5 ms·

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 becaus

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)
- throwawaymath 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. No, that’s not an extension to what I’m saying. That would be safer yes, but you can afford to go faster with fewer pedestrians around. > 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. If you read the research I cited you’ll see that no, actually most states observed higher mortality in the transition from 55 mph to 65 mph speed limits. You can forward arguments that speeding isn’t the real culprit, or that there are worse problems. But you can sidestep that entirely by simply not speeding - then all risks related to speeding evaporate. So to be clear I agree with you that speed disparity is a problem, but I would advocate both reducing speed limits and imposing extraordinary fines (and other punitive measures) to make the risk reward calculus of speed disparity very unattractive. Speeding directly causes the traffic disparity you’re talking about.

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)
throwawaymath 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. No, that’s not an extension to what I’m saying. That would be safer yes, but you can afford to go faster with fewer pedestrians around. > 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. If you read the research I cited you’ll see that no, actually most states observed higher mortality in the transition from 55 mph to 65 mph speed limits. You can forward arguments that speeding isn’t the real culprit, or that there are worse problems. But you can sidestep that entirely by simply not speeding - then all risks related to speeding evaporate. So to be clear I agree with you that speed disparity is a problem, but I would advocate both reducing speed limits and imposing extraordinary fines (and other punitive measures) to make the risk reward calculus of speed disparity very unattractive. Speeding directly causes the traffic disparity you’re talking about.