4 ms·

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 in

by 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/...
  - dahart 6y ago
    Also within our reach is automated photographic enforcement. That would be much easier and way more realistic to implement than somehow trying to manage different speed classes based on skill or whatever. I still just don’t see a real problem with a static speed limit, or why something graduated by skill is called for and what it would help. Having fines graduated by ‘skill’ would just be more of a declaration that it’s okay to break the law and speed if you’re a ‘better’ driver, whatever that means. It doesn’t make that much sense to me, the better drivers are already the ones choosing not to speed. Personally, I’d rather have more enforcement so that people just didn’t speed. I honestly hope that self-driving cars eliminate aggressive driving from our roads and let people relax while they travel. Speeds are already too high in a lot of places, and people have unrealistic expectations while they drive. The last thing I want is some clowns claiming to be better drivers expecting to be allowed to drive 100mph through traffic. The very desire to driver faster that current speed limits is solid evidence in my book of a lack of driving wisdom, which I would call a lack of skill. The choices we make to avoid bad situations are more important than our reaction times or ability to recover from them. (Just like coding!) I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting, because you didn’t make it clear, but that seems to be your implication. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Your suggestion is sounding a little to me like it could be a way for richer people to pay for more licensing to get traffic advantages. Speeding tickets already favor wealthy people and hurt poorer people disproportionately. The licenses we currently have don’t measure skill, they establish only the minimum standards needed for driving a motorcycle or car or 18 wheeler, no licensing in our system is capable of distinguishing the skills of different drivers. It’s not really the case that the law is lumping everyone into the same bucket based on skill, I think that’s a misinterpretation, a specious framing but not what the law intended nor what it communicates. The speed limit is a declaration of what the safe speed of a given road and today’s vehicles are - again, because physics. Speed limits are affected by popular opinion, and in some places, like in the western US where the speed limits have been hiked up to 80 mph, or even 85 in Texas, these limits have been raised in some locales by law makers in spite of the Highway Patrol’s objections and evidence that accidents and fatality rates are higher with the raised limits. > It’s also incredibly sub-optimal, given that vast variance in drivers and vehicles. So by what metric is it sub-optimal? How do you arrive at the conclusion that it’s “incredibly” sub-optimal? What does optimal mean, and what are you suggesting? I don’t get it yet. Are you saying more skilled drivers should be allowed to driver faster than other people, or just suggesting that fines should be lower? Who, exactly, is being harmed by speed limits, what is the damage being done, and what is the alternative? There are statistics showing increased rates of death in higher speed limit areas, so you need to have a pretty convincing argument that a thousand people being stuck at 70mph are being hurt more than someone getting killed. I just don’t see it being realistic for some people to be allowed to drive much faster than others in traffic. This would add extra tension to already tense heavy traffic commutes, how does it solve anything? I suspect the unintended consequence of increasing the speed differential would be more road rage and more road fatalities.
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.

by ethbro 6y ago

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/...
- dahart 6y ago
  Also within our reach is automated photographic enforcement. That would be much easier and way more realistic to implement than somehow trying to manage different speed classes based on skill or whatever. I still just don’t see a real problem with a static speed limit, or why something graduated by skill is called for and what it would help. Having fines graduated by ‘skill’ would just be more of a declaration that it’s okay to break the law and speed if you’re a ‘better’ driver, whatever that means. It doesn’t make that much sense to me, the better drivers are already the ones choosing not to speed. Personally, I’d rather have more enforcement so that people just didn’t speed. I honestly hope that self-driving cars eliminate aggressive driving from our roads and let people relax while they travel. Speeds are already too high in a lot of places, and people have unrealistic expectations while they drive. The last thing I want is some clowns claiming to be better drivers expecting to be allowed to drive 100mph through traffic. The very desire to driver faster that current speed limits is solid evidence in my book of a lack of driving wisdom, which I would call a lack of skill. The choices we make to avoid bad situations are more important than our reaction times or ability to recover from them. (Just like coding!) I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting, because you didn’t make it clear, but that seems to be your implication. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Your suggestion is sounding a little to me like it could be a way for richer people to pay for more licensing to get traffic advantages. Speeding tickets already favor wealthy people and hurt poorer people disproportionately. The licenses we currently have don’t measure skill, they establish only the minimum standards needed for driving a motorcycle or car or 18 wheeler, no licensing in our system is capable of distinguishing the skills of different drivers. It’s not really the case that the law is lumping everyone into the same bucket based on skill, I think that’s a misinterpretation, a specious framing but not what the law intended nor what it communicates. The speed limit is a declaration of what the safe speed of a given road and today’s vehicles are - again, because physics. Speed limits are affected by popular opinion, and in some places, like in the western US where the speed limits have been hiked up to 80 mph, or even 85 in Texas, these limits have been raised in some locales by law makers in spite of the Highway Patrol’s objections and evidence that accidents and fatality rates are higher with the raised limits. > It’s also incredibly sub-optimal, given that vast variance in drivers and vehicles. So by what metric is it sub-optimal? How do you arrive at the conclusion that it’s “incredibly” sub-optimal? What does optimal mean, and what are you suggesting? I don’t get it yet. Are you saying more skilled drivers should be allowed to driver faster than other people, or just suggesting that fines should be lower? Who, exactly, is being harmed by speed limits, what is the damage being done, and what is the alternative? There are statistics showing increased rates of death in higher speed limit areas, so you need to have a pretty convincing argument that a thousand people being stuck at 70mph are being hurt more than someone getting killed. I just don’t see it being realistic for some people to be allowed to drive much faster than others in traffic. This would add extra tension to already tense heavy traffic commutes, how does it solve anything? I suspect the unintended consequence of increasing the speed differential would be more road rage and more road fatalities.

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.