As a motorcyclist, I have used bursts of speed to get out of sticky situations. The car that crashed into the guard rail behind me would have taken me out if I had slowed down.

It's easy to second-guess.

As another motorcyclist, I want to give my support to this view.

I have no desire to ride fast (I rather enjoy doing 40 mph on a park drive), but I need my bike to be able to go 100 mph so that when the person next to me going 55 mph starts to merge into my lane, I have the choice of slowing down or very rapidly accelerating out of danger. It's the same with cars. Having the "headroom" means you can speed up quickly in emergencies.

You don't go more than ~70 to execute that maneuver. By the time you've accelerated to +15mph more than your obstacle, you aren't near it anymore.

You're right, but the bike needs a max speed of something like 100 in order to hit 70 within a second or so. If 70 is the max, it will take forever to get there. Headroom. I never want to actually go 100, let alone 70.

Which is presumably part of the reason why the person who started this expressed surprised at the lack of a governor to limit the top speed rather than surprise at the lack of restrictions on total engine power.

Exactly. You need a bike that can accelerate quickly, not a bike that can do a massive top speed. Top speed has nothing to do with how quickly you can maneuver out of danger.

>Not convinced by this one. Surely reducing the kinetic energy in this scenario is the safest course of action?

How is remaining near an impaired driver vs. leaving them behind the safer option?

It isn't always practical or possible to find another route, and staying behind a drunk driver and thus near them, or running the risk of running into the results of some sort of mistake on their part is certainly more dangerous than putting them safely behind you.

I don't think I've ever been in a situation where a drunk driver has been speeding around at 100mph - they almost universally go near the speed limit, but controlling their vehicle poorly.

I do not want to be in a situation where I am behind them. Even if I let them put a fair amount of distance in front of me, roads are not always well lit. If they crash, or hit something, I might now be having to deal with debris on the road that I won't be able to see easily, or potentially at all until it's too late.

I fail to see a safer course of action outside of just not driving at all, which, as I live in Texas, is distinctly not a possibility.

> and staying behind a drunk driver and thus near them

I don't think anyone is recommending that. I think they're recommending staying behind a drunk driver, and slowing down enough that you're no longer near them and have plenty of time to react to the results of any sort of mistake on their part. I think we can all agree that tailgating a drunk driver is an absolutely terrible idea.

(In general, I try and leave enough space to react to a sober driver's mistakes as well.)

> putting them safely behind you.

"Behind you" means you're in front of them. This is literally putting yourself in the path of danger. If they're relying on cues from traffic, speeding past them may let them know "they need to speed up" - and now they have some nice tail lights that are much easier to follow than those road stripes...

> I might now be having to deal with debris on the road that I won't be able to see easily, or potentially at all until it's too late.

You might have to deal with that whether or not a drunk driver wrecked in front of you. And even if you've left one behind you, what are the chances there's not one in front of you too?

You'll have more time to react going slower. If you keep your windows clean, your prescription up to date, your headlights in working order, and put down your phone - and I'd wager most debris you can't see in time to avoid is going to be much smaller, and as a result much less dangerous, than an entire car threatening to collide with you going the speed limit.

At least for the drunk-driver, yes. I think I read a while back that they were thinking/musing/planning on installing breathalyzers in cars that could prevent the vehicle from even starting.

You clearly don't drive.

I do, and I'm not convinced either; if the drunk's doing a steady 70, it won't hurt me to do 55 in the right lane for long enough so he's well ahead of me and I have time to react to whatever stupidity he perpetrates next. Too, when I'm driving, most of my attention is focused ahead, so dropping back puts him squarely in the region where I'm most likely to spot him doing something dangerous in time to avoid it.

Contrariwise, if I speed up and pass him, I have to keep worrying about him. What if he decides 70 just isn't fast enough? He's both more willing to drive fast, and willing to drive faster, than I am, so if I make it about who can stay ahead of whom, I lose. But I, being neither drunk nor proud, am both more willing to drive slowly, and willing to drive more slowly, than he is. So I make it about who can stay behind whom, and I win.

(None of this, I hasten to note, is intended in support of mandated governors on cars, nor should it be taken as such; I've seen enough to know that trying to make something foolproof results only in a lot of annoyance and a better fool. But it makes anyone a better driver, and safer to be around, to understand that faster doesn't always equal better.)