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

[myrefugeisintheLord]

Some of those stories and comments were very amusing.

For me, I'd say I'm a safer driver overall. However... sometimes I find myself more distracted then my lead foot days, because I'm trying to take in so much more information and remember so many more things. Hypermiling certainly takes a lot of thought and planning! Which I enjoy.

I take more back roads and side streets now. BTW, I wish there was a GPS, app, or website that would tell you a route that had the least amount of elevation changes! That would be cool!!
I drive anywhere between 20 MPH under the speed limit, to 10 MPH over on the hwys. With our hilly terrain, that's easy to do. Though, as soon as I see someone in my mirror, and there's not a good place to pass, I adjust my driving to accommodate them. Typically that means driving closer to the speed limit (no less then 5 MPH), and taking advantage of down hills or curves to gain some distance from them, which is SO easy to do on the curves. Yeeee haaaa!

In town, I don't seem to have TOO much trouble from people, though more then I do on the hwy. I've learned to come to a stop at a red light a lot further back, so I can start getting going before the person in front is moving. That has really helped keep the people following me from zipping around and cutting RIGHT in front of me. *SO annoying!*

The only thing that I've been doing, that will probably bit me later, is I can't stand stopping fully for stop signs, or turns anymore! Out in the country, I'm really bad if there's nobody around.

YeahPete: I also go faster through green lights to help others get through it too. I try to not only keep an eye on my fuel efficiency, but those around me too. If I can manipulate someone else to not have to stop, I'll do it, minus holding someone up.
I'll also move into the left lane in town if I'm going to be first at a long red light, just in case the person that comes up behind me wants to turn right. Keep people moving forward.
One note about driving on the shoulder, I normally won't do this because I don't want to kick up any rocks for the people passing. I don't have mud flaps for obvious reasons, and my RAV is high enough to cause a possible costly problem for someone.

When I got started hypermiling a year and a half ago, I wanted to make sure people knew I wasn't driving this way because I wanted to bother them in any way. So after months of thinking about it, last year in March I decided to plainly tell them what they could expect.


Unfortunately "hypermiling" is still a new word that many people don't have a clue what it means. We need to get the word out there!!!

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by euromodder

A lot of posts point to speeding as the cause of fatal accidents.

German research - one of few countries doing proper research on accidents - points out that it's the main cause in only around 3% of accidents !

"Main cause" is kind of like "51% at fault".

The question isn't what is the "main" cause, the question is just "could the same accident have been avoided, or been made less severe, if one or both drivers were going slower?"

Anyway, now that we are all in agreement about 1) not going above the speed limit, and 2) being courteous to other drivers, I'd like to thank yall for a good internet debate, and wish everyone safe travels.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

Anyway, now that we are all in agreement about 1) not going above the speed limit, and 2) being courteous to other drivers, I'd like to thank yall for a good internet debate, and wish everyone safe travels.

On board with this.

I do not mean to give the impression that because I often drive under the limit I am not paying attention to those behind me, or getting in anyone's way. When there is no opportunity for others to pass, I maintain the limit to 5 mph under (and of course my speedo reads 2-3 mph low like all of them do). I often drive that way to time the lights as not stopping is more important to me than going slow. In fact, if I know a light sequence will catch me if I drive the limit or less, I will slight exceed the limit if I can catch the light.

But if people get annoyed because I approach a red light slowly, both in an effort to better use my momentum and to keep some speed if the light turns, I have no sympathy. They can either pass me unsafely and waste fuel, or not pass me and thank me later for saving them fuel.

[skyking]

Today I made a trip to town, and deliberately set the cruise at 55 on the interstate. In previous times I would be @60, the limit in that area.
It really made no difference with regards to traffic, I am pleased to admit. People were just as flaky, inconsistent, all over, in and out of various lanes, and we all arrived at the interchange together anyway. I milked it for all it was worth

[Fat Charlie]

I read earlier that you have no right to do that. Every delay that day (even here) is your fault.

[UFO]

Lol

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

The question isn't what is the "main" cause, the question is just "could the same accident have been avoided, or been made less severe, if one or both drivers were going slower?"

The end result of that line of reasoning can only be Vmax = 0 .
Which would be sort of impractical.

The flaw in this reasoning is that it only works when only the speed-factor is changed.
In the real world, it's not just the speed that changes.

People will drive less attentively at lower mandated speeds.
People will pull out closer in front of slow-moving vehicles - negating the effect of reduced speed.

If reduced speed would really help, surely we'd see less accidents.
Fact is, we don't .
Despite all driving aids like ABS, EBD, ESP, and what not, combined with lower allowed speeds - and lower attainable speeds due to congestion - the number of accidents goes up year after year.
You'd think those driving aids would stand their best chance at preventing the lower speed accidents, and reducing the severity of the higher-speed collisions. Apparently, it's not happening.

Some claim that accidents are getting less severe, as fatal accidents are decreasing.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Accidents get more survivable, due to better designed cars (better crumple zones, better structural integrity) and better medical help.
Not because they are less severe.


These days, if you hit anything solid at 40 mph in a modern car with your seatbelt on, you'll step out, shrug it off, and be a bit stiff the next day.
30 years ago - or in a 30 year old car - you'd be cut or carried out, possibly off to the morgue.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by euromodder

People will drive less attentively at lower mandated speeds.
People will pull out closer in front of slow-moving vehicles - negating the effect of reduced speed.

If reduced speed would really help, surely we'd see less accidents.
Fact is, we don't .

That is a common assertion, and not having seen data, I disagree.

I've seen plenty of (idiots) not pay attention at any speed. Some people who consciously speed may pay more attention the faster they go, but I think most drivers are drones and do not vary road attention except when passing an accident, then attention goes down.

Some people will take advantage of slower vehicles and pull out in front, but that's ok as I am in control and adjust. I see more frequently, people do not factor speed into merging decisions, only distance, so faster people are more at risk of collisions.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by myrefugeisintheLord

The only thing that I've been doing, that will probably bit me later, is I can't stand stopping fully for stop signs, or turns anymore! Out in the country, I'm really bad if there's nobody around.

US 4-way stops are amongst the most foolish thing I've ever come across on any road.

Petition your city or county to have them removed and replaced by priority and yield-signs unless where Stop signs are absolutely necessary - i.e. where you can't yield safely unless you stop to check for traffic.

It's downright silly to stop ALL traffic when you could make more than half of it carry on without any problem, while the rest can slow down, but roll through when traffic allows.

The US could save millions of gallons of gas and reduce pollution, by replacing them with priority (on the most travelled road) and yield (on the less used road) signs.

It'd also settle any priority claims between colliding parties.
Now, there's no telling who made it to the crossing first.

[JacobAziza]

Originally Posted by euromodder

The end result of that line of reasoning can only be Vmax = 0 .

Not really, it would just have to be a speed at which there were no significant injury accidents, which, as you pointed out, could be as high as 40mph. Incidentally, also around the number which the studies I posted earlier found to be the rate above which the effect of additional speed is exponential on injury and fatality rate.

The flaw in this reasoning is that it only works when only the speed-factor is changed.
...
People will pull out closer in front of slow-moving vehicles - negating the effect of reduced speed.

Yes, but again, the effect is exponential. If someone pulls out twice as close on a vehicle going 1/2 the speed, they have a better chance of stopping in time to avoid a collision.

If reduced speed would really help, surely we'd see less accidents.
Fact is, we don't .

You mean "we didn't", don't you? The national speed limit has been removed.
I admit that the rate of accidents didn't decrease as significantly as expected when there was one. The reason for this is because it wasn't enforced, and so it was largely ignored by the public. Speeds did not change appreciably because of the national 55 limit. Countries which have lowered and enforced lower limits have in fact had dramatic decreases in auto fatalities, and have seen corresponding increases when repealing those limits (, presumably for proper A-B-A testing):
Speed limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite all driving aids like ABS, EBD, ESP, and what not,

- yup. Risk compensation. People who have these features drive faster.

combined with lower allowed speeds

huh? where? when?

the number of accidents goes up year after year.

Total accidents, or per mile accidents? More people drive more year after year, so you would expect the over all total number of accidents to increase. Besides, I'm only interested in injury or fatality accidents. I think it is more than worthwhile to increase the number of fender benders if that is a side-effect of decreasing fatalities (for example, when a lower speed causes a greater lane-differential, it increases risk of a non-injury crash while decreasing the overall risk of fatality)

Originally Posted by euromodder

US 4-way stops are amongst the most foolish thing I've ever come across on any road.
...
It's downright silly to stop ALL traffic when you could make more than half of it carry on without any problem, while the rest can slow down, but roll through when traffic allows.

The US could save millions of gallons of gas and reduce pollution, by replacing them with priority (on the most travelled road) and yield (on the less used road) signs.

100% agree!!!!! Endlessly aggravating, both in the car and on the bicycle. In Berkeley they actually started putting in traffic circles with 4-way stops.
WTF!?!?!
The whole point of a traffic circle is it allows all 4 lanes to keep moving while cars merge with side traffic instead of crossing them.