[sdoering]

Years ago the did an experiment in Germany (I know, a one time test with 2 cars/drivers is more or less anecdata).

The task was to drive from Duesseldorf to Munich. Two identical cars, two very experienced drivers. one was told to go as fast as possible without breaking speed limits on the way (we don't have a general speed limit on the German Autobahn (highway)) tthe oother ro drive at a relaxed 120 km/h were possible and also honor speed limits.

Both were equipped with EEG (heart rate and stuff).

The driving distance is slightly above 600km.

The first drive (as fast as possible) arrived first. Waiting for the relaxed driver to come in second. That happened 20 minutes later. So on a trip of > 5 hours the gain was 20 minutes.

But at what cost. The EEG told a story of pure stress, massive heart rate spikes even for an experienced driver like the one behind the wheel. While the other one came in not only at a relaxed speed but a way more relaxed body and mind.

Medical doctors concluded that the EEG of number two was way more healthy.

Btw: One reason why the first car was only 20 minutes quicker was the fact that the driver had to stop to refuel. This cost him minutes. While the second driver arrived with gas to spare. So even economically it made sense to drive a relaxed style. Not to speak of the ecological aspect.

So to wrap up. The fast driver often comes in first. But not as quick as the feel they are. And at a high price.

[raptorfactor]

Counter anecdata. I monitor my heartrate (along with other relevant statistics like speed, distance, elevation, and barometric pressure) while engaged in activities like mountaineering. Even when I'm not physically straining myself but just carefully traversing an exposed face, I don't consider a raised heartrate there 'less healthy' in and of itself because it's a side-effect of the excitement I'm feeling, and that feeling (sometimes not necessarily in the moment, but always afterwards) gives me an overall sense of improved wellbeing. Do I get stressed out sometimes? Sure, it's a dangerous activity. But overcoming that and accomplishing my goal rewards my mental health in a different way. Only half tongue-in-cheek: Maybe the faster driver was simply having more fun?

In this case you're probably right that the faster driver was just more stressed for no real benefit, but an EEG is not always a good proxy for how "healthy" something is (even ignoring obvious cases like physical exertion).

If you have a link to the study I'd love to read more.

EDIT:

One other thing I missed on the first read of your comment was the fact that the driver was instructed to "drive as fast as possible" and then given access to roads with no speed limits. I feel like that would have the potential to exacerbate the 'negative' side of things and that a more reasonable middle-ground could be found both in terms of driver stress and also fuel economy.

[sdoering]

To clarify:

The spikes and reactions were stress reactions measured by medical doctors from the monitoring of multiple signals (heart rate being one).

So they came to the experimental conclusion that (at least in this experiment) driving at the limit of what was possible in terms of speed the car could go and speed traffic would somehow allow was a factor of stress for the driver.

They also qualified the added amount of fuel necessary to drive the distance.

But they did not say one was better, one was worse. They just let the viewer decide on which variant they preferred.

And as I said: If the externalities were priced into taxes and cost of fuel - why not let people and the market decide if it was worth to them to arrive 20 minutes quicker on this distance.

[crispyambulance]

Along those lines there's a notable pop-sci book by Robert Sapolsky, "Why Zebra's don't get ulcers" (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Zebras-Dont-Ulcers-Third/dp/08050...).

Basically this guy made his scientific career by doing epic experiments where he observed communities of baboons during various social interactions, blow-gunned individual baboons with tranquilizers, then very quickly, took samples of their blood to analyze glucocorticoids (these are stress-response hormones and have a half-life measured in minutes).

Anyway, crudely stated, the major finding is that animals have intense episodic stress throughout their lives but never suffer health consequences from that stress because it's occasional. Humans, on the other hand, can get the same levels of "fight-or-flight" stress but at long-lived, daily intervals. Excessive glucocorticoids, over a long term, can interfere with the normal functioning of the body and precipitate a wide variety of health problems including heart-disease (and ulcers, as the title suggests).

In the case of driving, an aggressive lane-changing drive in a fast car might be exhilarating under certain conditions, but it's a different story for a daily commute. It's no accident that the advice given to people that experience aggressive drivers on the road is often along the lines of "Let him go, don't become a part of his bad day." Aggressive driving is a self-reinforcing bad habit that becomes part of people's identity in many cases. Personally, I don't care about the health of aggressive drivers, but I do care about their propensity to cause accidents and hurt innocent people.

[sdoering]

> but I do care about their propensity to cause accidents and hurt innocent people

Absolutely agree. I live in a 30km/h zone (regular speed in a city is 50km/h in Germany). And we have speeders every day. While kids are playing and elderly people trying to cross the streets.

What I wanted to say:

I care - and we petitioned the city to at least have marked parking spaces implemented with big flower pots on every side to at least reduce the speed people can go here.