4 ms·

You're ignoring the fact that many people's perception of what is "a safe speed" is not at all reliable. (Compare: what percentage of people would claim to be b

by jfk13 5y ago

You're ignoring the fact that many people's perception of what is "a safe speed" is not at all reliable. (Compare: what percentage of people would claim to be better-than-average drivers? https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/ https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-driver...) We have speed limits because trusting people to "go a safe speed" doesn't work, in general.

Dylan16807 5y ago
Objectively, the group settles into a particular speed. It's based on both safety and perceived safety, and it's not perfect, but it works out pretty well. If the road is designed properly it's the top few percentile that you need to restrain, not the masses. If you make a super wide straight shot of asphalt down a residential neighborhood, and people go too fast, that's the road designer's fault.
- jfk13 5y ago
  > it's the top few percentile that you need to restrain, not the masses And how do you propose to "restrain" them, if not by enforcing a speed limit?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    I'm not suggesting getting rid of speed limits. I was objecting to the idea that there is no natural speed, and that the group will "just escalate". Nothing else.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    I don’t think anybody is arguing speed limits should be abolished. At least not in any general sense. But, it’s plain enough to see that speed limits on some roads are wrong. I-495 in VA is a prime example. It’s posted at 55mph and traffic regularly flows faster (or slower, during rush hour). It really needs variable limits based on traffic volume instead of a dumb 55.
    - jfk13 5y ago
      Dylan16807's comment about > If you replace speed limits with "go a safe speed"... sounded to me like a suggestion that speed limits could be abolished in favour of a "use your judgement" rule, which I don't think is a sensible idea.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        It wasn't.

by jfk13 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

Objectively, the group settles into a particular speed. It's based on both safety and perceived safety, and it's not perfect, but it works out pretty well. If the road is designed properly it's the top few percentile that you need to restrain, not the masses. If you make a super wide straight shot of asphalt down a residential neighborhood, and people go too fast, that's the road designer's fault.

jfk13 5y ago
> it's the top few percentile that you need to restrain, not the masses And how do you propose to "restrain" them, if not by enforcing a speed limit?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  I'm not suggesting getting rid of speed limits. I was objecting to the idea that there is no natural speed, and that the group will "just escalate". Nothing else.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  I don’t think anybody is arguing speed limits should be abolished. At least not in any general sense. But, it’s plain enough to see that speed limits on some roads are wrong. I-495 in VA is a prime example. It’s posted at 55mph and traffic regularly flows faster (or slower, during rush hour). It really needs variable limits based on traffic volume instead of a dumb 55.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    Dylan16807's comment about > If you replace speed limits with "go a safe speed"... sounded to me like a suggestion that speed limits could be abolished in favour of a "use your judgement" rule, which I don't think is a sensible idea.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      It wasn't.