5 ms·
> You're ignoring a reality where a culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while co
by athenot 9y ago
> You're ignoring a reality where a culture has _figured out on their own_ an optimal way to navigate from point A to B in bad traffic, (mostly) safely while constraining themselves to the _intent_ of the law, if not the letter.
But the intent is not always sufficiently appreciated.
Case in point, urban speed limits at 50Km/h in EU or 35MPH in US. For most drivers (me included), they feel terribly slow and overly precautious. Yet the intent has to do with stopping distance. In those areas, you should be prepared to come to a full stop on a very short notice because a child/dog/ball could be darting out in front of you with zero notice. Not only that but the cars behind you should also be able to stop. Whenever you're driving at 45 in a 35 zone, keep that in mind: not only you need to be ready to slam on your breaks but you must have enough distance with the vehicle in front of you, should they need to slam on their brakes.
Most people only consider the "happy path" scenario, not the "error handling" one.
- Spivak 9y agoI suppose, but lawmakers optimize for the 1% error case, actual drivers optimize for the 99% case. Let me take a thougher position. The value society gains by upping the speed limit on a major road will quickly outpace the value of the lives lost due to accidents. It's just that the injuries and deaths are more visible. The evidence should be that almost everyone drives at the faster speed anyway and 35mph roads aren't death traps.