4 ms·

some (many?) states require drivers with a history of convinced DUI/DWI to get these systems installed But mandatory breathalyzers in all cars would prevent th

some (many?) states require drivers with a history of convinced DUI/DWI to get these systems installed But mandatory breathalyzers in all cars would prevent the initial DUI offense. If they were mandatory in all cars, car makers would make them more convenient, so maybe instead of blowing into a tube, you just have to blow at a sensor in the sunvisor. The posted speed limit may offer a suggestion of what's reasonable or prudent, but it's very often not the case But it's a good first step - set the max speed for cars at the posted speed limit, subtract 10% at night, 10% more for rain, 20% more for snow (so for example, a 60mph road would have a max speed of 55mph at night, 50mph during rain, and 40mph during snow) Note that these are still just "maximums" and the onus would be on drivers to go slower when conditions warrant. What do you propose here, that doesn't shut down my car when I'm avoiding a road hazard? Cars are getting more autonomous, so having it drive to the side of the road or to the nearest exist if on a freeway seems like the obvious choice. As for seatbelts, I think the driver should be free to choose to use them or not, but only as long as they get signoff from their insurance company. Whether or not a driver uses a seatbelt only affects himself, unlike DUI, speeding or wreckless driving.

pdonis 8y ago
> it's a good first step No, it isn't; it's whatever the locality decides is a good setpoint for a revenue source. Most "speed limits" have nothing to do with safety. Even on interstate highways, where the "revenue source" motivation is the least, many speed limits are still too low given the improvements in vehicle handling and performance since the 55 mph rule was arbitrarily selected in the early 1970s. Of course, that argument assumes that 55 mph was reasonable for early 1970s cars--but if the primary purpose is safety, well, there are still traffic deaths at the current speed limits, so why not lower them further? Why not stop people from driving at all, if nothing short of that will eliminate traffic deaths? That kind of argument leads down a rabbit hole. I think a much better way of viewing things, as I said in another comment upthread, is in terms of a principal-agent problem. If you are driving yourself (or flying yourself, for that matter), you can make your own judgments about safety (and take the consequences). But if you are flying (or driving) other people for money, then you have to abide by an explicit set of standards because it's no longer just you who takes the consequences if you make an error of judgment. And the more people who are endangered if you make an error, the more stringent the standards should be.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  When it's enforced by cars, it's no longer a revenue source.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    No, just an even worse power put in the hands of governments. Try this thought experiment: suppose we are at some point in the future, when self-driving cars are ubiquitous and are proven to be safer than human-driven cars. Do you want governments to have the ability to force your self-driving car to do something based on some arbitrary setting of a limit, controlled by government bureaucrats? Or do you want to have control over what algorithms your self-driving car runs and what actions it takes if it detects a problem?
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      I want everyone's cars to follow the same rules, I don't want individual people modding their cars to obey only the laws they like or to behave differently than everyone else's cars.
      - pdonis 8y ago
        > I want everyone's cars to follow the same rules How would the rules be determined? > I don't want individual people modding their cars to obey only the laws they like or to behave differently than everyone else's cars. So basically, you don't trust the judgment of individual people. But you trust the judgment of a government that is composed of individual people?
        Johnny555 8y ago
        How would the rules be determined? USDOT/FHWA So basically, you don't trust the judgment of individual people. But you trust the judgment of a government that is composed of individual people? Yes.
toast0 8y ago
The posted speed limit is some information, but more important are things like size of the lanes, visibility, amount of other traffic, separation from the other direction of traffic, separation from non motorized road users, curves in the road, pavement condition, etc. If US-101 in Sunnyvale were posted for 45 mph, that wouldn't be a reasonable and prudent limit; it's got lots of separation and wide lanes, and the pavement is ok -- traffic permitting, you can travel at high speeds. If it were posted at 80 mph, it wouldn't be reasonable and prudent either -- the pavement isn't that great (unless it was repaved recently), most cars would be bumping around too much at that speed. Moreover, I don't know who would purchase a car that promised to strictly follow posted speed limits, when they have alternatives.

pdonis 8y ago

> it's a good first step No, it isn't; it's whatever the locality decides is a good setpoint for a revenue source. Most "speed limits" have nothing to do with safety. Even on interstate highways, where the "revenue source" motivation is the least, many speed limits are still too low given the improvements in vehicle handling and performance since the 55 mph rule was arbitrarily selected in the early 1970s. Of course, that argument assumes that 55 mph was reasonable for early 1970s cars--but if the primary purpose is safety, well, there are still traffic deaths at the current speed limits, so why not lower them further? Why not stop people from driving at all, if nothing short of that will eliminate traffic deaths? That kind of argument leads down a rabbit hole. I think a much better way of viewing things, as I said in another comment upthread, is in terms of a principal-agent problem. If you are driving yourself (or flying yourself, for that matter), you can make your own judgments about safety (and take the consequences). But if you are flying (or driving) other people for money, then you have to abide by an explicit set of standards because it's no longer just you who takes the consequences if you make an error of judgment. And the more people who are endangered if you make an error, the more stringent the standards should be.

Johnny555 8y ago
When it's enforced by cars, it's no longer a revenue source.
- pdonis 8y ago
  No, just an even worse power put in the hands of governments. Try this thought experiment: suppose we are at some point in the future, when self-driving cars are ubiquitous and are proven to be safer than human-driven cars. Do you want governments to have the ability to force your self-driving car to do something based on some arbitrary setting of a limit, controlled by government bureaucrats? Or do you want to have control over what algorithms your self-driving car runs and what actions it takes if it detects a problem?
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    I want everyone's cars to follow the same rules, I don't want individual people modding their cars to obey only the laws they like or to behave differently than everyone else's cars.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      > I want everyone's cars to follow the same rules How would the rules be determined? > I don't want individual people modding their cars to obey only the laws they like or to behave differently than everyone else's cars. So basically, you don't trust the judgment of individual people. But you trust the judgment of a government that is composed of individual people?
      - Johnny555 8y ago
        How would the rules be determined? USDOT/FHWA So basically, you don't trust the judgment of individual people. But you trust the judgment of a government that is composed of individual people? Yes.

toast0 8y ago

The posted speed limit is some information, but more important are things like size of the lanes, visibility, amount of other traffic, separation from the other direction of traffic, separation from non motorized road users, curves in the road, pavement condition, etc. If US-101 in Sunnyvale were posted for 45 mph, that wouldn't be a reasonable and prudent limit; it's got lots of separation and wide lanes, and the pavement is ok -- traffic permitting, you can travel at high speeds. If it were posted at 80 mph, it wouldn't be reasonable and prudent either -- the pavement isn't that great (unless it was repaved recently), most cars would be bumping around too much at that speed. Moreover, I don't know who would purchase a car that promised to strictly follow posted speed limits, when they have alternatives.