Druff's "Fastest Car on the Road" theory

[mdj1980]

I finished up listening to this week's radio show on Friday and I was glad to hear Druff discussing his "Fastest Car on the Road" theory...I couldn't agree more.
When I hear people talking about driving sometimes I like to pose this question to them - "What is the safest speed to drive?" It's disappointing how many people (that I've trusted to drive me around before) will reply with a hard number answer like 30 or 55 or whatever, completely ignoring that the safest speed would vary depending on the situation.

The answer that I give them is that the safest speed to drive, ideally, would be the exact same speed as the car in front of you and the car behind you. If you did that, and you and the surrounding cars maintained your lanes, there would be no possibility of an accident. Since the cars in front of you are often not going the same speed as the cars behind you, this is usually not possible. But if you are one of the fastest cars on the road, you do gain a safety advantage in that most of what you have to worry about lies in front of you where you can see it, and you are rarely dealing with anything from behind. And if an extremely fast driver does come up behind you, the difference between your speed and theirs will be less, so you will be less likely to be surprised.

I don't usually go more than 10 or so over unless I need to in order to keep up with traffic flow but it still frustrates me to hear when people say things like "speed kills" because that is totally untrue. Making unpredictable lane changes, driving distracted or drunk, not driving appropriately for the conditions, running lights or rolling through stop signs are all significantly more dangerous than driving 55-60 in a 45 mph zone.

I live in Florida so if there's one thing I know about it is horrible drivers. Between the seniors that drive 10 mph under the speed limit at all times and then plow into the side of the strip mall when they're trying to park, the hotshot jerks going 30 over that weave in and out of traffic without signaling and tailgate anyone that stands in their way, and the tourists that drive a reasonable speed until their GPS tells them the next direction and now they need to cut over 3 lanes at the last second, I've seen it all.

OK, my mini-rant is over but for those of you that didn't make it all the way to the end of Wednesday's show, go back and give it a listen...

[gauchojake]

[sonatine]

thank you gauchielle.

[limitles]

I finished up listening to this week's radio show on Friday and I was glad to hear Druff discussing his "Fastest Car on the Road" theory...I couldn't agree more.
When I hear people talking about driving sometimes I like to pose this question to them - "What is the safest speed to drive?" It's disappointing how many people (that I've trusted to drive me around before) will reply with a hard number answer like 30 or 55 or whatever, completely ignoring that the safest speed would vary depending on the situation.

The answer that I give them is that the safest speed to drive, ideally, would be the exact same speed as the car in front of you and the car behind you. If you did that, and you and the surrounding cars maintained your lanes, there would be no possibility of an accident. Since the cars in front of you are often not going the same speed as the cars behind you, this is usually not possible. But if you are one of the fastest cars on the road, you do gain a safety advantage in that most of what you have to worry about lies in front of you where you can see it, and you are rarely dealing with anything from behind. And if an extremely fast driver does come up behind you, the difference between your speed and theirs will be less, so you will be less likely to be surprised.

I don't usually go more than 10 or so over unless I need to in order to keep up with traffic flow but it still frustrates me to hear when people say things like "speed kills" because that is totally untrue. Making unpredictable lane changes, driving distracted or drunk, not driving appropriately for the conditions, running lights or rolling through stop signs are all significantly more dangerous than driving 55-60 in a 45 mph zone.

I live in Florida so if there's one thing I know about it is horrible drivers. Between the seniors that drive 10 mph under the speed limit at all times and then plow into the side of the strip mall when they're trying to park, the hotshot jerks going 30 over that weave in and out of traffic without signaling and tailgate anyone that stands in their way, and the tourists that drive a reasonable speed until their GPS tells them the next direction and now they need to cut over 3 lanes at the last second, I've seen it all.

OK, my mini-rant is over but for those of you that didn't make it all the way to the end of Wednesday's show, go back and give it a listen...

The safest speed is the one that seperates you from the the crowd. From there you simply want to heep the distance you've established. If you get dinged for this, it's not your day, continue.

Power is nice to have for this but not necessary.

[Dan Druff]

Come on, that didn't deserve a noose.

As I mentioned on radio, I really do feel that you are gaining a safety edge by being the fastest driver on the road, provided you're not going at a reckless speed.

This is because no drivers will take you by surprise from behind. Furthermore, you can see reckless drivers in front of you and take steps to avoid them.

This is counter-intuitive to what people think about driving safety, in that it's assumed that driving slower is always safer.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

The safest pace is speed limit and if they flash you with their high beams go to left lane. And always yield to any vehicle with wood paneling regardless of laws.

[lewfather]

Todd doesn't like it from behind, confirmed missionary.

Also don't agree with the theory either, you have people sliding lanes without turn signals, road conditions *snow, rain etc*, accident ahead, police ahead etc. you're better off just keeping up with the general pace of traffic and stick to the middle lane. reasons why? first lane = dealing with merging cars and the fast lane you deal with people coming from behind riding your ass thus making you speed.

Middle lane, keeping up with general pace is the right answer. Also I heard that in Michigan at least they can pull you over if you're riding in the fast lane for to long, it's supposed to be only used for passing cars in the middle lane. Just another reason to get pulled over on some bullshit.

[Dan Druff]

Todd doesn't like it from behind, confirmed missionary.

Also don't agree with the theory either, you have people sliding lanes without turn signals, road conditions *snow, rain etc*, accident ahead, police ahead etc. you're better off just keeping up with the general pace of traffic and stick to the middle lane. reasons why? first lane = dealing with merging cars and the fast lane you deal with people coming from behind riding your ass thus making you speed.

Middle lane, keeping up with general pace is the right answer. Also I heard that in Michigan at least they can pull you over if you're riding in the fast lane for to long, it's supposed to be only used for passing cars in the middle lane. Just another reason to get pulled over on some bullshit.

Not really talking about lanes here.

I'm talking about general driving, and how being the fastest car (within reason) might be the safest, because nothing surprises you from behind.

Of course, you are more likely to get tickets this way, but that's what radar detectors are for.

[MumblesBadly]

Todd doesn't like it from behind, confirmed missionary.

Also don't agree with the theory either, you have people sliding lanes without turn signals, road conditions *snow, rain etc*, accident ahead, police ahead etc. you're better off just keeping up with the general pace of traffic and stick to the middle lane. reasons why? first lane = dealing with merging cars and the fast lane you deal with people coming from behind riding your ass thus making you speed.

Middle lane, keeping up with general pace is the right answer. Also I heard that in Michigan at least they can pull you over if you're riding in the fast lane for to long, it's supposed to be only used for passing cars in the middle lane. Just another reason to get pulled over on some bullshit.

Not really talking about lanes here.

I'm talking about general driving, and how being the fastest car (within reason) might be the safest, because nothing surprises you from behind.

Of course, you are more likely to get tickets this way, but that's what radar detectors are for.

That is the rub. Because of overconfidence bias, people have a hard time judging what is reasonable if they are also trying to be the fastest on the road. A huge hazard of driving so fast is that you have less time to react to traffic slowdowns and/or people ahead of you driving badly/blocking lanes/etc. As a professional trucker, I've driven over 100,000 miles each year for the past three years, and having more time to react to hazards ahead of me is definitely better than trying to avoid hazards coming up from behind me.

[LegallyNonBindingPosts]

I made the call that could have been a real softball for druff. I did not make the call immediately following druff's reply when someone texted "embarrassing" or similar. I hoped that druff would have enjoyed driving on roads that many guys would label as fun, particularly in a good handling car. That is after all something that people across the globe have enjoyed for decades. Examples; tv shows Top Gear, Jay Leno's Garage, tons of print and emedia including youtube all showing peeps driving, laughing and having a good time. And SoCal still embodies the car culture and has many roads that wind around in the mountains. So druff sez he has never driven Angels Crest Hwy and did not speed while on the famous Hwy 1 up the coast to Monterey. druff didn't want to lose control in a corner and fly into space. Might provide a clue into his choice of limit over no limit.

Fastest car theory is complete shit with anecdotal evidence from 1 source only. That's not a theory, more like a hunch. If faster cars surprise you, you are not checking your mirrors often enough. Take a class with Smith Driving System and learn proven techniques of real world driving. https://www.drivedifferent.com/
Or at least do these. Keep your eyes moving. Scan all mirrors every 8 seconds. Aim high in steering means looking far ahead, a quarter mile to half mile at hwy speed. If u r staring at the bumper in front of you u r doing it all wrong. Get the big picture. Leave yourself an out. (difficult in jams) Make sure others see u. You probably think u know everything u need to know about driving, you're still alive right? At any point while trying to make money at poker, sports betting or table games did you think there was no value in further education for u. In a casino u can only lose money, driving can carry a higher price.

[LarryLaffer]

I always hear it's "10 you're fine 11 you're mine."

I drive a lot on the interstates between chicago and minnesota. just stick to 10 over, and use your cruise control. you'll never get a ticket. Also, in certain states, riding in the far right lane on any road over 3 lanes is illegal. Like Lew said, stick to the middle lane.

if you're going more than 15 over, you can expect a ticket no matter what. AND, they don't even need you on radar. The only ticket I've ever gotten was when I was going ~91mph in a 70. The cop saw me speed past a semi from the other side of the interstate, and that was that.

Druff's theory will just get you a speeding ticket because it's fucking stupid. Keep up with traffic.



this isn't the first time druff has talked about this on the radio by the way.

there's a show that starts with Van Halen's 55, and he leads off with an anecdote about driving to vegas, and this theory.

[BetCheckBet]

As someone who spent two years of his life researching the FARS database can say without a doubt the OP is correct about average speed relation to traffic being the safest. LOL at fastest car being safest. There is so much info to contradict this and truly hope people are not honestly taking this strategy especially if driving with young children or for that matter drives a motorcycle..

[adamantium]

As someone who spent two years of his life researching the FARS database can say without a doubt the OP is correct about average speed relation to traffic being the safest. LOL at fastest car being safest. There is so much info to contradict this and truly hope people are not honestly taking this strategy especially if driving with young children or for that matter drives a motorcycle..

Also jews are not very good drivers, when was the last time a Kike won a F1 race?

[DonaldTrumpsHairPiece]

speed kills

[MumblesBadly]

speed kills

Found a vid that demonstrates the hazards of high speed driving. Too graphic to not spoiler.

 

[DonaldTrumpsHairPiece]

Actually I was thinking more like this... an ignorant thing for him to say because I HIGHLY doubt he was smiling at all before he died.



To end any debate the safest place to drive should be the highway, all in one direction traveling at approx. same speed. Its simple math and if travelers on the highway obeyed the laws within reason it literally would take a freak accident, sudden weather etc to cause a serious accident. But no we have break check morons, cut off's, distractions and so on.

Sorry Dan but going even faster is actually counter productive.

[Dan Druff]

The problem is that all of these "speed studies" do not apply to what I am talking about.

I am NOT advocating that everyone drive faster. If everyone on the road (or even 20% of the people on the road) took my advice, it would be a disaster.

This is something that only works if you can drive a safe speed which is still faster than everyone else (or almost everyone else) on the road.

This also only works on straight, high-speed-limit, easy-to-drive roads and highways. I'm not advocating this for mountain driving or badguy23 residential neighborhoods.

Most speed studies unfortunately do not separate fast drivers from reckless drivers and drunk drivers. Often reckless drivers and drunk drivers are also speeders, so this makes all speeders look terrible in such studies.

This discussion reminds me a lot of the long-running 55 MPH national speed limit debate. In 1974, the US lowered all speed limits to a maximum of 55, and this mostly stood in place until 1995, when the law was finally changed. The supposed "lives saved" data by the 55 MPH speed law was found to be flawed, especially because the law had the unintended side effect of discouraging usage of interstate highways, moving drivers onto much less safe side roads with a similar or identical 55 speed limit. Furthermore, it became one of those "How far do you go?" questions. A national speed limit of 25 would almost completely wipe out auto fatalities. Why not do that? At some point you need to exchange safety for convenience.

I can tell you from 29 years of driving that I feel most comfortable when I can see what's coming and nothing surprises me from behind. I don't ever drive at reckless speeds. I've driven over 400,000 miles in my life and never had an accident over 20 mph (unless you count the deer that ran into my car last year).

[Mintjewlips]

Lol at that deer that ran into druffs beamer, what a douche.

[Dan Druff]

[MumblesBadly]

The problem is that all of these "speed studies" do not apply to what I am talking about.

I am NOT advocating that everyone drive faster. If everyone on the road (or even 20% of the people on the road) took my advice, it would be a disaster.

This is something that only works if you can drive a safe speed which is still faster than everyone else (or almost everyone else) on the road.

This also only works on straight, high-speed-limit, easy-to-drive roads and highways. I'm not advocating this for mountain driving or badguy23 residential neighborhoods.

Most speed studies unfortunately do not separate fast drivers from reckless drivers and drunk drivers. Often reckless drivers and drunk drivers are also speeders, so this makes all speeders look terrible in such studies.

This discussion reminds me a lot of the long-running 55 MPH national speed limit debate. In 1974, the US lowered all speed limits to a maximum of 55, and this mostly stood in place until 1995, when the law was finally changed. The supposed "lives saved" data by the 55 MPH speed law was found to be flawed, especially because the law had the unintended side effect of discouraging usage of interstate highways, moving drivers onto much less safe side roads with a similar or identical 55 speed limit. Furthermore, it became one of those "How far do you go?" questions. A national speed limit of 25 would almost completely wipe out auto fatalities. Why not do that? At some point you need to exchange safety for convenience.

I can tell you from 29 years of driving that I feel most comfortable when I can see what's coming and nothing surprises me from behind. I don't ever drive at reckless speeds. I've driven over 400,000 miles in my life and never had an accident over 20 mph (unless you count the deer that ran into my car last year).

I think you should consider a new career path given the skills you have demonstrated here as follows:

1) Your anecdotal evidence is a sample size of 1, hence not statistically meaningful.

2) Not including the deer strike as evidence against your argument is blatant data massaging.

3) Your supposedly supportive argument based on a lower *absolute* speed limit is a strawman argument that is not relevant to your orginal argument based on *relative* speed.

4) You advance these points with such lack of self-reflection about their flaws that your writing has an false air of confidence and authority.

As such, you might want to see if the fossil fuel industry needs another professional climate-change denier on staff.

P.S. And here is a vid that shows why going slower is better.