the ones I have taken have taught that you should drive with the flow of traffic even if it is over the limit.

I already posted multiple links with real world data on how speed affects accident rates. That was overall data, not simulations or predictions, so it inherently takes any speed differentials that may exist on the highway into account.

As I said before, there is evidence that having a speed differential from the average flow of traffic increases the accident rate, however injury and fatality accidents increase exponentially with speed.

This stands to reason, since impact force is a factor of the vectors of each vehicle involved - for head-on collisions, the speed of each car is additive: 2 cars hit head on at 65mph is equivalent to hitting a concrete wall at 130mph.
Even with airbags, 130mph = instant death.
However, in a rear-end collision the speed of the lead car is subtracted from the striking car's speed. If traffic is going 75 and you are only going 65, and some idiot plows into you without slowing down, that is equivalent to a 10mph crash.
10mph crash = Big friggin deal.

In other words, by matching the flow of traffic when everyone is speeding you are decreasing your chance of a fender bender while increasing your chance of a fatal accident.

Worth it?

[Flakbadger]

Without having read most of the comments, and knowing that someone has probably already put it more eloquently than I can, here is my $.02 ($.029 if you're from Canada).

Hypermiling has made me a safer driver. I have never paid more attention to my mirrors in my life.

While I have always tried to be a safe driver (8 years, no accidents yet) I strive to hypermile without overly inconveniencing other drivers, and that means staying in the right lane and being aware of what's going on around me.
I frequently "pass myself for others" on the freeway, switching to the center lane when some dumb-ass inevitably tailgates me in the right lane while two other lanes are completely open, and try to watch traffic far ahead and behind me, to better anticipate my driving.

So while "extreme" hypermiling (prolonged P&G and EOC) might appear to the casual observer as a more dangerous way of driving, my own experiences tell me that it's probably the exact opposite, and drivers engaging in this are likely safer than those around them.

~Matt

[pete c]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

This stands to reason, since impact force is a factor of the vectors of each vehicle involved - for head-on collisions, the speed of each car is additive: 2 cars hit head on at 65mph is equivalent to hitting a concrete wall at 130mph.
Even with airbags, 130mph = instant death.
However, in a rear-end collision the speed of the lead car is subtracted from the striking car's speed. If traffic is going 75 and you are only going 65, and some idiot plows into you without slowing down, that is equivalent to a 10mph crash.
10mph crash = Big friggin deal.

In other words, by matching the flow of traffic when everyone is speeding you are decreasing your chance of a fender bender while increasing your chance of a fatal accident.

Worth it?

Some of this is incorrect, some of it is stupid.

Lets start with the 2 vehicles hitting head on is additive.

Wrong.

It is true if one vehicle is a geo and the other is a fully loaded semi. But, if the vehicles are of comparable size, a head on collision means you go from your initial speed to zero in stantly. So it is comparable to hitting a concrete wall or big oak tree. Mythbusters recently did a test on this to prove it.

Now for the second part, concerning fender benders at speed. You conveniently leave out the fact that they are still traveling at a high speed. Someone bumping you from behind at V+10 mph could upset you car to the point where it spins. Spinning at high speeds is a bad thing as it can result in barrel rolling at high speeds which tends to not work out too well for those in the vehicle.

So, the bottom line here is that 2 vehicles rolling along at comparable speeds, even if they are a little over the limit is a safer situation that one traveling at the limit and one traveling 10 over. Not that it's a horrible situation. It's not, assuming folks use a little sense and lane discipline. Trouble is, many don't have that common sense as they roll along on the highway sending text messages.

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by pete c

Some of this is incorrect, some of it is stupid.

Lets start with the 2 vehicles hitting head on is additive.

Wrong.

It is true if one vehicle is a geo and the other is a fully loaded semi. But, if the vehicles are of comparable size, a head on collision means you go from your initial speed to zero in stantly. So it is comparable to hitting a concrete wall or big oak tree.

assuming the wall or oak tree had an enormous mass and was completely immoveable...

If you prefer, change what I said to "a head-on collision with each car going 50 is equivalent to rear-ending or T-boning the same car when it is at a stop and you are going 100mph"

Yes, a rear-end could cause a roll-over sometimes. So can side impacts. So can head-on impacts.
Statistically head-on impacts are more fatal than rear-end.
And statistically increases in speed increase fatal accidents.

If you have any actual data or statistics that says you are less likely to be in a fatal accident by driving 10 over because most other cars around you are, please share it.

[pete c]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

assuming the wall or oak tree had an enormous mass and was completely immoveable...

If you prefer, change what I said to "a head-on collision with each car going 50 is equivalent to rear-ending or T-boning the same car when it is at a stop and you are going 100mph"

Yes, a rear-end could cause a roll-over sometimes. So can side impacts. So can head-on impacts.
Statistically head-on impacts are more fatal than rear-end.
And statistically increases in speed increase fatal accidents.

If you have any actual data or statistics that says you are less likely to be in a fatal accident by driving 10 over because most other cars around you are, please share it.

Yes, big oak trees are pretty damn immovable. I will go with the rear ending a stationary car 100 mph comparison.

My point remains that while any accident does become potentially worse with speed, not having an accident at 60 mph beats the hell out of having one at 50 or 40 or 10, for that matter. And driving below the limit can, in certain situations increase the risk of these accidents happening.

A good example is driving on a busy two lane below the limit. Such activity increases the likelyhood of someone attempting a dangerous pass. This is not defending such unsafe behavior. It is simply recognizing that it exists.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by pete c

...

A good example is driving on a busy two lane below the limit. Such activity increases the likelyhood of someone attempting a dangerous pass. This is not defending such unsafe behavior. It is simply recognizing that it exists.

In that circumstance I would most likely not drive below the limit, but I would be at the indicated limit on my speedo. I might go slower but only if there are frequent stop lights that time green at a lower rate.

I always leave a lot of room in front of me, both to keep a safe distance and to give me a cushion to avoid braking due to traffic speed variations. That undoubtedly presents what looks like a passing opportunity to frustrated drivers. If someone takes that risk, they must bear the responsibility of that risk not paying off.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

If you prefer, change what I said to "a head-on collision with each car going 50 is equivalent to rear-ending or T-boning the same car when it is at a stop and you are going 100mph"

It'd still be wrong.
You can't simply add up the speeds as the energy equation has speed squared.


Ekinetic = mass * V * V / 2

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

If you have any actual data or statistics that says you are less likely to be in a fatal accident by driving 10 over because most other cars around you are, please share it.

The data doesn't exist and I don't see anyone arguing that here. The thread started about hypermiling being dangerous (yes or no), and while a hypermiller may not incur significant or maybe even any additional risk the argument being made by myself and some others is that they are definitely increasing the risk of those around them under certain circumstances.

[ecomodded]

I don't think its hypermiling that is the problem, I hypermile and never hold up anybody except for the person who wants to speed. I usually drive 5 kmh over the speed limit in rural areas, do all my EOC and hpermiling when no one is behind me. No harm no foul.
It is the inconsiderate driver a hypermiler or not, that is the problem, putting himself ahead of others on the road.
I swear that lot of drivers are causing most the accidents.

[ecomodded]

Originally Posted by skyking

I disagree with you, but your assumption that I'd be the king of the slow speed corner could not be farther from the truth!
I'm the guy that sets his cruise control in the really twisty mountain roads, and hangs in there as fast as the tires will let me, and never EVER speed up on the straights like the typical duchebag drivers. If you can't hold it in the corners, let others pass you on the straights.

I like your style of driving.
Hypermiling should be spirited and fun, with long coasts in neutral taking advantage of the terrain
pulse n gliding or cruising slow when traffic permits.
I love the country road corners at 50 mph, my car handles tight , it has hard suspension for a stock set up so its very snug threw the corners.