9 ms·
I don’t want to drive slower so I will vote against this.
by Google234 6y ago
I don’t want to drive slower so I will vote against this.
- stouset 6y agoI don’t want to pay taxes for schools since I don’t have children. But I’m an adult capable of understanding that what I personally want isn’t necessarily what’s best for society at large, so I suck it up and do it anyway without complaining.
- gameswithgo 6y agoMore than just what is best for society at large, paying to educate the kids you don't have, in the long run, makes the world better for you too.
- Google234 6y agoI wonder what percentage of people would vote for the OPs idea in the US. 10%? Maybe 15% :)
- stouset 6y agoPerhaps one of the biggest problems with this country right now is that people are too damn selfish, and vote “in their own best interest” to the detriment of not only everyone else but—ironically—to the detriment of themselves as well.
- Ericson2314 6y agoMost "selfish Americans" people would be more "wounded animal" selfish than "position of power" selfish. That's a big difference.
- noobermin 6y agohuh?
- Ericson2314 6y agoOne consequence is that we're in a low trust <-> bad social safety net feedback loop, rather than an innate consequence of a fixed "American disposition". Jam one thing like through like Healthcare or Federal Rerserve accounts for all, and the feedback loop might find a markedly different equilibrium.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoOn an issue that boils down to social consensus such as how much selfishness is reasonable or what the speed limits should be it's impossible for the overwhelming majority of people to be wrong since they form the consensus.
- teclordphrack2 6y agoSlavery?
- kennywinker 6y agoop here! I definitely do believe that regulation is the path forward to shrinking and slowing cars. But that's not actually what I suggested. I just want the ability to PURCHASE one of these in north america - and for them to catch on
- R0b0t1 6y agoYou can buy similar things already, just not EV.
- kennywinker 6y agoEV part is pretty critical, since I'm trying to avoid fossil fuels whenever possible - but what are my options? A fiat 500 starts at $16,500, smartcars were not much less, and are no longer sold in the usa anyway.
- noobermin 6y agoYou actually can't anymore. Car sellers have stopped selling them to Americans because they make more profit out of SUVs.
- giancarlostoro 6y agoCar salesman will sell you anything just to get some of that commission. Not everyone wants to drive an SUV. You make it sound like people will only buy what a car salesman wants them to buy, if that were so we would all be driving luxury cars and severely in debt. Maybe the majority just prefer SUVs instead. There is a lot more comfort in larger cars. I personally prefer an SUV to a mini van which turns funny in my experience.
- stale2002 6y agoMaybe out in the countryside, the votes would be on your side, but that is not that big of a deal, because the issues of cars are not as bad there. But in the city, there are many more people who may not even have a car, or be bothered by reduced speedlimits. In these cities, we can outvote you. Speed limits, and the like, are controlled locally.
- Swenrekcah 6y agoIndeed, and I would even say that I want to pay my taxes if I know most of it goes to societally useful activities even though I may not utilize all of them now, or some even ever.
- Koshkin 6y agoHistorically taxes were (and theoretically still should be) collected to finance the government (and, during a war, the military) and not for the redistribution of wealth. Socialism is a different theory, of course...
- rsynnott 6y agoThe concept of free schooling emerged before socialism, and would not generally be thought of as socialist (or redistributive) by most people.
- ben_w 6y agoReally? If I remember correctly it was mentioned in The Communist Manifesto.
- rsynnott 6y agoNoted Communist Thomas Jefferson proposed it rather before the Communist Manifesto was written (not that he came up with the idea, of course), and some US states and various other places started introducing it from the early 19th century on. Just because Marx was in favour of something doesn’t necessarily make it inherently socialist.
- teclordphrack2 6y agoBut something can be socialist even if it came about before the idea of socialism was put forth. Remote villages have lived in communistic systems but have no idea about the concept of communism.
- rsynnott 6y agoAre you using ‘socialism’ to mean ‘doing anything for the common good’? I mean, free education seems completely orthogonal to socialism as normally defined.
- sfblah 6y ago... but you literally are on here complaining.
- valuearb 6y agoIf society deems it’s better off with out free speech, can we ride our straw horses together?
- giancarlostoro 6y agoSo long as its only the speech of those I disagree with thats banned then sure. ;)
- rootusrootus 6y ago> what’s best for society at large The idea that simply slowing cars down is best for society at large is a big claim. It might help in some ways, but it will hurt in others.
- noobermin 6y agoIt doesn't help society for everyone to travel at 90mph. Faster speeds are deadlier full stop, denial of this sort of thing is as asinine as climate denial or creationism, it's an already established fact accepted by anyone who studies traffic statistics.
- rwmj 6y agoUnfortunately the relationship between speed and energy is unintuitive (square rather than linear). Increasing speed from 60mph to 70mph doesn't sound like much but it increases energy by over a third. In an unachievable ideal world instead of a speedometer and speed limits we would have an "energy meter" and energy limits, which would also take into account the mass of your car.
- pclmulqdq 6y agoHigher speeds mean less time wasted in cars, so presumably more time to work
- mint2 6y agoNot that simple. Higher speeds mean commutes over longer distance are feasible. People simply move further out for cheaper bigger houses and drive further.
- rootusrootus 6y agoYou are only considering safety and discounting everything else. The capacity of the road network is absolutely related to speed. Slowing down transportation across the board amounts to slowing the economy, which has it's own health impacts. It's not obvious what the ideal balance is. For certain, 1 fatality about every 100 million miles driven is pretty low, especially compared to the sheer amount of utility we get from all of these cars.
- aeternum 6y agoA motorcycle is a good option then. You reduce the risk to others.
- Google234 6y agoIt also increases risk for me.
- Koshkin 6y agoI love motorcycles. But they are noisy and, frankly, dangerous. (Motor scooters, in comparison, are almost ideal, low-speed, tiny, urban vehicles.)
- sudosysgen 6y agoWell, there is such a thing as a silent motorcycle. Also, ebikes are awesome alternatives to motor scooters. I've built one for a very low price not too long ago, it was very fun.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoModern motorcycles have to deal with increasingly stringent european noise regs. Many manufacturers have been discontinuing models to avoid the bother of updating them for compliance. They are all dramatically quiet in stock configuration. The loud ones are modified by their owners or one of the relatively few old machines on the road. All cars were loud and belching unburned hydrocarbons 40 years ago. Comparing motorcycles to modern cars is missing the gains in street life impact that have actually been made.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago> The loud ones are modified by their owners I really wish the standard penalty for that would be "you lose your motorcycle license for 5+ years and the motorcycle is crushed into a cube before your eyes". Not "here's a 100 EUR fine and you have to undo the modifications, show us that you did it, and then put them back on". It's completely unnecessary, hard to do accidentally, and a great way for one single person to affect thousands of others in a single day.
- kennywinker 6y agoHow badly do you want it? There are 30,000 deaths per year from cars in the USA, and many many more injuries. It's not clear what the relationship between that number and the speed/size of cars is, but I'd be willing to bet we could cut that number in half by reducing cars to a max speed of 40mph. Is your desire to drive fast worth 15,000 lives every year? Over your lifetime that could be a million lives saved.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y agoEuropean here. My desire to be able to get to places is definitely strong enough to accept the risks inherent in it. Slithering around at 40 mph means almost doubling many trip lengths. That's a lot of lifetimes unnecessarily spent on roads.
- iso947 6y agoDoing 130kph or even 150 on a motorway is fine. Those are safe roads. Dropping urban speed limits to 25kph makes sense. It might make short trips a few minutes longer, but long trips shorter.
- noobermin 6y agoSorry but that requires a big citations needed flag. And don't say "because 40 mph is half of 80 mph" because I submit you aren't travelling for 80mph long enough throughout the trip to justify it unless you go across statelines everyday.
- SteveGerencser 6y agoMy desire to drive fast (my sweet spot is 78mph on the highway) is based solely on how far I have to drive when I do drive. I travel off of the farm less than once a week. But when I do leave the farm I can easily put 150 miles on the truck getting everything done that needs doing. And the bulk of that is on the freeway, once I get to it. Or travelling to see my sick mother once a month (1200+ mile round trip) or my daughter as often as possible (1600+ mile round trip). Add to that I am on the large side of the equation at over 6'3" tall and near 300 pounds, and getting my v8 powered truck (20+ mpg) away from me will be a challenge.