The author should have listed the fatalities by 100 million km driven - of course practically-empty Finland is going to have far fewer fatalities per 1000km of road than much denser Germany!
No-one forces you to drive faster (1) and when driving you can stick to the right lane (2) and check your mirrors when you need to pass (3).
How could this be managed for all the non-German vehicles that pass through? How invasive would this be?
As a sibling comment said, the difference in speed is what makes for the danger, and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around might be less-prepared to deal with you popping up at 200 as he’s trying to pass a truck lumbering along at 80.
That’s the other extreme that is a part of the problem. Both, the speedster and the slouch think their speed is safer for them. Driving too slow for the traffic around is as dangerous as driving too fast.
It’s that damn Velocity squared term that always fucks things up.
Being to fast is therefore much worse for the people around you. Slow drivers annoy other drivers, speeders tend to kill other drivers.
Yes, I get the kinetic energy argument.
Lack of attention while driving is the real killer. Speed can be a factor.
Slow drivers on the other hand are being overtaken and so their inattention is rarely an issue for others on a freeway.
Of course, from an outsider perspective it is difficult to distinguish.
You are putting others at risk by driving faster because for example the increased forces on your tire dramatically increase the risks of a blowout. They are less able to deal with avoiding obstacles not only from reaction time issues but because their increased momentum makes turning slower. And it keeps going, excess speed doesn’t seem like a big deal but there’s a reason it kills so many people in other vehicles.
> You are putting others at risk by driving faster because for example the increased forces on your tire dramatically increase the risks of a blowout. They are less able to deal with avoiding obstacles not only from reaction time issues but because their increased momentum makes turning slower.
The tires have a speed rating. Have a look at the tire wall. The letter on the tire tells you what speed they are rated for. If you don’t look after your tires, it doesn’t matter how fast you are going to be travelling. A friend of mine was killed in an accident at 20kph.
You need to know what you are driving and don’t be reckless.
In the end you can’t know what you are actually driving, only make reasonable assumptions about it. I know people that died at low speeds and high speeds, but statistically it’s high speeds that are the most significant risk and there isn’t anything you can do to eliminate those risks.
At the end of the day life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
Which is why I don’t object to people driving motorcycles at those speeds rather than cars. It greatly increases someones personal risks while slightly reducing the risk to others, which is a fine tradeoff. My only request is people take a closer risk assessment rather than blindly thinking they are meaningfully safer drivers than others when taking such risks is already putting them below average.
You're neglecting one very important fact:
A driver who is correctly taking advantages of the freedom of a derestricted section, following all the rules and driving fast "the right way" doesn't interfere with other traffic at all. Likewise for a driver who is driving in the same manner on equivalent roads in other parts of the world that don't respect their drivers in the same way. If you're driving fast the right way, you don't interfere with anyone else.
Compare that to a driver going significantly slower than the normal flow of traffic. That driver is always interfering with other traffic. Everyone wanting to drive the normal speed has to maneuver around them which creates problems for the next lane or two over. Depending on how easy it is to get around the slow driver they may also create road rage.
Now, obviously if you screw up while driving fast the consequences are generally going to be substantially more severe, but slow drivers cause problems of their own just by being there, no matter how well they're driving otherwise.
There's a reason most controlled-access highways require that your vehicle have a minimum level of power and some even have minimum speed limits. When the flow of traffic is X, a vehicle moving X-20 is a dangerous obstruction.
Someone driving slow can force other drivers to deal with them.
Someone driving fast avoids problems when they slow down to avoid traffic. If they don’t slow down when all lanes have someone in them …
People talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect all the time because it’s so insidious. Doing 200kph on a good bike is very unlikely to kill you the first time. You’re terrified and try and minimize the risks, but soon you’ve done it a few times and it feels old hat. What changed wasn’t skills just desensitization so people end up having higher risk as they start to feel more safe.
There are ways to actually get better, but it’s always going to be extremely dangerous and if you start to think differently it’s very much time to stop.
That argument works both ways - why do you feel like you should take away a person's right to safer roads just because you didn't have a kid? Any speed limit or lack thereof does not account for driving skill.
A victim of a car accident loses a lot more than a sense of fun.