Much disseminated driving propaganda is meritorious, but to me, some of it lacks credibility.  Preaching driving safety has merit — that’s why I do it.  I tout the importance of knowing and maintaining your vehicle, being clear on road rules, paying attention to the driving task, reducing distraction, avoiding anger, and driving defensively — they are all proven tenets.

But some driving “truths” have little credibility.  Examples?  In my opinion, facts don’t support theories like lower speeds being safer or DRLs (daytime running lights) reducing accident rates.

Regarding vehicle speed, I’ve found that a “go with the flow” approach works well.  For most driving, the majority of traffic is operating at a rate 2-5 mph over the posted limits.  While operating my vehicles in that range, only a small fraction of others are going slower or faster than I am — the ideal scenario for safety.

Today, I think most posted speeds are reasonable — I didn’t feel that way in 1973 when federally mandated 55 mph limits were in effect on the freeways nationwide.  A review of history implies that this absurdly low speed was not any safer than today’s 70-80 mph highway limits.

The federal 55 mph speed limit disrupted normal traffic flow, ruined lane discipline, and encouraged traffic to move to less-safe two-lane highways.  Federal sanctions and enforcement incentives caused an allocation of resources to purposes that were counter-productive to public safety needs.  Enforcement of the unfounded 55 mph speed limit took precedence over helping stranded motorists, seeking out impaired drivers, controlling traffic in construction zones and targeting truly dangerous drivers.

Repeal of the 55 mph speed limit was bitterly opposed by the insurance industry, which predicted blood and mayhem in the streets and huge increases in auto insurance costs. Organizations funded by insurance companies even claimed that upping the 55 mph speed limit would result in 6400 additional fatalities annually.  It didn't happen.

In 1996 the states resumed total control of their speed limits and within two years the vast majority had increased or extended their highest speed limits. A degree of balance has returned to enforcement priorities, traffic is moving more smoothly, lane discipline is being given more publicity, and drivers are leaving less safe two lane highways for the convenience and speed of Interstates.

Better highways and better cars have certainly improved highway safety and indirectly reduced certain insurance costs.  But don't sell the benefits of rational speed limits short.  Not only are they more comfortable and more efficient, they are also safer.

DRLs are promoted as safer for us too, but it’s not proven.  The mandates for daytime running lights began in Scandinavian countries, and then migrated to Canada where a study deemed them safer.  In what seems more like a cost-saving move, GM decided to place the same system that was required in Canada on our U.S. vehicles.

The only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices was conducted by the Highway Loss Data Institute.  The results:  vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs.  The difference was minimal, but certain facts emerged:  DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, “mask” other road users that don't have headlights on, or don’t have headlights (pedestrians and bicyclists), and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.

Some “truths” must be questioned.

Readers may contact Bill Love via e-mail at precisiondriving@spokesman.com.

---

---