4 ms·

Do you believe we should make the national speed limit 25? If not, you're accepting that people will die needlessly, and that the value of a human life is not,

by raldi 8y ago

Do you believe we should make the national speed limit 25? If not, you're accepting that people will die needlessly, and that the value of a human life is not, in fact, infinite.

XorNot 8y ago
Is this the argument you want to plant your stake in the ground on as absurd? Because the modern debate in the tech community is "should people be allowed to operate motor vehicles at all?"
- raldi 8y ago
  Even autonomous vehicles will always have nonzero fatality rates. Letting them go 50mph will lead to more human deaths than capping them at 25.
- jsight 8y ago
  lol, I hear people frame the self driving car discussion that way regularly, but it is just wrong. Noone is going to be making human driven vehicles illegal. They may be more like classic cars than regular vehicles at some point, though.
  - allannienhuis 8y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised to see an increasing number of (express-type) roads or perhaps dedicated lanes where human drivers were not allowed on though, after self-driving capabilities become the norm. (yes I realise that's an assumption). I think people underestimate the cultural impact that self-driving vehicles will have - imagine a whole generation or two after self-driving vehicles are generally available - how many people will bother learning to drive? I think it might become more of a job-specific skill than a general 'adult life' skill as it is now in most places.
    - raldi 8y ago
      First it will be like knowing how to drive a stick-shift. Then it'll be like owning a sports car. Then it'll be like owning a horse or a boat.
    - jsight 8y ago
      I think you are absolutely right about some limited circumstances that make them the only legal option. But the analogy that I keep making is to classic cars. A lot of them don't have the safety features that we expect today. It isn't uncommon for their owners to say things like "I'm only safe on roads that existed in 1960". It is obviously an exaggeration, but the point is that even today there are plenty of cars that are legal to operate but probably wouldn't be anyone's preference on a busy 70 MPH interstate. At some point, human driven cars become novelties, just like that. There is no reason to ban them, but as you suggest, maybe there will be some HOV-like lanes where they don't really have access. Or even some time constraints (not during rush hour on some key roads, not in lower manhattan, etc).
  - sdenton4 8y ago
    Nah, you'll just see the insurance cost spike to the point where driving is a weekend activity for rich weirdos. Give it a generation and it will be as strange and morally suspect as smoking.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      > it will be as strange and morally suspect as smoking. You could have picked a better example. I see tons of young people smoke and wonder what the hell is wrong with them, whether or not they haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years and then I realize they didn't because they weren't there to begin with. So the tobacco industry can work their nasty charms on them with abandon because there are new potential suckers born every day.
    - jsight 8y ago
      Smoking is a weird analogy. I'd expect a better one to be something like "give it a generation and it will be as strange and morally suspect as a horse and buggy". Or alternatively, maybe as strange as a motorcycle or vintage MG.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
Has this been tried? I would expect more speeding and maybe even more fatalities.
- raldi 8y ago
  Not if there were an ironclad law that cars have to be manufacturered to be physically incapable of exceeding that speed.
- mhjas 8y ago
  That is essentially how "vision zero" works, but with the right speed for the right conditions. https://youtu.be/7kIFegy4fII?t=1478 https://youtu.be/7kIFegy4fII?t=1478
ball_of_lint 8y ago
The value of a human life is not infinite, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth more than a certain amount of time spent on a construction project. The people who make executive choices about construction projects should not decide that it is acceptable for x people to die on this project in exchange for y fewer months construction time. Accidents happen, but we should not plan to trade lives. Consider if by sacrificing someone on an altar you could magically cause several months of construction work to happen overnight. That would still be murder.
- raldi 8y ago
  Sorry, let me clarify: I meant my question literally. May I ask what your answer is?
carapace 8y ago
FWIW, I would [make the national speed limit 25] if I could. (With some hopefully obvious qualifications.) The current traffic system as an insane "death and mayhem lottery" that we force ourselves to play, with out respect of youth, age or anything. The current interest and action towards bike-friendly cities is a symptom, I think, of a healing of societies' psyches. We have been pretty brutal to each other since the Younger Dryas, and it's only recently that we've started to calm down and think about what we really want our civilization to be like.
- ttty 8y ago
  Ok, so from 50 to 25 will reduce some deaths. That's right. But now we can reduce to 20, will reduce even more deaths. Then 15, 10... Where do we stop?
  - carapace 8y ago
    Fair point, and I have two answers for you. The real thing I would advocate (if this weren't a beautiful Sunday afternoon, calling me from my keyboard) is a design for traffic that began from the premise of three (or four) interconnected but separate networks, one each for pedestrians, bikes, and rail, and maybe one network of specialized freeways for trucks and buses. Personal cars would be a luxury (unless you live in the country) that few would need (rather than a cornerstone of our economy) with rentals taking up the slack for vacations and such. But if you're interested in this sort of thing, don't bother with my blathering, go read Christopher Alexander. My other answer is really just an invitation to a kind of thought experiment: what if we really did restrict ourselves to just walking, biking, and trains? How would civilization look in that alternate reality?
  - taneq 8y ago
    And what is the real human cost when we factor in the number of human lives wasted sitting in traffic at stupidly low speeds. If decreasing your speed from 100km/h to 50km/h gives you a 1% lower chance of dying in a road traffic accident, but you spend an additional 2% of your life stuck in traffic, is that a win?

by raldi 8y ago

Do you believe we should make the national speed limit 25? If not, you're accepting that people will die needlessly, and that the value of a human life is not, in fact, infinite.

XorNot 8y ago

Is this the argument you want to plant your stake in the ground on as absurd? Because the modern debate in the tech community is "should people be allowed to operate motor vehicles at all?"

raldi 8y ago
Even autonomous vehicles will always have nonzero fatality rates. Letting them go 50mph will lead to more human deaths than capping them at 25.
jsight 8y ago
lol, I hear people frame the self driving car discussion that way regularly, but it is just wrong. Noone is going to be making human driven vehicles illegal. They may be more like classic cars than regular vehicles at some point, though.
- allannienhuis 8y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised to see an increasing number of (express-type) roads or perhaps dedicated lanes where human drivers were not allowed on though, after self-driving capabilities become the norm. (yes I realise that's an assumption). I think people underestimate the cultural impact that self-driving vehicles will have - imagine a whole generation or two after self-driving vehicles are generally available - how many people will bother learning to drive? I think it might become more of a job-specific skill than a general 'adult life' skill as it is now in most places.
  - raldi 8y ago
    First it will be like knowing how to drive a stick-shift. Then it'll be like owning a sports car. Then it'll be like owning a horse or a boat.
  - jsight 8y ago
    I think you are absolutely right about some limited circumstances that make them the only legal option. But the analogy that I keep making is to classic cars. A lot of them don't have the safety features that we expect today. It isn't uncommon for their owners to say things like "I'm only safe on roads that existed in 1960". It is obviously an exaggeration, but the point is that even today there are plenty of cars that are legal to operate but probably wouldn't be anyone's preference on a busy 70 MPH interstate. At some point, human driven cars become novelties, just like that. There is no reason to ban them, but as you suggest, maybe there will be some HOV-like lanes where they don't really have access. Or even some time constraints (not during rush hour on some key roads, not in lower manhattan, etc).
- sdenton4 8y ago
  Nah, you'll just see the insurance cost spike to the point where driving is a weekend activity for rich weirdos. Give it a generation and it will be as strange and morally suspect as smoking.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > it will be as strange and morally suspect as smoking. You could have picked a better example. I see tons of young people smoke and wonder what the hell is wrong with them, whether or not they haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years and then I realize they didn't because they weren't there to begin with. So the tobacco industry can work their nasty charms on them with abandon because there are new potential suckers born every day.
  - jsight 8y ago
    Smoking is a weird analogy. I'd expect a better one to be something like "give it a generation and it will be as strange and morally suspect as a horse and buggy". Or alternatively, maybe as strange as a motorcycle or vintage MG.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

Has this been tried? I would expect more speeding and maybe even more fatalities.

raldi 8y ago
Not if there were an ironclad law that cars have to be manufacturered to be physically incapable of exceeding that speed.
mhjas 8y ago
That is essentially how "vision zero" works, but with the right speed for the right conditions. https://youtu.be/7kIFegy4fII?t=1478 https://youtu.be/7kIFegy4fII?t=1478

ball_of_lint 8y ago

The value of a human life is not infinite, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth more than a certain amount of time spent on a construction project. The people who make executive choices about construction projects should not decide that it is acceptable for x people to die on this project in exchange for y fewer months construction time. Accidents happen, but we should not plan to trade lives. Consider if by sacrificing someone on an altar you could magically cause several months of construction work to happen overnight. That would still be murder.

raldi 8y ago
Sorry, let me clarify: I meant my question literally. May I ask what your answer is?

carapace 8y ago

FWIW, I would [make the national speed limit 25] if I could. (With some hopefully obvious qualifications.) The current traffic system as an insane "death and mayhem lottery" that we force ourselves to play, with out respect of youth, age or anything. The current interest and action towards bike-friendly cities is a symptom, I think, of a healing of societies' psyches. We have been pretty brutal to each other since the Younger Dryas, and it's only recently that we've started to calm down and think about what we really want our civilization to be like.

ttty 8y ago
Ok, so from 50 to 25 will reduce some deaths. That's right. But now we can reduce to 20, will reduce even more deaths. Then 15, 10... Where do we stop?
- carapace 8y ago
  Fair point, and I have two answers for you. The real thing I would advocate (if this weren't a beautiful Sunday afternoon, calling me from my keyboard) is a design for traffic that began from the premise of three (or four) interconnected but separate networks, one each for pedestrians, bikes, and rail, and maybe one network of specialized freeways for trucks and buses. Personal cars would be a luxury (unless you live in the country) that few would need (rather than a cornerstone of our economy) with rentals taking up the slack for vacations and such. But if you're interested in this sort of thing, don't bother with my blathering, go read Christopher Alexander. My other answer is really just an invitation to a kind of thought experiment: what if we really did restrict ourselves to just walking, biking, and trains? How would civilization look in that alternate reality?
- taneq 8y ago
  And what is the real human cost when we factor in the number of human lives wasted sitting in traffic at stupidly low speeds. If decreasing your speed from 100km/h to 50km/h gives you a 1% lower chance of dying in a road traffic accident, but you spend an additional 2% of your life stuck in traffic, is that a win?