The deadly issue with driving is that it's just too easy. 99.999% of the time things go just as well as you'd like without much active thinking. People get lulled into a false sense of security and get bored and start distracting themselves with their phone or whatever else.
We really need to redefine a car trip as a way to get you somewhere safely rather than quickly.
That's because we've built the country since the 1950s in such a way that a car is a necessity rather than a luxury.
The article even says (1) not enough data (2) most crashes leading to the increase aren't in areas where the limits increased.
But, most people never read past the headline, so I’m sure this will get passed off as gospel.
Would this qualify as fake news? Misleading news? Or something else?
Of course, if the cars involved were not going fast, our stone-age brains would not make stupid decisions and cause crashes. We are neurologically well equipped to navigate speeds up to about a fast run, past that we are pushing our abilities.
But that's not even the point. Traffic accidents happen everywhere, all the time, but those at high speeds are more likely to be fatal. The insurance companies have done the math, they don't make this stuff up.
Except that's not true. Most fatal accidents occur off of highways, despite the fact that highways have much higher speed limits.
My opinion (biased, obviously) is that the people who choose to drive significantly below the speed limit are more of an issue than those who choose to drive above it.
Someone driving over the speed limit is going to be monitoring the traffic ahead of them. Those are the people they are most likely to interact with.
Someone driving exceptionally slowly is much less likely to be monitoring the traffic behind them adequately enough to know when someone is approaching them rapidly from behind.
Further, the amount in excess of the speed limit that the vast majority of people would be willing to drive is a fairly small delta (10, maybe 15mph max). The amount below the speed limit someone may choose to drive is much larger, mostly by definition of it being any value from zero to the speed limit.
A habit I picked up a few years ago thanks to seeing others doing so is to put on my 4-way flasher hazard lights if I'm driving significantly below the speed limit (usually due to snow or super heavy rain). It helps alert people that "hey, this person is going slower than you probably expect them to be, so pay attention"
Whenever I get into a car for the first time, one of the first things I do is figure out where the 4-ways are, and try to remember that piece of information so that I can turn them on as a reflex, if needed.
My experience, limited though it is, is that in Detroit nobody drives the speed limit or anything close to it. 85 in a 65 zone was standard.
Now I can't find the article. So take this with a grain of salt.
I doubt Michigan drivers are objectively worse so I imagine it's just a bad finding.
If you're able to keep your eyes off the road and work on your laptop, read a book, take a snooze, whatever... are you all that worried about whether you're doing 70mph or 80mph?
I think that a lot of the aggression of drivers is due to opportunity cost. They feel like they could be doing something else with their time and that the driving part is a waste.
"Michigan has the highest car insurance coverage requirements in the U.S. — most notably Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance with unlimited, lifetime medical coverage for car accident injuries. Michigan's insurance requirements guarantee many health and recovery benefits to injured drivers, including reimbursement for lost wages, in-home nursing care, and specialized medical treatments." 
(I didn't realize their rates were THAT much more than surrounding states... ouch.)
1) The one person who says “I go 80 anyway so I like it”. People drive whatever speed they want regardless of speed limit. Case in point, the person who said “I still drive 70 because 75 is too fast”. There’s nothing inherently dangerous about speed until you hit something. Cars hitting each other is much more likely when the speed differential increases.
2) The person who talks about the economy having more of an impact on driving behavior than speed limits. I’d love to see more data on that, but regardless of if it’s true, we know that the speed limit doesn’t have the biggest impact on driver safety, and we know that thanks to
3) The Autobahn referenced at the very end of the article, and other no-limit freeways that exist even in America. I had an opportunity to drive on some unrestricted sections of the Autobahn this past summer and even with the huge differentials in speed, drivers managed to not crash into each other.
I don’t know what the problem is so I don’t know what the solution is, but I can make a couple more observations. First, Germany has a law that your car has to be in proper working order and it’s taken off the roads if it’s not. Having spent a lot of time in Northern Michigan where this article takes place, there is no guarantee that cars on the road are working. As long as the car can move, people will drive it. Doesn’t matter how long they’ve been using the same brakes or tires. So when it comes time to avoid an accident, their car is not capable of stopping or maneuvering in time.
Secondly, drivers training in the US is abysmal. You’re expected to learn how to avoid collisions by yourself, and you’re expected to learn how to drive in bad weather (wind, snow, rain) by yourself, on public roads, with other drivers around you.
An extra five miles per hour on a limited-access freeway in an amazingly rural area should not impact anything at all, ever. There HAS to be other factors in play besides the speed limit.
such agencies will die out soon because they spread fake news.
hey bridgemi, I wish you unemployment soon!
Also, 14 fatal crashes for the year. When numbers are that small, any variation makes for a big change in percentages.