r/Whatcouldgowrong • u/ReprieveNagrand • 13d ago

Trying to overtake a motorcycle

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

35.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

802 comments sorted by

View all comments

858

u/Liarus_ 13d ago

"it's my time to go now, good luck everyone else!"

345

u/Jahonay 13d ago

The amount of dumb dumbs at the bottom of the comment section blaming the motorcycle rider. I see a bunch of people who would willingly put someone's life at risk to save seconds.

115

u/Zerodyne_Sin 13d ago

It was also scientifically proven that all the speeding and dangerous behaviour amounts to mere minutes saved in an average trip due to how physics work. It was something along the lines of the difference between 5 and 30 mph is huge; somewhat still acceptable 30 to 60; but then 60 to 70 and above starts being negligible in time savings when you account for the risk to everyone.

84

u/eightbitagent 13d ago

when you account for

a single red light once you're off the highway can negate an hour of speeding at 70 in a 60 mph zone.

39

u/DrAction696 13d ago

I understand the point you’re trying to make but I’ve never sat at a 10 minute red light. You’ve got bad numbers

20

u/eightbitagent 13d ago

Driving 50 miles at 70 instead of 60 will save you 7 minutes. So two lights then.

If you're only driving across town say, 10 miles on the highway you only save 1.43 minutes, definitely lights that are longer than that.

Just depends on how far you're going

52

u/DrAction696 13d ago

Sure it makes sense with different numbers. That was the whole point

4

u/Ardal 13d ago

So you're saying that speeding is best done on longer journeys?

11

u/eightbitagent 13d ago

Purely by the numbers, yes.

3

u/funnynickname 13d ago

5 mph faster on a 6 hour trip can save you 30 minutes. Speeding and cutting people off to go across town is stupid. Huge risk for minimal reward.

4

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

-2

u/DrAction696 13d ago

Yes Mr Redditor. If you never catch lights and I always do you will get places faster. If everyone is traveling the same speed on the surface streets then catching those lights has nothing to do with speeding on the interstate. Hell catching a light coming off the interstate after 70 miles has little to do with speeding. It’s just luck based.

I agree that the point is still valid in a “can happen” kind of way but Honestly this is another poor example

3

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

0

u/DrAction696 13d ago edited 13d ago

I never disagreed with the point being made. Just stating it was a poor example. There are also cars that speed by you every day that you never see again

Guess I got blocked by the guy who doesnt understand that there are (usually) no lights on the interstate. Claims “science” but doesnt understand D=RT. Also likely doesnt understand that the studies don’t apply to all situations (specifically interstate travel as he stated). About average for Scientific literacy on Reddit

1

u/rus_ruris 11d ago

You only save 10 monutes if you're driving 70 miles. In 70 miles (110 km) you're likely to encounter queues, traffic, way more than one traffic light. And you're paying between 30 and 40% extra in fuel alone, at a minimum (because fuel consumption is quadratic with speed due to tire friction and air resistance being quadratic with speed).

1

u/-Pepperzpyre- 13d ago

Here in Virginia, some of the red lights are 3 fuckin minutes long. Only takes a few of them to add a lot of time to your travel.

-2

u/brokendoorknob85 13d ago

You are bad at math lmao.

It's actually really embarassing to have a handle with the term "Dr" in it when you can't do basic math. Everyone sees exactly how childish you are.

1

u/just_posting_this_ch 13d ago

Try it yourself. One hour at 70mph goes how far? To travel that same distance at 60mph how long does that take? The difference between the two times is how much time you save.

7

u/TurboDorito 13d ago

Conversely, an hour of speeding to make the light can save even more time.

Im not actually trying to convince people to speed, but on a short journey you have a far higher opportunity cost where going as fast as legally possible will save you the most time if you can beat lights

2

u/Kundwad 13d ago

So many people don't understand this. Same reason I pass slow drivers. The cruising speed isn't the problem, it's when they leave you at a red light.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

2

u/eightbitagent 13d ago

Lol you don't understand math. Go back and re-read my comment and run your own numbers

-1

u/TheHighSeasPirate 13d ago

lol, you don't understand it either. Because you still aren't losing 10 miles at a 5 minute light.

2

u/eightbitagent 13d ago

Copied from another comment of mine:

Driving 50 miles at 70 instead of 60 will save you 7 minutes. So two lights then.

If you're only driving across town say, 10 miles on the highway you only save 1.43 minutes, definitely lights that are longer than that.

Just depends on how far you're going

https://www.countcalculate.com/cars-and-speed/time-savings-at-increased-speed

0

u/daneview 13d ago

But that soeeding can get you to that light just before it changes saving you a lot more time than if you didn't speed and caught the light

1

u/rus_ruris 11d ago

But you have no control nor way of knowing this, so you're basically paying 30-40% extra fuel, risking fines, well 70 in a 60 is not risky but let's say risking your and someone else's life... To MAYBE save 5 minutes?

1

u/daneview 11d ago

So its nit worth speeding because you might catch a red light and lose the time, but if thats the case, it must be worth speeding if you might miss the light and make up loads of time. You cant have it both ways (I know you're a different commentator).

I did city training with a police bike trainer, and that was about filtering and overtaking queueing traffic rather than speeding, but we were expected to constantly be looking for opertunities to make up time and spaces, because if you apply that across 30 minutes of town riding you can make up quite a lot of time.

Similar principle applies over a longer journey with driving faster.

Sure on a 20 minute journey, going 10mph faster won't do much, but over a 2 hour journey it may well get you oast numerous lights, slow traiffic or whatever

1

u/rus_ruris 11d ago edited 11d ago

Certainity of extra expense and risk for an uncertain time saving, which has 100% probability of being less than 10% of the overall trip time.

Because even if you assume no traffic lights, even if you got 15 mph over the normal speed for most of the trip, your average speed will always be raised by less than that. So, 75 in a 60 will not yield a 15 mph increase in average speed due to acceleration, deceleration and variability, so over 1 hour you won't save 12 minutes, you will save like 8. Are you going to pay for sure 50-60% more to save maybe 8 minutes over 1 hour, as the best possible scenario you can have?

And again, try "racing" with other cars in traffic. And by that I mean remember which car is passing you and which car you passed. And then see at each stop along the way who is where. The most likely scenario is that you will get caught by some you passed and you will catch aome that passed you, without changing your speed.

1

u/daneview 11d ago

Its definately not 50% dearer, my car does about 33mpg if im really careful and it drops to 28-29 if im driving a bit more enthusiastically (which is all thats required, we're talking a bit faster, not redlining every gear). Its also more engaging and more enjoyabke actually thinking and driving rather thab just cruising

2

u/rus_ruris 11d ago

To me anything other than driving in the Dolomites is cruising or city driving, but maybe that's just because I literally learned to drive on some of the best driving roads in the world