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

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by pete c

Speeding is a factor in the majority of fatalities. I would be willing to bet that in the very large majority of these cases, we are talking extreme speeds. People driving 5-10 over the limit, in normal conditions do not cause these accidents. Accidents at these speeds are caused by inattentiveness.

While less excessive speeds are less likely to cause fatalities than more excessive speeds, all speeding increases the risk of accidents, including fatalities:

"We found that the risk of involvement in a casualty crash... increased at an exponential rate for free traveling speeds above [37MPH]"
Speed and Crash Risk - Executive Summary

"When travel speed increases by 1%, the injury crash rate increases by about 2%, the serious injury crash rate increases by about 3%, and the fatal crash rate increases by about 4%"
Traffic Safety Center Newsletter Winter 2008, Volume 5, No. 1: Traffic Safety Culture: the role of speed

Actual studies of traffic accidents is more convincing to me than your personal opinion.

There are vehicles such as farm vehicles incapable of the speed limit. These vehicles require special markings or emergency flashers. I don't have an issue with them and they are rare enough in most areas that they are not an issue.

Actually, I was thinking more of a truck with a 4.10 rear end and no overdrive, on a 75mph limit road. So, maybe 60mph, not 15mph like a tractor would do.

If they are driving the limit and come around a turn and can't get their vehicle under control in time to keep from hitting someone moping along in front of them, they suck at driving and need to pay better attention. We know that these idiots exist. And knowing this, we should drive accordingly which means keeping to something approaching the speed limit in areas where they know that driving well below the limit could result in an inattentive driver causing an accident. A good example of this would be driving at night where depth perception is crap, or driving on roads with many sharp bends.

In the end, it really doesn't matter who was right or legal. We have to share the road and that is a two way street.

Again, as the two studies above show, driving faster increases overall risk.
A rear end accident has the impact force of the speed of the rear vehicle minus the speed of the lead vehicle. A head-on collision is the sum of their speeds (and a side-collision is the speed of the impacting vehicle only). By driving fast to avoid a rear-impact you have a small affect on the potential impact force of that accident, while having a large effect on the potential impact force of the more likely and more severe head-on and side impact. Driving faster gives you less reaction time and less braking distance.

Yes they can. And on roads with minimal shoulders this is certainly the way to do it. On roads that have wide shoulders, it is perfectly safe to slow a little more, put on your right blinker and allow others to pass. I have a toyota motorhome, so I get to practice this technique frequently when driving it.

Agreed. I do this to, when there are wide shoulders and no passing lane.

[ecomodded]

Originally Posted by pete c

It's not necessarily a case of ability, it is more a case of self-righteous doooshbaggery. Unfortunately it is fairly common.

These people remind me of the "take the lane" militant "vehicular cyclist" crowd. A "vehicular cyclist" BTW, is a cyclist that uses the letter of the law giving him full vehicular rights and duties to an absurd level. Folks like this haven't any problem with large backups of ICE powered vehicles behind them, even when a decent sized shoulder exists. I am a cyclist and even I want to mow these dipsticks down when in my car!

I had to quote that, So true.

Also I want to say that I have been side swiped by someone who was stuck behind a slow speed bozo in his dually pick up.
I approached the two vehicles from the slow lane,passing her, the person stuck behind the road hazard, She pull out into the slow lane to pass the said road hazard and hits me as i just pass her.
It was that slow driver who caused it, i told icbc that( my insurance carrier) they paid for repairs, the blame was put on the frustrated driver, stuck behind a incompetent slow poke.

The guy driving the dually pick up was in the fast lane going about 40 km in a 60 km zone.

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by ecomodded

It was that slow driver who caused it.

"Its not my fault I shot that guy, officer - he was teasing me, so I had no choice"

You believe she was FORCED to side-swipe you?
Because slowing down, even temporarily, was not an option?

"The Blame was put on the frustrated driver" because they were at fault.

Because you have an anecdote where a slow driver induced road rage in another driver doesn't change the statistics that driving faster causes more accidents.
Click the links in my last post if you don't believe me.

[pete c]

There are lie, damn lies and statistics.

-Mark Twain

So, I guess what you are saying is driving 3 mph over the limit is more dangerous than 3 miles under?

If you believe that, you are a moron, plain and simple.

Anyone whpo has spent much time at all on the road knows what happens when someone drives along at anything less than the posted limit on a busy road. Traffic backs up behind them quickly. People get frustrated, start tailgating and next thing you know, someone runs into someone.

Does this mean that the slowpoke is at fault? Technically no. Everyone is responsible to keep their vehicles under control. If you run into someone in front of you, you are at fault. BUT, this does not negate the fact that someone being an inconsiderate ass, poking along at less than the posted limit, created a condition that resulted in an accident. The "statistics" will not cite this, but, it is fact.

As for the 1 mph causing 2% more fatalities, I would like to see the data on that one. How accurate is it?

How do they know to the mph how fast the person was going?

They don't, generally, with that level of precision. They just toss a bunch of vague data in and work their spreadsheet magic.

Do not take this as an endorsement to speed wrecklessly. It is not. it is just pointing out that in certain conditions, driving a few over may improve flow, making things safer whereas driving just a few under the limit will quick quickly lead to unsafe conditions.

[ecomodded]

Jacob i agree that speeding is one of the leading causes of accidents, but these bonehead slow pokes are causing them too.
What it comes down to is courtesy, i give it to other drivers, i expect it back, when its not like in the case of the king of the slow speed corner who holds up 61 to 99 cars or what ever calamity he is about to cause i have to say- get the f*** off the road you nitwit.

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by pete c

you are a moron, plain and simple.

Well, you got me. I can't argue with logic like that. You have clearly proved your point.

Seriously, do you have ANY evidence at all, other than "everyone knows"?

"Everyone knows" that a truck, SUV, or full-size car is safer than a midsize car... but that is false.

"Everyone knows" that the safe and responsible thing for a parent to do is to drive them to school - but the chances of them dying in a car crash is literally 2000 times higher than being killed by a random kidnapper or being run over in a cross walk.

A lot of times what "everyone knows" is wrong.

By your reasoning, all drivers should be obligated to speed by as much as the car behind them wants to go. That's frequently not 3mph over (already illegal), its more like 10-15 over. There are roads where if you aren't going 10 over, traffic will build up behind you.

As for 1mph causing 2% more accidents... if you want to know the details of the study, you could always try reading it.
They don't have to know to the precision of 1mph. If 5mph causes 10% more, 10mph causes 20% more, and 15mph causes 30%, its not really voodoo math to figure out the trendline.

Besides for the data, it also syncs up well with what we should expect from the basic laws of physics:

F(a)=m*(Δv/Δt)
or
F=(1/2*m*v^2)/D

F=Force
F(a)=average over time
m=weight of car (in terms of stopping distance) or weight of person (in terms of bodily damage)
v=speed
t=time
D=distance over which change in speed occurs

In other words, very small changes in speed translate to large changes in braking distance (which determines whether you have a crash or a near miss) as well as large changes in impact severity if a crash were to occur.

I suppose you are going to call physics a lie too?

driving a few over may improve flow

Giving my wallet to a mugger would reduce potential conflict and violence too. However, I am not going to go out of my way to appease someone who is doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Originally Posted by ecomodded

Jacob i agree that speeding is one of the leading causes of accidents, but these bonehead slow pokes are causing them too.
What it comes down to is courtesy, i give it to other drivers, i expect it back, when its not like in the case of the king of the slow speed corner who holds up 61 to 99 cars or what ever calamity he is about to cause i have to say- get the f*** off the road you nitwit.

Sure, I have encountered people driving 20 below in the fast lane, or people merging onto a 65mph highway at 30mph, or coming to a complete stop to make a right turn when there is nothing to possibly hit, and other extreme examples.
When I am on a one-lane road with no safe places to pass, I will not drive less than 5 below the limit (if safe). What I won't do is drive above the limit, or faster than conditions dictate (for example, driving 5 below at night in heavy rain is too fast. Driving 25 below in snow might be too fast).

I'm just trying to point out that speeding is never ok, and that speed causes much more accidents than slowness. Drive at the limit (when conditions allow) all you want. But if there is more than one lane, let the slow people drive slow.

[Gealii]

well i know today because of hypermiling it saved me from hitting a deer. i was going 35mph dis morning were a 2 lane road split into a 4 lane road and increased to 55mph beings i did not feel like wasting fuel speeding up for 3 secs just to turn i stayed at 35 then a deer jumped out and i was going slow enough to use the brakes and just have the deer's hind legs jumping over the hood of my zx2. I'm loving hypermiling more and more everyday.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by pete c

If you believe that, you are a moron, plain and simple.

Keep it civil man. That's neither a funny nor a useful remark.

[pete c]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

Keep it civil man. That's neither a funny nor a useful remark.

I thought it was civil enough. Just giving my opinion. And, IMO, it is useful to point out to others that we all have to share the road and that our driving habits affect those we share the road with.

Is it civil when others take quotes out of context?

Is it civil when someone allows traffic to pile up behind them because their getting an extra .3 mpg is more important than safe driving conditions?

[pete c]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

"Everyone knows" that a truck, SUV, or full-size car is safer than a midsize car... but that is false.

"Everyone knows" that the safe and responsible thing for a parent to do is to drive them to school - but the chances of them dying in a car crash is literally 2000 times higher than being killed by a random kidnapper or being run over in a cross walk.

Interesting figures on the car type/fatality figures, but, not the least bit surprising to me.

Small cars do poorly because they lose the momentum battle.

"Everyone" does not know that SUVs are safe. Those of us with brains understand that they are rollover hazards and that SUV pilots tend to think that they can drive fast in slippery conditions because they have a 4x4.

The midsize/large car numbers are a bit interesting. I suspect a possible explanation is that large car drivers tend to be 79 year olds. There is also the fact that the average number of passengers in the large car is probably higher. This also could explain the low numbers for pickup trucks.