6 ms·

Not to be a wet blanket here, but what's the point? Bicycle across America... That's cool. Very impressive at any speed. Break the speed limit laws and potentia

by anonu 6y ago

Not to be a wet blanket here, but what's the point? Bicycle across America... That's cool. Very impressive at any speed. Break the speed limit laws and potentially put others at risk... Not cool...

RickJWagner 6y ago
Yeah, I get it. For us oldsters, there is a little cool-ness associated with the CannonBall Run from an old (but popular) movie. But it is a stupid thing, for sure.
- ethbro 6y ago
  Static speed limits that apply to all drivers identically are a joke. Because not all drivers are identically skilled. So either you recognize the absurdity inherent in our speed laws, or you think the system is reasonable. The Cannonball Run isn't for the latter.
  - Pxtl 6y ago
    The laws of physics are the same for everyone. E_k = 1/2 m*v^2. If something were to happen, whether the drivers' fault or not, there would not be enough time to react and everyone involved would die.
  - dahart 6y ago
    Why would different skill levels imply there shouldn’t be a ‘static’ speed limit? I’m not seeing the connecting logic. What is the alternative, and how do you propose to enforce a dynamic speed limit that adapts to the drivers’ skill level? Who determines skill level, and how do you determine skill level, and why would we want a public system where people are near the limits of their skill level? Also curious - are you sure that skill level is the primary cause of traffic accidents and fatalities? Do you have any data on that? How does it compare with race drivers who’ve died in crashes, are those due to skill level? I don’t think speed limits are “static” because of skill level. I presume speed limits are static because 1) physics - energy of impact is proportional to the square of your velocity. Double the speed is 4x the damage / chance of death. 2) There’s safety in a low speed differential in traffic regardless of the limit. It’s safer to pass at 5mph faster than it is to pass at 60mph faster. 3) It’s fair to all, in the sense that the same rule applies to everyone, and enforceable.
    - ethbro 6y ago
      As to an alternative, we've come a long way technologically since 1974. If we wanted to, RF enabling cars to be remotely interrogated, and encoding driver qualifications is well within our reach. As to skill level, the current system has a cursory driver's test, coupled with (in some states) minimal re-qualification criteria. This means that an 18 year old new driver, a 40 year old experienced driver, and an 80 year old with barely passable eyesight are effectively lumped into the same bucket. To me, that feels like safety theater. And as with any theater, leads to widespread law breaking. In my opinion, any law which is commonly ignored is a bad thing and should be reworked to be more enforceable / in line with expectations. As to accidents and fatalities normalized per skill level, we have general motor vehicle fatality statistics [1] (specifically note fatalities per million VMT pre-1995 and post-1995, when the federal speed maximums were substantially relaxed [2]). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any comprehensive driver skill level test, with sufficient sample size, on which to draw statistics. We can say that, per the 2018 NHTSA report [3], alcohol impairment was involved in 29% of overall fatalities. We can also say that ~50% of fatalities were unrestrained by safety devices (given ~90% documentation of restraint use at time of accident). They also note that "distraction-affected crashes" comprised 7.8% of total fatalities. Which is to say it's tenuous to hold skill as proxy for responsibility, but there are some very large percentages of fatalities exacerbated by non-speed-related irresponsible driving behavior. I feel like race drivers would be a poor comparison, due to limited sample size and confounding effects (e.g. leading / high performance drivers more likely to take risks and push limits). (1) absolutely has merit. (2) is debatable, but I'll agree also has merit. (3) seems like my real bone of contention with the current system. It's naively "fair," in that it treats everyone and all vehicles identically. It's also incredibly sub-optimal, given the vast variance in drivers and vehicles. If I had my druthers, I'd mandate all cars / drivers support remote interrogation (license class, if you don't want to open the privacy can of identity), then have a graduated series of license tests between standard (C) and commercial (CDL). Then drastically increase speeding fines & automated fining, if you're caught speeding without an appropriate license qualification. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Federal_speed_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta... [3] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812826 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    The party line among "reasonable" people (particularly back in the days of 55 everywhere) used to be that it isn't speed that kills, but speed differentials. I mean, I think this was the sort of thing I would read in Car & Driver, from people like Brock Yates. Doesn't seem compatible with your opinion though.
  - c22 6y ago
    I used to think I was a skilled driver, but then I got in a terrible car accident because I was going too fast and the driver of the other vehicle wasn't as skilled as I was. Now I'm a much better driver.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Humans have in incredible talent for self-deception. Static speed limits are not a joke if you accept that our understanding of physics is real and have a basic understanding of how increasing speed increases energy at impact in a non-linear way. You can be the best driver in the world (and you are almost certainly not), but someone blowing through a red light will still be unavoidable at times.
    - kyuudou 6y ago
      Another issue are very large animals like moose. I hear this can be a problem in Montana especially.
  - aphistic 6y ago
    Let me guess, you'd consider yourself in the top tier of drivers?
    - ethbro 6y ago
      Nope. But I'm 100% confident I'm above the bottom tier.
tim58 6y ago
It combines two things very important in American culture, outlaw activity and automobiles.

by anonu 6y ago

Not to be a wet blanket here, but what's the point? Bicycle across America... That's cool. Very impressive at any speed. Break the speed limit laws and potentially put others at risk... Not cool...

RickJWagner 6y ago

Yeah, I get it. For us oldsters, there is a little cool-ness associated with the CannonBall Run from an old (but popular) movie. But it is a stupid thing, for sure.

ethbro 6y ago
Static speed limits that apply to all drivers identically are a joke. Because not all drivers are identically skilled. So either you recognize the absurdity inherent in our speed laws, or you think the system is reasonable. The Cannonball Run isn't for the latter.
- Pxtl 6y ago
  The laws of physics are the same for everyone. E_k = 1/2 m*v^2. If something were to happen, whether the drivers' fault or not, there would not be enough time to react and everyone involved would die.
- dahart 6y ago
  Why would different skill levels imply there shouldn’t be a ‘static’ speed limit? I’m not seeing the connecting logic. What is the alternative, and how do you propose to enforce a dynamic speed limit that adapts to the drivers’ skill level? Who determines skill level, and how do you determine skill level, and why would we want a public system where people are near the limits of their skill level? Also curious - are you sure that skill level is the primary cause of traffic accidents and fatalities? Do you have any data on that? How does it compare with race drivers who’ve died in crashes, are those due to skill level? I don’t think speed limits are “static” because of skill level. I presume speed limits are static because 1) physics - energy of impact is proportional to the square of your velocity. Double the speed is 4x the damage / chance of death. 2) There’s safety in a low speed differential in traffic regardless of the limit. It’s safer to pass at 5mph faster than it is to pass at 60mph faster. 3) It’s fair to all, in the sense that the same rule applies to everyone, and enforceable.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    As to an alternative, we've come a long way technologically since 1974. If we wanted to, RF enabling cars to be remotely interrogated, and encoding driver qualifications is well within our reach. As to skill level, the current system has a cursory driver's test, coupled with (in some states) minimal re-qualification criteria. This means that an 18 year old new driver, a 40 year old experienced driver, and an 80 year old with barely passable eyesight are effectively lumped into the same bucket. To me, that feels like safety theater. And as with any theater, leads to widespread law breaking. In my opinion, any law which is commonly ignored is a bad thing and should be reworked to be more enforceable / in line with expectations. As to accidents and fatalities normalized per skill level, we have general motor vehicle fatality statistics [1] (specifically note fatalities per million VMT pre-1995 and post-1995, when the federal speed maximums were substantially relaxed [2]). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any comprehensive driver skill level test, with sufficient sample size, on which to draw statistics. We can say that, per the 2018 NHTSA report [3], alcohol impairment was involved in 29% of overall fatalities. We can also say that ~50% of fatalities were unrestrained by safety devices (given ~90% documentation of restraint use at time of accident). They also note that "distraction-affected crashes" comprised 7.8% of total fatalities. Which is to say it's tenuous to hold skill as proxy for responsibility, but there are some very large percentages of fatalities exacerbated by non-speed-related irresponsible driving behavior. I feel like race drivers would be a poor comparison, due to limited sample size and confounding effects (e.g. leading / high performance drivers more likely to take risks and push limits). (1) absolutely has merit. (2) is debatable, but I'll agree also has merit. (3) seems like my real bone of contention with the current system. It's naively "fair," in that it treats everyone and all vehicles identically. It's also incredibly sub-optimal, given the vast variance in drivers and vehicles. If I had my druthers, I'd mandate all cars / drivers support remote interrogation (license class, if you don't want to open the privacy can of identity), then have a graduated series of license tests between standard (C) and commercial (CDL). Then drastically increase speeding fines & automated fining, if you're caught speeding without an appropriate license qualification. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Federal_speed_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta... [3] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812826 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- perl4ever 6y ago
  The party line among "reasonable" people (particularly back in the days of 55 everywhere) used to be that it isn't speed that kills, but speed differentials. I mean, I think this was the sort of thing I would read in Car & Driver, from people like Brock Yates. Doesn't seem compatible with your opinion though.
- c22 6y ago
  I used to think I was a skilled driver, but then I got in a terrible car accident because I was going too fast and the driver of the other vehicle wasn't as skilled as I was. Now I'm a much better driver.
- xnyan 6y ago
  Humans have in incredible talent for self-deception. Static speed limits are not a joke if you accept that our understanding of physics is real and have a basic understanding of how increasing speed increases energy at impact in a non-linear way. You can be the best driver in the world (and you are almost certainly not), but someone blowing through a red light will still be unavoidable at times.
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    Another issue are very large animals like moose. I hear this can be a problem in Montana especially.
- aphistic 6y ago
  Let me guess, you'd consider yourself in the top tier of drivers?
  - ethbro 6y ago
    Nope. But I'm 100% confident I'm above the bottom tier.

tim58 6y ago

It combines two things very important in American culture, outlaw activity and automobiles.