3 ms·
That's really not the point. The thought experiment doesn't consider the safety, and far less the convenience (did you call this "effectiveness"?), of drivers.
by jessaustin 4y ago
That's really not the point. The thought experiment doesn't consider the safety, and far less the convenience (did you call this "effectiveness"?), of drivers. Rather, it examines the safety of all those who suffer the presence of drivers: pedestrians, cyclists, road workers, wild animals, unleashed dogs, etc.
- naniwaduni 4y agoOf course it's not the point! The problem with the thought experiment is that it misses the point! Getting from point A to point B faster is more than an incidental convenience to a driver, it is the primary goal of having a car and driving it!
- jessaustin 4y agoSure, that is a goal for many drivers. There's no reason for anyone else to care about it. Whatever the hypothetical advantages of automobiles to society in general, police-enforced speed limits exist. Since you seem opposed to limits on speed, one might expect you to value Tullock's spike as another possible solution in the trade-off space that would allow faster travel for those who, like you, really value that, while still somewhat protecting the rest of us on the street.