4 ms·

So just to be clear, your position is that 60 mph and 70 mph are: 1) equally safe, all else being equal, 2) equally safe, in an where one of those speeds is f

So just to be clear, your position is that 60 mph and 70 mph are: 1) equally safe, all else being equal, 2) equally safe, in an where one of those speeds is faster than the legal speed limit, 3) equally safe, when there is a disparity in surrounding traffic speed (possibly due to #2). I want to be extremely clear if that's really your position, because if it is you're hand waving away the danger of a ~16% increase in speed.

anoncoward111 8y ago
Negative. I am in fact saying those two speeds are nearly equally dangerous, such that fining one and not fining another is arbitrary and extortionary. A pedestrian will die or be gravely injured at nearly any speed. A car crashing into another car, especially in opposing directions, is extremely dangerous above say 45mph. You either go on the road and accept this risk, or you don't. Or of course, you end the multi billion dollar car lobbyist industry and I will happily ride a moped to work instead. People who drive 110mph on the highway in traffic are objectively dangerous. Most cars don't brake well from that speed. 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone). More generally the graph from that first source is telling: look at how sharply it increases, even after 50 mph. Other than interstates, most roads aren't 65 mph zones! And simply allowing any speed limit above 55 mph has a meaningful increase in vehicular collision mortality [2]. I can empathize that you consider the fines to be arbitrary and extortionist, and I understand that you think you're leaving adequate distance between yourself and other cars. But 96% of American drivers believe their driving ability is above average [3]; people substantially overestimate their driving skill and safety in general. Therefore though I understand why people feel the need to speed (and I used to!), I really cannot sympathize with arguments for leniency towards speeding penalties. _________________ 1. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r... 2. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10.1392 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10... 3. http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.pdf http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.p...
  - elhudy 8y ago
    >I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone). By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads. There is existing reasearch which indicates two things: 1) Most people drive at the speed they feel comfortable driving at but some obey speed limits (even if they are comfortable driving faster) and 2) It is differences in speed, not speeding, which causes most accidents. Considering these factors, speed limits can artificially increases differences in speed among drivers. When the federal speed limit law was repealed, many states who raised their speed limits saw decreases in both accidents and fatalities. That's not to say speed limits are causing accidents, but I think it's possible that they could be in certain context. It's not as cut and dry as "speeding kills".
    - nightski 8y ago
      You could look at a speed limit as a social contract. There are other positive reasons to go slower than avoiding death (gas mileage for one). However, if there is an agreed upon legal limit, then by speeding you are violating that contract directly increasing the difference in speed therefore increasing the chance of an accident.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      > By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads. Is it not illegal to be a pedestrian on a freeway where you are? Motorways are one of only three parts of the UK road system where pedestrians are forbidden.
      - elhudy 8y ago
        OP was referring to overall probability of human death, not just pedestrian death/accident. To answer your question though, states can determine their own laws - most choose to make it illegal for pedestrians to be on the freeway in congested areas. There are places where you can ride you bicycle on the freeway, usually in rural areas (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm)
- mpax 8y ago
  > 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else. The problem then becomes others tailgating and driving into the space in front of you, effectively diminishing you braking room.
zaarn 8y ago
I would correct that the 16% increase in speed leads to a 36% increase in kinetic energy, so it should be 36% more dangerous which I find much better than simply talking about increased speed (energy increases by square, even a 30kph difference, 100kph and 70kph, can double the amount of road you need to break)

anoncoward111 8y ago

Negative. I am in fact saying those two speeds are nearly equally dangerous, such that fining one and not fining another is arbitrary and extortionary. A pedestrian will die or be gravely injured at nearly any speed. A car crashing into another car, especially in opposing directions, is extremely dangerous above say 45mph. You either go on the road and accept this risk, or you don't. Or of course, you end the multi billion dollar car lobbyist industry and I will happily ride a moped to work instead. People who drive 110mph on the highway in traffic are objectively dangerous. Most cars don't brake well from that speed. 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else.

throwawaymath 8y ago
I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone). More generally the graph from that first source is telling: look at how sharply it increases, even after 50 mph. Other than interstates, most roads aren't 65 mph zones! And simply allowing any speed limit above 55 mph has a meaningful increase in vehicular collision mortality [2]. I can empathize that you consider the fines to be arbitrary and extortionist, and I understand that you think you're leaving adequate distance between yourself and other cars. But 96% of American drivers believe their driving ability is above average [3]; people substantially overestimate their driving skill and safety in general. Therefore though I understand why people feel the need to speed (and I used to!), I really cannot sympathize with arguments for leniency towards speeding penalties. _________________ 1. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r... 2. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10.1392 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.10... 3. http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.pdf http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/svenson.p...
- elhudy 8y ago
  >I'll acknowledge that the probability of death increases more slowly after you pass 65 mph [1], but it still increases. Human life is not negligible just because you want to get somewhere negligibly faster (e.g. by a few minutes at best, if you're going 70 in a 65 zone). By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads. There is existing reasearch which indicates two things: 1) Most people drive at the speed they feel comfortable driving at but some obey speed limits (even if they are comfortable driving faster) and 2) It is differences in speed, not speeding, which causes most accidents. Considering these factors, speed limits can artificially increases differences in speed among drivers. When the federal speed limit law was repealed, many states who raised their speed limits saw decreases in both accidents and fatalities. That's not to say speed limits are causing accidents, but I think it's possible that they could be in certain context. It's not as cut and dry as "speeding kills".
  - nightski 8y ago
    You could look at a speed limit as a social contract. There are other positive reasons to go slower than avoiding death (gas mileage for one). However, if there is an agreed upon legal limit, then by speeding you are violating that contract directly increasing the difference in speed therefore increasing the chance of an accident.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    > By extension, you should take every back road while you drive, rather than the freeway, because there is a minute chance that you increase probability of human death by going 65 on the freeway rather than 35 on back roads. Is it not illegal to be a pedestrian on a freeway where you are? Motorways are one of only three parts of the UK road system where pedestrians are forbidden.
    - elhudy 8y ago
      OP was referring to overall probability of human death, not just pedestrian death/accident. To answer your question though, states can determine their own laws - most choose to make it illegal for pedestrians to be on the freeway in congested areas. There are places where you can ride you bicycle on the freeway, usually in rural areas (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm)
mpax 8y ago
> 70 mph is not fast if I am leaving adequate distance between me and everything else. The problem then becomes others tailgating and driving into the space in front of you, effectively diminishing you braking room.

zaarn 8y ago

I would correct that the 16% increase in speed leads to a 36% increase in kinetic energy, so it should be 36% more dangerous which I find much better than simply talking about increased speed (energy increases by square, even a 30kph difference, 100kph and 70kph, can double the amount of road you need to break)