>

Let me get this straight. You think I'm in the wrong for driving the speed limit? Suck my ass through cheesecloth, people like you are the exact reason American driving education needs to be revamped.
ItS aCtUaLlY sAfER To DriVe 100 MpH bEcAUsE tHatS whAt OtHer cArs aRe dOiNg.
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 >

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 >

Slow drivers cause others to lane change more often, which is when most accidents happen. Slow drivers put others around them at risk. This has been studied. >

I agree with you. Everyone here is saying too it's the result of others losing their cool so the slow driver isn't the problem. 
Butttt.. everyone knows that slow drivers DO cause people to lose their shit and people that lose their shit are a danger to everyone on the road. 
To me if it's safe driving conditions and you can't go the speed limit at least, you probably shouldnt be driving because going the speed limit shouldnt be difficult.... stay in the slow lane. I don't mind slow drivers unless it's two slow drivers side by side blocking everyone with no awareness.  If you can't be aware, get off the road. >


people that lose their shit are a danger to everyone on the road. 

They shouldn't have a licence. 

To me if it's safe driving conditions and you can't go the speed limit at least

"At least" is wrong. You are never supposed to pass the speed limit. Drive the speed limit. Speed difference is dangerous, you are not important enough that you need to endanger everyone around you to get home 2 minutes faster. 
Not all roads have multiple lanes. >

Yeah they probably should. As should a lot of slow drivers. The roads would be a lot safer if a license required any sort of competence.
If the conditions are clear  going 50-55 in a 45 isn't endangering anyone unless the person is otherwise driving recklessly. But slow drivers can be just as reckless. Many more so in my experience.  It's usually the slow drivers I see lane drifting or being unaware. Often because being slow is a result of others circumstances (texting, being distracted, etc)
No not all have multiple lanes but if they do you should be in the slow lane if you are slow. >

So someone driving slow causes you to lose control of your emotions and slam on the gas? >

No, they impede traffic, cause more lane changes, resulting in more collisions. This is not opinion, it is fact. California has laws for driving slower than the flow of traffic for exactly this reason. You could be going 65, but if everyone around you is going faster, you are a hazard. >

In some cases, but you gotta know that speeding is literally only saving you about 5 mins or so... is that worth risking your life and others?? >

Ah, yes.... Going the speed limit... The most dangerous of road offenses. >

Agree. A fast driver has only him as the variable for a crash. A slow driver causes every car to go around him, increasing the risk of a mistake being made by someone.  
Fast drivers overtake you and they're gone. Slow drivers hold up traffic for everyone, causing pileups, frustration and more. >

I'm sorry but the every first example is based on other drivers mistakes as well. One of the biggest if not an incredibly important rule of the road is never lose your temper or act in frustration, this leads to accidents. Sure the slow driver clogging the lane is infuriating but that in itself is not a threat, once you decide to get annoyed and do something rash you are at fault.
A speed limit signifies the maximum amount of speed you can maintain on the road. Being 5-10km under the speed limit isnt more dangerous than being 5-10km over and if you are the one breaking the spees limit you are automatically in the wrong.
The safest thing to do while on the road is to maintain appropriate speed, appropriate is anything within reason below the speed limit. Nobody is doing 60 on a 60 they are likely doing 55-59 ruling out the ones going above because it is much easier to maintain a speed below the limit without causing harm to other road users. >

All the reasons that involve another drivers reactions are bogus.   Road rage, impatience, distracted, whatever.   Those are the other guys fault. >

Stupid opinion rather. Drive slow literary saves lives. There is a famous correlation between average speed on a road and number of accidents/deaths >

Driving carefully saves lives. Driving significantly below the speed limit is just as dangerous as speeding, as it causes other drivers to become frustrated and need to overtake you. You can be fined for driving too slowly for that reason. 
On a 60mph main road (assuming good conditions), 50-55 is fine. 40 is not. If you need to drop your speed that far to be safe then you clearly don't have the driving ability for that road.