3 ms·

> there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get i

> there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get into an accident? It's impossible to predict in advance which specific incidences of risky behavior will cause harm. That's why the behavior itself is penalized. If there is actual harm, the penalties ramp up. > if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra How does someone "pay the approximate cost" for risky driving that kills or seriously injures someone? If you use the various "value of life" calculations floating around, there are at least some people for whom it's not a lot of money on a probability adjusted basis (e.g. $2m * 0.1% chance of them causing a fatal accident). But accident victims, their family and friends, and society as a whole would prefer that an accident never happened at all than have someone write a check after the fact. This means no one can be allowed to buy a "risky driving pass" by virtue of their wealth. > people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat The numbers appear to disagree with you. [1] Speeding is a factor in a quarter of all traffic fatalities. > I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc. I agree but I've also noticed that weaving between lanes goes hand-in-hand with speeding. It's hard to keep going faster than other traffic without constantly switching lanes to find space. 1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding

leetcrew 7y ago
there are two major problems with the document you linked. > NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver in the crash was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. the entire definition of "speeding was a factor" boils down to either 1) an officer was there and gave you a speeding ticket, or 2) after showing up to the scene of an accident, it was the officer's opinion that speeding contributed to the crash in some way. the whole document rests on this tenuous connection. for the purposes of this document, speeding can "be a factor" even if the officer didn't think it was a contributing factor, but happened to write a speeding ticket! the other major problem is that the document makes little effort to tease apart other risky behaviors that may correlate with speeding. it only breaks out age, gender, surface, and BAC for separate consideration. put another way, this document describes the entire population of people who speed (which is about half of drivers in the US [0]), but cannot answer the question: "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" given your responses so far, I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws. just as an example, in my city the government was caught deliberately reducing the length of yellow lights immediately after introducing red light cameras. the state sees traffic violations as a revenue stream. they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), and make laws that most people will break. they're not interested in investigating whether the limits make sense, or whether they are even enforcing something meaningful. no one is willing to make speed limits their hill to die on, so they get away with it. [0] https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184c9fb0cc7ee21056b67789/?vgnextoid=40c85f5b262bff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184...
- jogjayr 7y ago
  > "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" What I'm saying is that speeding doesn't happen in isolation. The only times it's "safe" to speed is: 1. To keep up with other traffic. You're unlikely to get a ticket in this scenario, and by following the speed limit you would be making the situation more dangerous. 2. On an open country road, with little other traffic. You're also unlikely to get a ticket here, because of how few patrols would be around - but be aware of deer. Otherwise speeding will necessary involve weaving in and out of lanes, sudden braking, and following other cars too closely. > I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws I don't consider it paranoid or cynical. I'm aware of the yellow light issue and it's a terribly shortsighted thing for cities to have done. But none of this has to do with where we originally started talking: should fines be based on ability to pay? > they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), If it's easy to measure, it's also easy to follow. Do we want more ambiguous laws that can be even more selectively enforced? > and make laws that most people will break That's something to lobby against then. Having a law that no one follows reduces respect for other laws.

leetcrew 7y ago

there are two major problems with the document you linked. > NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver in the crash was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. the entire definition of "speeding was a factor" boils down to either 1) an officer was there and gave you a speeding ticket, or 2) after showing up to the scene of an accident, it was the officer's opinion that speeding contributed to the crash in some way. the whole document rests on this tenuous connection. for the purposes of this document, speeding can "be a factor" even if the officer didn't think it was a contributing factor, but happened to write a speeding ticket! the other major problem is that the document makes little effort to tease apart other risky behaviors that may correlate with speeding. it only breaks out age, gender, surface, and BAC for separate consideration. put another way, this document describes the entire population of people who speed (which is about half of drivers in the US [0]), but cannot answer the question: "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" given your responses so far, I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws. just as an example, in my city the government was caught deliberately reducing the length of yellow lights immediately after introducing red light cameras. the state sees traffic violations as a revenue stream. they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), and make laws that most people will break. they're not interested in investigating whether the limits make sense, or whether they are even enforcing something meaningful. no one is willing to make speed limits their hill to die on, so they get away with it. [0] https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184c9fb0cc7ee21056b67789/?vgnextoid=40c85f5b262bff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184...

jogjayr 7y ago
> "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" What I'm saying is that speeding doesn't happen in isolation. The only times it's "safe" to speed is: 1. To keep up with other traffic. You're unlikely to get a ticket in this scenario, and by following the speed limit you would be making the situation more dangerous. 2. On an open country road, with little other traffic. You're also unlikely to get a ticket here, because of how few patrols would be around - but be aware of deer. Otherwise speeding will necessary involve weaving in and out of lanes, sudden braking, and following other cars too closely. > I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws I don't consider it paranoid or cynical. I'm aware of the yellow light issue and it's a terribly shortsighted thing for cities to have done. But none of this has to do with where we originally started talking: should fines be based on ability to pay? > they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), If it's easy to measure, it's also easy to follow. Do we want more ambiguous laws that can be even more selectively enforced? > and make laws that most people will break That's something to lobby against then. Having a law that no one follows reduces respect for other laws.