How much time do you save by speeding? To me, speeding significantly, especially for short trips, is futile.
Say in a 20 mile commute, 14 miles is on the highway with a speed limit of 65mph, 3 miles is on a road with a speed limit of 45mph, and 3 miles is on a residential road with a speed limit of 35mph. Furthermore, to simplify this, let's say you only speed on the highway. Going 65mph will result in 12.9 minutes on the highway, going 80mph will result in 10.5 minutes on the highway. By speeding, you exposed yourself to financial risk, and yourself and others to physical risk in order to save 2.4 minutes.
Now, let's say you encounter 6 stop lights on your commute, each with an average red light time of 1 minute. Let's say on average, you get caught in half of them each time you make the trip and that there are no backups requiring you to stay at any given light for more than 1 cycle. So your average red light time per commute is 3 minutes.
You've now spent more time waiting at red lights than you have saved by speeding on your commute.
On long trips, speeding can save you hours instead of minutes, so it seems more justified. But for a savings of 2.5 minutes that can easily be negated by red lights or other drivers? Why put yourself and others at risk for such a small reward?
Then why not speed on a track, or some other closed environment?
I imagine that shooting guns at targets is fun too - but most people wouldn't find that to be an acceptable excuse for shooting guns at targets in a public park.
It's not a part of the American culture so much. I think it should be.
I also think speed limits (on highways) should be higher, or be condition-specific. ... and I think we should have better driver's ed in the States, and harsher penalties for drunk driving.
> Then why not speed on a track, or some other closed environment?
Because freedom.
> I imagine that shooting guns at targets is fun too - but most people wouldn't find that to be an acceptable excuse for shooting guns at targets in a public park.
What do you think the "we use them to hunt" justification is for the American love of owning guns? The overwhelming majority of people who trot out this justification aren't depending on a good hunt for any real productive purpose; they go hunting because it's fun.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with driving fast or hunting/shooting guns - I'm just saying there is a context in which those activities are not acceptable, and that context is when you are acting unsafely and subjecting other people to unnecessary risk.
Note when I say park, I mean a city park, not a state park or wildlife park or wherever hunting is actually permitted.
You do save time on daily commutes because you're not including the cost of getting stuck behind lines of dumb drivers. You don't always get to go a smooth 70mph. Going faster (even if just by 5pmh) can get you ahead of a car. That one car can make or break you, because they may be the one that forms a blockade across all lanes that inconveniences everyone behind them. If you're smooth about speeding you can use it until you're ahead of the pack, then you hit cruise control.
On long trips, I optimize speed to road and traffic conditions, as everyone does, but also to engine RPMs. If speeding is making you run 4000 RPM in your highest gear, you might want to slow down a bit (use your onboard MPG display to see the difference). Someone can check whether the time savings of having to make fewer stops for gas is worth it. The fuel consumption and engine wear savings certainly seems good to me.
Update: There is also aerodynamics to think about. Aerodynamic drag is almost twice as great at 70mph as it is at 50mph.[1]
There is a valid safety concern. On certain roads, people regularly speed 70 to 80 mph in a 55mph zone. It is honestly safer to be ~70mph than it is to be going the proper speed limit in these circumstances.
It's really not always about saving time as another has noted. Speeding is not a significant time saver on short drivers, and I don't think there's anyone who can dispute that.
As you noted on long trips it can make a large difference. That's the only place I tend to bother these days - when I'm doing it to save time.
Say in a 20 mile commute, 14 miles is on the highway with a speed limit of 65mph, 3 miles is on a road with a speed limit of 45mph, and 3 miles is on a residential road with a speed limit of 35mph. Furthermore, to simplify this, let's say you only speed on the highway. Going 65mph will result in 12.9 minutes on the highway, going 80mph will result in 10.5 minutes on the highway. By speeding, you exposed yourself to financial risk, and yourself and others to physical risk in order to save 2.4 minutes.
Now, let's say you encounter 6 stop lights on your commute, each with an average red light time of 1 minute. Let's say on average, you get caught in half of them each time you make the trip and that there are no backups requiring you to stay at any given light for more than 1 cycle. So your average red light time per commute is 3 minutes.
You've now spent more time waiting at red lights than you have saved by speeding on your commute.
On long trips, speeding can save you hours instead of minutes, so it seems more justified. But for a savings of 2.5 minutes that can easily be negated by red lights or other drivers? Why put yourself and others at risk for such a small reward?