>

It doesn't say slow driving causes accidents.
Also a random pdf from a site to find lawyers to deal with speeding and DUI doesn't seem like a very unbiased source.
But suit yourself. I'm sure you'll be much safer driving at 60mph in a 45 zone than at 30mph
Yes. Do not clog up the road. Don’t go far over or far under the speed limit. >

Perhaps, but even more dangerous would be slow drivers going fast. >

The only problem I have with "slow drivers" are the ones who drive slowly and when you least expect it, they gun it around a turn or across a street... You watch them, you anticipate them continuing slowly, then they slam the gas to cross a busy road... E.G. My sister-in-law... >

The worst. Especially when they cause everyone BUT themselves to miss the light. Like they crawl until the light is turning yellow then hit the nitrous to blaze, fully aware of how missing a light is annoying but not caring they caused the dozen cars behind them to. >


people in their anger are gonna do whatever they can to get around the jerk holding up the road

I think you’ve identified the problem. >

Correct, it's the jerk holding up the road. >

Ikr. I was driving home from work yesterday and this idiot was only going 60mph in a 40 zone!! Only 20 mph over the limit.
Naturally I tailgated him profusely, until he decided to break which caused him to hit me from the front!!!
For some reason the police are blaming me for this…so stupid. 
Some people just shouldn’t be driving. >

I wonder what will end in more crashed cars. If everyone drove too slow or if everyone Was speeding..... >

It would be about the same since most collisions occur from lane changes. If traffic is flowing smoothly, then the speed is almost irrelevant. >

Way less reaction time with speeding >

If you were to driving in an obstacle course and you hit an object because you couldn't maneuver fast enough to avoid it, would it be the object's fault that you hit it? >

Yes, that tree came out of nowhere! >

My uncle said this once. Except it wasn't a tree, but a fire hydrant >

I just imagine him trying to explain to the insurance "IT JUST CAME STANDING AT ME, I TRIED TO AVOID IT, BUT IT JUST STOOD STILL" >

Our roads are an ice rink about 4 months of the year. On the average commute to work, I drive by at least one or two vehicles that have hit the ditch or someone else. 
I don’t think it’s the slow ones. >

Which is why I indicated at the end that obviously there are situations which 100% require driving slower, inclement weather definitely being one of those >

So basically your opinion is “Slow drivers are more dangerous than fast drivers but only when I say so”. Ok. >

I indicated twice in my post that there are obvious exceptions, and my opinion is based around normal conditions on the highway when someone is driving so slow that it starts to create a stressful situation for everyone else on the road. cmon man >

I just have to comment about this, because I have seen this sentiment before.
People complain about slow drivers, because they make fast drivers angry they have to slow down, so they do reckless and dangerous things.  So blaming slow drivers instead of fast.
But, lets say you have a woman whose husband says 'she just makes me so angry, I have to do reckless and dangrous things'.  How many people would agree that the woman was at fault?
I agree that people *need* to stop camping in the passing lane and actually pass people.  But blaming slower drivers because *you* get angry at being delayed is ridiculous. >

So someone who keeps their dog outside, lets it bark nonstop at everyone, and doesn't bother to train it is in the right. And everyone else is ridiculous for their anger. Sure thing chief. >

I learned this is drivers ed years ago. 
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph. >

Statistically that's not true fast drivers cause more fatal accidents whereas slow drivinf can lead to small ones that usually result in a broken parts of the car's carcass . You can look them up , I've read several before. >

it’s more about the cause and effect of slow drivers making already fast drivers get angry and drive even faster to get around them, and just in general make everyone stressed out with the jamming of traffic >

Yes but I'm talking consequences, it's just false to say that fast drivers cause accidents because of slow drivers, that's just statistically not true, otherwise since you made that claim you could provide a survey that suggests that . >

I see your point, but do you have any evidence that there are more crashes, injuries, or fatalities from slow driving compared to speeding?
I agree with the idea that driving slower than traffic is an underrated issue, but I can't say that it's more dangerous. >

Can you look up how many people die every year from driving too fast vs how many die every year from driving too slow? I think it would be a good statistic to support your opinion