4 ms·
I think we're overextending the point a little, and apologies if my point did not get across well. What I wanted to illustrate was that those kind of speeds, i
by trgn 4y ago
I think we're overextending the point a little, and apologies if my point did not get across well.
What I wanted to illustrate was that those kind of speeds, in heavy vehicles, in cities, on surface streets, are negligent - spiritually. The sheer amount of damage that can be inflicted, in the blink of an eye, by a moment of inattention, is beyond measure (literally, that 67k number looks goofy, unreal, but it's cold hard physics). Our traffic laws are wrong, our streets are wrong. We don't tolerate that anywhere else. On a factory floor with dangerous machinery there are higher standards of safety than our public realm. This news article is the perfect illustration. Good chance the driver fell asleep, or was distracted in some way (totally normal human traits, btw, and does not make somebody a bad person). Yet the lawyer claims, that at 75mph in a 5000 pound car, this is basically just worth a speeding ticket. That's an enormous disconnect. That delta between responsibility and accountability is totally totally out of wack for drivers. An enormous amount of responsivblity (67k kg*m/s worth of it), and very little accountability ($100 speeding ticket).
And yes, at slow speeds, there's just a lot more slack in the system. The driver of a 5mph tractor trailer has a lot of time to react, so does every one around them, stopping distances are exponentially lower etc... It doesn't change the fact that it will level a house, and so we should have extremely high standards.
- judge2020 4y ago> but it's cold hard physics It is if you assume the car is a vintage box car from before the 80's where you might or might not have airbags at all. New cars are designed to crumble and deploy airbags to absorb that impact so that the squishy humans inside the car don't experience anything nearly that high. Nowadays the biggest risk is speeding, as it negates the advances in car safety. > a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 3 percent increase on other roads https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#effects-of-speed-limits-on-safety:~:text=An%20IIHS%20study%20examined%20longer%2Dterm%20changes.%20During%201993%2D2017%2C%20a%205%20mph%20increase%20in%20the%20maximum%20state%20speed%20limit%20was%20associated%20with%20an%208%20percent%20increase%20in%20fatality%20rates%20on%20interstates%20and%20freeways%20and%20a%203%20percent%20increase%20on%20other%20roads%20(Farmer%2C%202019) https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#effects-of-speed-limits-on....
- supportlocal4h 4y agoMaybe it's just me, but I took the original concern to be for people and objects outside the car. It's a bit jarring for your only concern to be the passengers.
- judge2020 4y agoI was under the assumption that "the driver's momentum was around 67.000 kg*m/s" in the top parent comment meant we were talking about a human confined within a car. This is also supported by how @butwhywhyoh says " then you compare it to an impact without describing exactly what you're comparing" in which @trgn still doesn't say clarify what sort of comparison he's making. It's an argument against using some irrelevant momentum number in a comment. Without showing this momentum number, their comment is just "I'd say it's gross negligence to drive that fast at all on any surface street with sidewalks, traffic lights, intersections, stores, whether the driver is asleep at the wheel or not, autopilot or not, drugged or not" which certainly wouldn't get as much engagement on HN.