5 ms·

The point of this article is that often, speeding is safer than obeying the speed limit. In those cases it seems moral to speed.

by lacker 10y ago

trgn 10y ago
For drivers, I'm sure. Not for cyclists or pedestrians. Depends on the street of course. In general, I think speed limits can be higher on highways, but should be much lower and actually enforced in town. Fast cars are absolutely terrible for the safety and comfort of walkers and bikers.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  I think the article was about highways specifically (the arguments do not really hold up in an urban environment), but I don't think it said so specifically.
  - tuxdev 10y ago
    The paragraphs under the "Slowing Down" heading kind of imply that they think the argument also applies in an urban environment. It's incredibly frustrating and infuriating to read such an utterly anti-bike anti-walker policy get advocated like this.
  - panglott 10y ago
    Probably, but the title of the article is "Is Every Speed Limit Too Low?" People seem have a bias towards thinking about speed limits in terms of interstate travel speeds, which frequently have been raised to 70–80 mph anyway. Perhaps this is because most speeding enforcement is on interstates and there is relatively little enforcement of speed limits on surface streets unless they are very egregious.
- vizeroth 10y ago
  Mixed-use streets and a mis-guided desire to build urban and suburban areas on grids of wide straight roads are the root cause of the problem. Fast cars are just a symptom. In my area the state and/or county went to great lengths to create a bidirectional bicycle highway alongside (but physically separated from) some of the freeways, but the city can't be bothered to provide bicycle lanes and street lights along the full length of any of the major roads through town. During most of the year I prefer to stick to the major roads in the early morning hours because the vehicle traffic usually keeps the coyotes away. The only thing more likely to cause a driver to hit me than swerving to avoid an animal (assuming I'm complying with the laws while riding my bicycle in the street) would be if the driver is impaired or passes too close, either of which is a law I would be much happier to see an officer enforce than the speed limit. Every time a car, train, boat, or plane crosses paths with one of the other modes of transportation on that list we make sure that someone has to have a lapse of attention, poor judgment, or some form of vehicular malfunction to violate the right of way. When it comes to a car, bicycle, or pedestrian, though, we tell them it's ok to share the same road and pretend that there's nothing wrong with that assumption, even when more people every year seem to be completely unaware that they're supposed to share the road with bicycles (and more cyclists seem to be unaware of which side of the road they're supposed to be on or that any laws regulate them).
panglott 10y ago
The point of this article is not that speeding is safer, but that wide variance in speed create their own risks, and some drivers will obey a posted speed limit that is lower than the road mean. OTOH, many surface streets necessarily have wide variances in vehicle speeds because they serve varied vehicle users or other reasons, and wide variances in speed are more likely to be cause by speeding cars.

The point of this article is that often, speeding is safer than obeying the speed limit. In those cases it seems moral to speed.

by lacker 10y ago

The point of this article is that often, speeding is safer than obeying the speed limit. In those cases it seems moral to speed.

trgn 10y ago

For drivers, I'm sure. Not for cyclists or pedestrians. Depends on the street of course. In general, I think speed limits can be higher on highways, but should be much lower and actually enforced in town. Fast cars are absolutely terrible for the safety and comfort of walkers and bikers.

mannykannot 10y ago
I think the article was about highways specifically (the arguments do not really hold up in an urban environment), but I don't think it said so specifically.
- tuxdev 10y ago
  The paragraphs under the "Slowing Down" heading kind of imply that they think the argument also applies in an urban environment. It's incredibly frustrating and infuriating to read such an utterly anti-bike anti-walker policy get advocated like this.
- panglott 10y ago
  Probably, but the title of the article is "Is Every Speed Limit Too Low?" People seem have a bias towards thinking about speed limits in terms of interstate travel speeds, which frequently have been raised to 70–80 mph anyway. Perhaps this is because most speeding enforcement is on interstates and there is relatively little enforcement of speed limits on surface streets unless they are very egregious.
vizeroth 10y ago
Mixed-use streets and a mis-guided desire to build urban and suburban areas on grids of wide straight roads are the root cause of the problem. Fast cars are just a symptom. In my area the state and/or county went to great lengths to create a bidirectional bicycle highway alongside (but physically separated from) some of the freeways, but the city can't be bothered to provide bicycle lanes and street lights along the full length of any of the major roads through town. During most of the year I prefer to stick to the major roads in the early morning hours because the vehicle traffic usually keeps the coyotes away. The only thing more likely to cause a driver to hit me than swerving to avoid an animal (assuming I'm complying with the laws while riding my bicycle in the street) would be if the driver is impaired or passes too close, either of which is a law I would be much happier to see an officer enforce than the speed limit. Every time a car, train, boat, or plane crosses paths with one of the other modes of transportation on that list we make sure that someone has to have a lapse of attention, poor judgment, or some form of vehicular malfunction to violate the right of way. When it comes to a car, bicycle, or pedestrian, though, we tell them it's ok to share the same road and pretend that there's nothing wrong with that assumption, even when more people every year seem to be completely unaware that they're supposed to share the road with bicycles (and more cyclists seem to be unaware of which side of the road they're supposed to be on or that any laws regulate them).

panglott 10y ago

The point of this article is not that speeding is safer, but that wide variance in speed create their own risks, and some drivers will obey a posted speed limit that is lower than the road mean. OTOH, many surface streets necessarily have wide variances in vehicle speeds because they serve varied vehicle users or other reasons, and wide variances in speed are more likely to be cause by speeding cars.