6 ms·

The thing is why should we need radar, cameras or ever people to behave like saints to obey speed limits? Every major vehicle manufacturers is working on self-

The thing is why should we need radar, cameras or ever people to behave like saints to obey speed limits? Every major vehicle manufacturers is working on self-driving. So just how difficult would it be for them to make cars now as an intermediate step that actually obeyed the speed laws? In the UK, The National Police Chiefs Council stated that speeding is believed to be a significant factor in 17 fatalities and 126 serious injuries on the country's roads each month. Globally ... I don't know how many people the vehicle makers should be allowed to kill and maim because of a speeding problem that is entirely technically preventable. But at the moment it feels like they are getting away with something that is uncomfortably close to murder.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Firstly, it'll be ineffective. Going 60 in a 50 zone, which many people do, isn't going to result in many more fatalities, most speeding fatalities probably come from drivers who were going stupidly fast. That kind of driver is just going to go for used cars if new cars won't let you drive as you wish. Secondly, there's a more fundamental issue. Most people are not going to be ok with the lawmaker exerting that level of control over their cars, because it's 1984-y. Just because something kills people doesn't mean it always has to be completely stopped and eradicated. People die from eating too much junk food, should we forbid it? People die to stairs, are you going to legally force constructions to pad any staircases with cushions? People ruin their lives due to alcohol. People drown in pools. Kids get injured on playgrounds - think of the children. There's a line where you need to leave things up to individuals, even if some of them are going to fuck up, because otherwise you end up creating a draconian state, which is way worse than any possible outcome created by people misusing their agency. Trying to enforce speed limits this hard is way over that line.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Sales of alcohol have gradually been lowered in the Nordic countries through punitive taxation and a requirement that only a state monopoly can sell liquor. Yes, there are still people who drink destructively, but figures are way down compared to some decades ago before these restrictions. Moreover, the majority of the public is in favor of maintaining these restrictions instead of loosening them, so there hasn’t been that backlash against a "draconian state" that you speak of. It is definitely possible for a large enough group of citizens to be so concerned about the harmful effects of something that they do not believe it should be left to the individual. Junk food, too, is the target of similar restrictions in several countries now. Also, playgrounds have been scaled down in the last couple of decades for safety reasons, and in the USA that wasn’t due to draconian laws, it was due to fear of lawsuits.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Taxing is not the same as forbidding. If you forbid alcohol, there is going to be a backlash, see prohibition. In the same way you can "tax" speeders with speeding cameras but I don't think people are going to be okay with literally getting forced to not do it. > It is definitely possible for a large enough group of citizens to be so concerned about the harmful effects of something that they do not believe it should be left to the individual. True. Everyone is fine with heroin being illegal. That's why I said that there is a line and not that you should leave everything to the individual. > in the USA that wasn’t due to draconian laws, it was due to fear of lawsuits. Is that not the same? Just that the US already has draconian laws?
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Everyone is not fine with heroin being illegal. Heroin being illegal is wildly irresponsible and immoral because while heroin is a dangerous drug, far more danger is created by an unclean and unpredictable supply and by pushing addicts into crime to finance it. The big difference is that speeding puts others lives at risk. Someones heroin addiction for the most part will themselves at risk (except where keeping it illegal pushes people into crime to finance their addiction, which is another reason to provide legal access)
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        Even in countries where heroin possession and use has been decriminalized (for the compassionate reasons you mention), heroin is still illegal in that there are still prohibitions against its production and sale. It would be a fringe position indeed to say that all laws relating to hard drugs be taken off the books.
        vidarh 6y ago
        It would be fringe position, yes, but decriminalisation is not enough - it does not fix the issues with heroin use, for example, which are tied to a mix of cost and unreliable supply. Hence it's important to get people to stop seeing opposition to legalisation of these drugs as "obvious", because opposing legalisation of these drugs is extremely irrational. Current laws on this are immoral and deeply harmful. The vast majority of drugs should be fully legalised and regulated, not decriminalised. The only reasonable exceptions are possibly things like fentanyl and "synthetic cannabis" variants that few people use because they want just those drugs but because of poor availability of safer drugs. Any evidence-based drugs policy would involve full legalisation of most drugs - there's simply nothing that suggests the current laws achieve their claimed intent, and plenty that demonstrate they are causing massive harm both to addicts and to victims of related crime.
- Retric 6y ago
  It feels like doing 60mph in a 50mph zone is about the same thus people assume it’s equivalent even if it’s much more dangerous. The issue is most clearly demonstrated by stopping distance going up by ~40% even though it’s only 20% faster. However that’s understating the difference. It’s common to be breaking just before impact at higher speeds you have less time to react and thus break less. If you go from 50MPH to 30 MPH that’s likely a completely survivable collision. Breaking from 60MPH to 50 MPH is less so as your dealing with V^2 = ~2.8x the energy. Similarly, many accidents are simply avoided...
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    That's a good point, is there any actual data? I found one thing which is a bit counter to this, but not directly relevant to cities. Germany manages to have no speed limit on the majority of the Autobahn without a higher rate of accidents compared to surrounding countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
    - Retric 6y ago
      It’s rather hard to directly collect such accident data, but plenty of studies have looked into the effect. Anyway, overall safety of a given road is a separate factor. Germany has approximately 650,000 km of roads and only 12,996 kilometres (2016) where part of the Autobahn. So while per mile the Autobahn is safer than the older parts of the German road network, speed is hardly the only factor involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Germany#Roads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Germany#Roads They have very high standards for what constitutes a no speed limit zone and such roads are safe enough to offset the added dangers of such speeds.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Many people stick to the standard speed of 130km/h.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
- lonelyasacloud 6y ago
  > Going 60 in a 50 zone, which many people do, isn't going to result in many more fatalities, If it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage, why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra person is okay? > That kind of driver is just going to go for used cars if new cars won't let you drive as you wish Perhaps, but isn't being surrounded by vehicles driving at the legal speed going to slow them down? And if that doesn't slow them down, then aren't the police likely to have more resources to deal with them? (each death on UK roads is estimated to cost over £2 million pounds https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-average-value-of-preventing-road-accidents https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-av... , I'd imagine the figures are similar for most Western countries - that's a lot of resources freed) > the lawmaker exerting that level of control over their cars, because it's 1984-y. And having our roads festooned with cameras and number plate readers while still suffering the deaths and injuries is not a worse vision of dystopia? > because otherwise you end up creating a draconian state, which is way worse than any possible outcome created by people misusing their agency. Trying to enforce speed limits this hard is way over that line. I know what Top Gear and the rest of the industry with the largest advertising budget on the planet might like us to think. But speeding is not a human right. It's not much like freedom of speech; is it? So just how would preventing law-abiding citizens from being killed or maimed by illegal driving bring about a "draconian state"? When science and technology make it preventable, why should it be acceptable to allow our loved ones to continue to be killed and maimed just so that some people can continue to break the law and drive dangerously?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    It's not about being able to speed, it's about the government forcibly taking your control of your personal property away. In that way, it's an infringement of your basic human rights, and it's done basically because you're thought to be too incompetent to follow the rules, too stupid to be able to differentiate good from bad. And while that's merely insulting, what's actually dangerous about is that it's taking people's agency away at the same time that it's empowering the government to arbitrarily justify any further measures because "people die". You mentioned free speech, so here's an analogy: Even with free speech, there are certain things you're not allowed to say, and most people agree that's reasonable. Imagine someone is bullied into suicide by hate speech, and we have the technology to implant people with chips that make it impossible for them to say these things. Would you argue in the same way that "if it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage, why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra person is okay?" In any case it should be clear that that would be a rather extremist position.
peatmoss 6y ago
Some of the replies to you are focused on “nanny state” objections. So, how about a private sector solution here? Offer people a significant reduction in insurance for installing a speed governor that limits speeds to legal limits? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to try and reduce speeds. Speed kills, and that’s a fact. A lot of the killing is externalized as well. I’ve said it before, but people who drive public streets like a track should either get themselves to a track, or internalize their risk-taking by buying a motorcycle. As a motorcyclist, I’m very aware of safety trade-offs I’m making. Oddly enough, not being inside a steel cage is a pretty good reminder to keep safety very high on the list of things I think about while riding.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago

Firstly, it'll be ineffective. Going 60 in a 50 zone, which many people do, isn't going to result in many more fatalities, most speeding fatalities probably come from drivers who were going stupidly fast. That kind of driver is just going to go for used cars if new cars won't let you drive as you wish. Secondly, there's a more fundamental issue. Most people are not going to be ok with the lawmaker exerting that level of control over their cars, because it's 1984-y. Just because something kills people doesn't mean it always has to be completely stopped and eradicated. People die from eating too much junk food, should we forbid it? People die to stairs, are you going to legally force constructions to pad any staircases with cushions? People ruin their lives due to alcohol. People drown in pools. Kids get injured on playgrounds - think of the children. There's a line where you need to leave things up to individuals, even if some of them are going to fuck up, because otherwise you end up creating a draconian state, which is way worse than any possible outcome created by people misusing their agency. Trying to enforce speed limits this hard is way over that line.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Sales of alcohol have gradually been lowered in the Nordic countries through punitive taxation and a requirement that only a state monopoly can sell liquor. Yes, there are still people who drink destructively, but figures are way down compared to some decades ago before these restrictions. Moreover, the majority of the public is in favor of maintaining these restrictions instead of loosening them, so there hasn’t been that backlash against a "draconian state" that you speak of. It is definitely possible for a large enough group of citizens to be so concerned about the harmful effects of something that they do not believe it should be left to the individual. Junk food, too, is the target of similar restrictions in several countries now. Also, playgrounds have been scaled down in the last couple of decades for safety reasons, and in the USA that wasn’t due to draconian laws, it was due to fear of lawsuits.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Taxing is not the same as forbidding. If you forbid alcohol, there is going to be a backlash, see prohibition. In the same way you can "tax" speeders with speeding cameras but I don't think people are going to be okay with literally getting forced to not do it. > It is definitely possible for a large enough group of citizens to be so concerned about the harmful effects of something that they do not believe it should be left to the individual. True. Everyone is fine with heroin being illegal. That's why I said that there is a line and not that you should leave everything to the individual. > in the USA that wasn’t due to draconian laws, it was due to fear of lawsuits. Is that not the same? Just that the US already has draconian laws?
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Everyone is not fine with heroin being illegal. Heroin being illegal is wildly irresponsible and immoral because while heroin is a dangerous drug, far more danger is created by an unclean and unpredictable supply and by pushing addicts into crime to finance it. The big difference is that speeding puts others lives at risk. Someones heroin addiction for the most part will themselves at risk (except where keeping it illegal pushes people into crime to finance their addiction, which is another reason to provide legal access)
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Even in countries where heroin possession and use has been decriminalized (for the compassionate reasons you mention), heroin is still illegal in that there are still prohibitions against its production and sale. It would be a fringe position indeed to say that all laws relating to hard drugs be taken off the books.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        It would be fringe position, yes, but decriminalisation is not enough - it does not fix the issues with heroin use, for example, which are tied to a mix of cost and unreliable supply. Hence it's important to get people to stop seeing opposition to legalisation of these drugs as "obvious", because opposing legalisation of these drugs is extremely irrational. Current laws on this are immoral and deeply harmful. The vast majority of drugs should be fully legalised and regulated, not decriminalised. The only reasonable exceptions are possibly things like fentanyl and "synthetic cannabis" variants that few people use because they want just those drugs but because of poor availability of safer drugs. Any evidence-based drugs policy would involve full legalisation of most drugs - there's simply nothing that suggests the current laws achieve their claimed intent, and plenty that demonstrate they are causing massive harm both to addicts and to victims of related crime.
Retric 6y ago
It feels like doing 60mph in a 50mph zone is about the same thus people assume it’s equivalent even if it’s much more dangerous. The issue is most clearly demonstrated by stopping distance going up by ~40% even though it’s only 20% faster. However that’s understating the difference. It’s common to be breaking just before impact at higher speeds you have less time to react and thus break less. If you go from 50MPH to 30 MPH that’s likely a completely survivable collision. Breaking from 60MPH to 50 MPH is less so as your dealing with V^2 = ~2.8x the energy. Similarly, many accidents are simply avoided...
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  That's a good point, is there any actual data? I found one thing which is a bit counter to this, but not directly relevant to cities. Germany manages to have no speed limit on the majority of the Autobahn without a higher rate of accidents compared to surrounding countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
  - Retric 6y ago
    It’s rather hard to directly collect such accident data, but plenty of studies have looked into the effect. Anyway, overall safety of a given road is a separate factor. Germany has approximately 650,000 km of roads and only 12,996 kilometres (2016) where part of the Autobahn. So while per mile the Autobahn is safer than the older parts of the German road network, speed is hardly the only factor involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Germany#Roads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Germany#Roads They have very high standards for what constitutes a no speed limit zone and such roads are safe enough to offset the added dangers of such speeds.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Many people stick to the standard speed of 130km/h.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
lonelyasacloud 6y ago
> Going 60 in a 50 zone, which many people do, isn't going to result in many more fatalities, If it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage, why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra person is okay? > That kind of driver is just going to go for used cars if new cars won't let you drive as you wish Perhaps, but isn't being surrounded by vehicles driving at the legal speed going to slow them down? And if that doesn't slow them down, then aren't the police likely to have more resources to deal with them? (each death on UK roads is estimated to cost over £2 million pounds https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-average-value-of-preventing-road-accidents https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-av... , I'd imagine the figures are similar for most Western countries - that's a lot of resources freed) > the lawmaker exerting that level of control over their cars, because it's 1984-y. And having our roads festooned with cameras and number plate readers while still suffering the deaths and injuries is not a worse vision of dystopia? > because otherwise you end up creating a draconian state, which is way worse than any possible outcome created by people misusing their agency. Trying to enforce speed limits this hard is way over that line. I know what Top Gear and the rest of the industry with the largest advertising budget on the planet might like us to think. But speeding is not a human right. It's not much like freedom of speech; is it? So just how would preventing law-abiding citizens from being killed or maimed by illegal driving bring about a "draconian state"? When science and technology make it preventable, why should it be acceptable to allow our loved ones to continue to be killed and maimed just so that some people can continue to break the law and drive dangerously?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  It's not about being able to speed, it's about the government forcibly taking your control of your personal property away. In that way, it's an infringement of your basic human rights, and it's done basically because you're thought to be too incompetent to follow the rules, too stupid to be able to differentiate good from bad. And while that's merely insulting, what's actually dangerous about is that it's taking people's agency away at the same time that it's empowering the government to arbitrarily justify any further measures because "people die". You mentioned free speech, so here's an analogy: Even with free speech, there are certain things you're not allowed to say, and most people agree that's reasonable. Imagine someone is bullied into suicide by hate speech, and we have the technology to implant people with chips that make it impossible for them to say these things. Would you argue in the same way that "if it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage, why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra person is okay?" In any case it should be clear that that would be a rather extremist position.

peatmoss 6y ago

Some of the replies to you are focused on “nanny state” objections. So, how about a private sector solution here? Offer people a significant reduction in insurance for installing a speed governor that limits speeds to legal limits? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to try and reduce speeds. Speed kills, and that’s a fact. A lot of the killing is externalized as well. I’ve said it before, but people who drive public streets like a track should either get themselves to a track, or internalize their risk-taking by buying a motorcycle. As a motorcyclist, I’m very aware of safety trade-offs I’m making. Oddly enough, not being inside a steel cage is a pretty good reminder to keep safety very high on the list of things I think about while riding.