I've driven tens of thousands of miles back and forth across the country, often through fields or desert with no cars visible for miles. Going over 70 is still pointless.

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For a 1,000 mile trip, driving 85 instead of 70 can save 2.5 hours. That’s a pretty compelling reason to do it when the road is perfectly straight and flat for most of that journey.

The increased fuel consumption and reduced ability to avoid animals would be bigger concerns to me than personal safety

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So it takes 12 hours instead of 14 hours?? That's not a compelling reason lol. And you have to use a 1,000 mile road trip as an example to make the time "saved" approach significance.

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The comment thread is about “very long stretches of highway in the US that see little to no traffic” and 1,000 is a round number. It’s not that outlandish to drive that far in the US especially if you count round-trip distance.

Saving 2.5 hours of boredom evidently is compelling, that’s why people do it.

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 days ago

The comment thread started with me saying I've driven tens of thousands of miles back and forth across the country. Which is why I'm laughing at the claim that quadrupling the risk for a marginal time savings doesn't make sense.

Carbrained Statesians don't make rational decisions.