Speeding Slows You Down (By a Lot)
An article claiming that “speeding slows you down” by adding expected loss of life to trip time prompts wide debate over how to reason about risk, probability, and travel time. Commenters argue over whether equating higher crash risk with extra “dead time” is mathematically or philosophically valid, while noting that most driving danger actually comes from factors like not wearing seatbelts, alcohol use, and poor road design. The thread broadens into comparisons between cars and public transit, the ethics of imposing risk on others, and potential safety gains from self‑driving cars, stricter enforcement, and infrastructure changes.
Methodology and mathematical framing
- Many commenters reject the article’s core trick of adding expected life-expectancy loss to trip time; they see it as mathematically odd and ethically dubious, though sometimes amusing.
- Others defend it as “napkin math” that treats death as converting future free time into “dead time,” useful mainly to dramatize driving risk rather than literally optimize speed.
- There is debate over whether the model should assume death at the trip’s end vs. halfway; one commenter later concedes their own criticism here was mistaken.
- Some argue that if death means you never arrive, the “trip time” is infinite, but others counter that what matters is finite lifetime lost, not arrival.
Risk, speed, and safety factors
- Several note that the probability of dying on any given trip is tiny; expected-time penalties are correspondingly small.
- Others point out that speeding’s risk increase is only one factor; not wearing seatbelts, alcohol/drug impairment, distraction, and child-restraint misuse dominate fatality statistics in multiple modes (cars, motorcycles, cycling, pedestrians).
- One thread argues that faster driving might reduce certain head‑on collision risks by passing fewer oncoming vehicles, but others respond that higher impact speeds, worse reaction times, and greater injury severity likely outweigh this.
Cars vs. transit and cycling
- Commenters highlight that cars are much riskier than trains and buses, yet are widely accepted because they are faster, more flexible, and often the only practical option, especially in car‑centric US cities.
- Some note that public transit, especially buses, often has poor user experience and longer door‑to‑door times, making modest life‑expectancy losses from driving feel like a worthwhile trade.
- There’s extended discussion of cycling dangers, legal treatment when drivers kill cyclists, contributory negligence (e.g., no helmet, cyclist DUI), and how perceived risk pushes people off bikes.
Self‑driving, enforcement, and policy
- Several see self‑driving cars as a path to dramatically reduce (though not eliminate) traffic deaths and to make streets safer for cyclists.
- Proposed measures include GPS‑based speed limiters, automatic braking, speed bumps, and red‑light cameras, with pushback about surveillance and mixed evidence on camera effectiveness.
Driving behavior and culture
- Multiple comments connect aggressive driving and speeding to stress, traffic waves, tickets, and crashes that erase any time savings.
- Others emphasize matching the prevailing speed, maintaining lane discipline, avoiding constant braking, and valuing smoother, less risky driving over marginal time gains.