6 ms·

This is a pleasant thought, but we can't even get most people to obey speed limits most days, even though it's far easier and we know it would save large number

This is a pleasant thought, but we can't even get most people to obey speed limits most days, even though it's far easier and we know it would save large numbers of lives.

jedberg 7y ago
He's proposing scanning when you enter a public space. Public spaces generally comply with these types of things because of the fear of getting caught by random inspections and steep fines and penalties.
- downerending 7y ago
  That actually does sound a lot like the situation with speeding on freeways, at least in flyover country.
clairity 7y ago
strictly speaking, speed in and of itself isn’t the primary problem, it’s distracted driving in its many forms. speed only makes the severity of those accidents greater.
- philwelch 7y ago
  That doesn’t really make sense. If you’re driving too fast, even with perfect focus you could hit someone or something before your normal reaction time could recognize and avoid it.
  - clairity 7y ago
    you’re missing the second half of the random chance argument. you could also have driven right past a collision that would have happened at a slower speed.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      That makes no sense. The “collision that would have happened at a slower speed” wouldn’t happen at a slower speed because you’d see it coming in time to react and avoid it.
      - clairity 7y ago
        just because you are driving slower doesn’t mean that a surprise event doesn’t happen faster than your reaction time.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      I'm sympathetic to raising speed limits like any good Californian. But there's an asymmetry in the positions, in that more reaction time is universally better than less reaction time.
      - clairity 7y ago
        that’s not so self-evident. reaction time is a property of the driver, not the speed. slower speeds can lull drivers into slower reaction times, so it’s not so obviously asymmetrical. drunk drivers tend to drive slower than normal but have higher fatality crash rates, for example. active driving and avoiding distractions (including drugs) are the difference makers, not speed limits. the reason people oppose this is because they want to treat driving like lounging by the pool, rather than operating machines that collectively kill a million people a year.
        renewiltord 7y ago
        Allow me to ensure I understand your position. Overall, you believe that lower speed limits will result in more accidents? I am certainly on the side of raising speed limits to 100 mph where possible. Or providing turbo lanes for "Class C+" drivers or something. But that's because I think I'm willing to make the trade-off in lives. Your opinion is more that we're making not a trade-off but costing ourselves both lives and speed?
- downerending 7y ago
  [footage not found] Speed kills.

This is a pleasant thought, but we can't even get most people to obey speed limits most days, even though it's far easier and we know it would save large numbers of lives.

jedberg 7y ago

He's proposing scanning when you enter a public space. Public spaces generally comply with these types of things because of the fear of getting caught by random inspections and steep fines and penalties.

downerending 7y ago
That actually does sound a lot like the situation with speeding on freeways, at least in flyover country.

clairity 7y ago

strictly speaking, speed in and of itself isn’t the primary problem, it’s distracted driving in its many forms. speed only makes the severity of those accidents greater.

philwelch 7y ago
That doesn’t really make sense. If you’re driving too fast, even with perfect focus you could hit someone or something before your normal reaction time could recognize and avoid it.
- clairity 7y ago
  you’re missing the second half of the random chance argument. you could also have driven right past a collision that would have happened at a slower speed.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    That makes no sense. The “collision that would have happened at a slower speed” wouldn’t happen at a slower speed because you’d see it coming in time to react and avoid it.
    - clairity 7y ago
      just because you are driving slower doesn’t mean that a surprise event doesn’t happen faster than your reaction time.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    I'm sympathetic to raising speed limits like any good Californian. But there's an asymmetry in the positions, in that more reaction time is universally better than less reaction time.
    - clairity 7y ago
      that’s not so self-evident. reaction time is a property of the driver, not the speed. slower speeds can lull drivers into slower reaction times, so it’s not so obviously asymmetrical. drunk drivers tend to drive slower than normal but have higher fatality crash rates, for example. active driving and avoiding distractions (including drugs) are the difference makers, not speed limits. the reason people oppose this is because they want to treat driving like lounging by the pool, rather than operating machines that collectively kill a million people a year.
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        Allow me to ensure I understand your position. Overall, you believe that lower speed limits will result in more accidents? I am certainly on the side of raising speed limits to 100 mph where possible. Or providing turbo lanes for "Class C+" drivers or something. But that's because I think I'm willing to make the trade-off in lives. Your opinion is more that we're making not a trade-off but costing ourselves both lives and speed?
downerending 7y ago
[footage not found] Speed kills.