Does it really matter though? Is the end result just a couple of minutes later in a 30 minute commute? Or does it actually make a large difference in travel time?

▲

avidiax 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Is the end result just a couple of minutes later in a 30 minute commute?

More like a few seconds.

Every car that merges in front of you only costs you their following distance. If the average following distance is 1 second, then you are simply 1 second slower than you'd have otherwise been. So unless this is happening continuously every 30 seconds on your 30 minute commute, you will lose less than a minute.

The "but if I kept reasonable following distance, people will keep merging in front of me and I'll lose time" excuse is pretty thin given this analysis.

And an insurance claim can easily eat 40 hours of time between the insurance companies, other lawyers, buying a new car, medical appointments and recovery. That's 19,200 minutes you won't get back, or about 52 years of driving 1 minute slower each day.

Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

▲

yial 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It doesn’t - but people don’t necessarily make rational choices regarding speed and driving. There’s a tendency to de personalize other drivers.

A slight increase in average speed really only makes a significant difference over long drives. (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes).

Otherwise we are talking about small differences in efficiency.

(I would be very open to another opinion here.).

My opinions are formed by nearly ~2 million miles driven at this point, two different driving courses, and the motorcycle safety course.

One thing I truly think that’s overlooked is how reduced road noise in the vehicle cabin can both reduce driver fatigue, but also frustration in traffic.

▲

alexose 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> A slight increase in average speed really only makes a significant difference over long drives.

Yes! I feel like I can't shout this loud enough. In addition to maintaining a safe driving distance, just leave a little earlier. The stuff I've seen people do in order to save 20 seconds boggles the mind.

Unfortunately, I think commuters fall into a gamification mindset. They're trying to set a new lap record each day, and you can see the results just by driving (or walking) during rush hour...

▲

badc0ffee 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes)

You can't really say that without knowing the starting speed, or alternatively the distance. All you can say is that a 5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive with get you 50 miles farther.

▲

yial 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I would argue I can still say it /can/ cut off 50 minutes.

If you do a comparison of a 600 mile trip at 60 vs 55 you’re pretty close.

But yes, to be pedantic and more exact, you are spot on that it will get you 50 miles closer.

But in real world examples,

If you’re traveling 700 miles.

65 vs 70, 70 will reduce your time by 43 minutes.

So in certain scenarios, 5 mph difference must be able to save you 50 minutes ! ;)

(I do understand your point, and you’re correct. I’m just poking fun at it- my point with the mph difference is because 50 miles doesn’t have the same translation for most people at 50 minutes, but is a more accurate data approach. )

	▲	badc0ffee 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> So in certain scenarios, 5 mph difference must be able to save you 50 minutes ! ;) That is true. If you're going 55 mph for 10 hours, you'll go 550 miles. Increase your speed to 60 mph, and you'll get there at 9 hours 10 minutes.

▲

mountain_peak 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It used to be more of an issue when I was younger. Now that I'm older and more 'seasoned' (plus reflexes do slow down), I'm far more patient and have no issue maintaining a healthy following distance. I think the statistics reflect this in age vs. accident rate as well.

Unfortunately, sometimes over a 45 minute freeway commute, dropping back repeatedly means arriving 15 minutes or more later. Again, no big deal now, but it was somehow unacceptable when I was younger.

	▲	Noumenon72 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For your commute to take 4/3 the time, you would have to be averaging 3/4 the speed -- going 45 in a 60. That doesn't make sense because even going 55 would mean traffic pulled away from you rather than you having to drop back from it. Going 55/60ths the speed means you arrive in 60/55ths the time, or an extra 4 minutes on a 45 minute commute.

▲

cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have been doing the same commute at the same time for the better part of a decade. At this point I can look at my watch and tell if I'm ahead of schedule or behind schedule and infer what the compounding effect will be later in my commute.

I can easily shave 10% off my commute by lane changing to avoid the lanes where turn lane traffic tends to back up into the travel lanes, ramp traffic and "problem people". I test the null hypothesis several times a month by carrying bulky topheavy cargo that precludes a bunch of lane changing without more effort than I want to put in.

I don't think there's much to be gained by simply lane changing to chase fleeting gaps in traffic. The wins and losses will probably mostly cancel out.