3 ms·

I think this analysis (without any citations) is like big O notation. Sure, 17% is not that large compared to 12%, except there's a hidden constant: the value o

I think this analysis (without any citations) is like big O notation. Sure, 17% is not that large compared to 12%, except there's a hidden constant: the value of life, which makes that 5% quite significant.

ameister14 10y ago
If you can show that bringing the speed limit down to 20 from 25 will save lives, I'll get on board. I don't think it will, though - the data I have read says it will have little to no effect, and actually could have a negative effect. Most residential limits are already abnormally low in terms of safety from a traffic engineering perspective. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/33%20-%20Effects%20of%20Raising%20and%20Lowering%20Speed%20Limits%20on%20Selected%20Roadway%20Sections.pdf http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Reso...
- gnur 10y ago
  The chance of dying from being hit by a car at different speeds is not the only factor, when you are going 20, you will have more time to react, the person about to be hit has more time to react and the distance you'll travel while braking is less. So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ.
  - phil21 10y ago
    > So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ. Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. While I certainly sympathize with those parents this is the absolute wrong way to go about implementing policy or law. Most of US law that has eroded our rights over the years has been enacted by similar emotional arguments. I prefer my policymakers to be sober dispassionate people who look at raw data to make as an informed decision as possible.
    - rootlocus 10y ago
      > Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. Killing a human being is not the same as killing a process. We live in a society because it's safer. We have a constitution, rights, and laws to protect us (at least in theory). The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. I don't see how saving lives makes a poor heuristic for implementing laws.
      - ameister14 10y ago
        >The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. If that were true, cars would be illegal. We're operating in a framework of likely accidents, benefit to society and overall cost. There is an optimal law that saves as many laws as reasonably possible, and in most cases it has already been implemented and is being enforced. Where it has not or is not, sure.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    My younger brother was hit by a car when crossing the street. Although he didn't die, he sure came close and was in a coma for over a week. The driver was doing 40 in a 30 (mph) and was on his cell phone. I still don't think every traffic law should be modified to prevent this scenario. It's silly to emotionally invest in the law. Preventing all traffic deaths is just not realistic currently.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      "was on his cell phone" is a much more important detail than the driver's speed.
- rootlocus 10y ago
  While you're talking about speed limits, my post was about actual car speeds, and how a difference of 5% (from your data) means a great deal when it refers to your survival chances. > There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph.
  - ameister14 10y ago
    While I understand that, I wasn't just talking about that statistic independently. I was responding to a person who brought up the 'think of the children' argument and isolating them as a smaller group. The total number of fatalities amongst children we're talking about within that speed is quite small and potentially 0. That's why I brought up the effectiveness of change in posted speed.
yequalsx 10y ago
But with so few deaths overall it does become insignificant.

ameister14 10y ago

If you can show that bringing the speed limit down to 20 from 25 will save lives, I'll get on board. I don't think it will, though - the data I have read says it will have little to no effect, and actually could have a negative effect. Most residential limits are already abnormally low in terms of safety from a traffic engineering perspective. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/33%20-%20Effects%20of%20Raising%20and%20Lowering%20Speed%20Limits%20on%20Selected%20Roadway%20Sections.pdf http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Reso...

gnur 10y ago
The chance of dying from being hit by a car at different speeds is not the only factor, when you are going 20, you will have more time to react, the person about to be hit has more time to react and the distance you'll travel while braking is less. So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ.
- phil21 10y ago
  > So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ. Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. While I certainly sympathize with those parents this is the absolute wrong way to go about implementing policy or law. Most of US law that has eroded our rights over the years has been enacted by similar emotional arguments. I prefer my policymakers to be sober dispassionate people who look at raw data to make as an informed decision as possible.
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    > Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. Killing a human being is not the same as killing a process. We live in a society because it's safer. We have a constitution, rights, and laws to protect us (at least in theory). The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. I don't see how saving lives makes a poor heuristic for implementing laws.
    - ameister14 10y ago
      >The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. If that were true, cars would be illegal. We're operating in a framework of likely accidents, benefit to society and overall cost. There is an optimal law that saves as many laws as reasonably possible, and in most cases it has already been implemented and is being enforced. Where it has not or is not, sure.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  My younger brother was hit by a car when crossing the street. Although he didn't die, he sure came close and was in a coma for over a week. The driver was doing 40 in a 30 (mph) and was on his cell phone. I still don't think every traffic law should be modified to prevent this scenario. It's silly to emotionally invest in the law. Preventing all traffic deaths is just not realistic currently.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    "was on his cell phone" is a much more important detail than the driver's speed.
rootlocus 10y ago
While you're talking about speed limits, my post was about actual car speeds, and how a difference of 5% (from your data) means a great deal when it refers to your survival chances. > There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph.
- ameister14 10y ago
  While I understand that, I wasn't just talking about that statistic independently. I was responding to a person who brought up the 'think of the children' argument and isolating them as a smaller group. The total number of fatalities amongst children we're talking about within that speed is quite small and potentially 0. That's why I brought up the effectiveness of change in posted speed.

yequalsx 10y ago

But with so few deaths overall it does become insignificant.