3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThat 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 agojust because you are driving slower doesn’t mean that a surprise event doesn’t happen faster than your reaction time.
- renewiltord 7y agoI'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 agothat’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 agoAllow 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?
- clairity 7y agono, i’m saying speed is largely beside the point when discussing saving lives in auto accidents. the critical behavior change we need is constant active driving, which is hard, but that’s what would make a meaningful difference, not lowering speed limits. people tend to drive as fast as conditions allow anyway.
- renewiltord 7y agoSure, but you work within the constraints you have. What we really need is a cure for all cancers but that doesn't exist just like no universal method for constant active driving exists. Given that, it's a pointless thing to bring up. "Just have everyone be better at things" isn't a helpful alternative.
- clairity 7y agothat’s a false equivalence. every driver has the ability to refrain from texting, talking on the phone, eating their breakfast, doing their makeup, reading the paper (yes, i’ve seen this), etc. and instead focus on scanning the road and their mirrors while actively controlling their car.
- renewiltord 7y agoI'm talking about from the view of public health administration. There is no intervention available to us that will ensure a change in behaviour economically. We do have available to us the speed limit.
- clairity 7y ago> “There is no intervention available to us that will ensure a change in behaviour economically.” of course we do. you mentioned one yourself: “providing turbo lanes for ‘Class C+‘ drivers”. it’s only a matter of imagination to come up with others. speed limits are poor proxies for what really impacts lives saved.