10 ms·

Wow - bad logic and selective evidence. Firstly, just because lots of people do something, doesn't make it acceptable. An act is wrong because of the harm it

Wow - bad logic and selective evidence. Firstly, just because lots of people do something, doesn't make it acceptable. An act is wrong because of the harm it does, not the frequency of its distribution amongst a population. By the author's logic, murder would be ok just in case more of us did it. You may think speeding is fine but sadly for the rest of us, your choice to speed imposes a harm on to others. And regarding that harm - speed kills. Yes, there is a strong relation between speed variance and fatalities so its be fair to argue that focusing on traffic flow & speed differentials is important. But there is an even strong one between average speeds and fatalities. Ignoring absolute speed is misleading - especially in urban areas where the survivability of being hit at 20 vs 30 mph is an order of magnitude different. And finally, 'The speed limit assumes a level of stupidity that the average person does not possess.' Again, wow. Im pretty the author doesn't go around killing people because he realises 1) its morally wrong & 2) its rational for us to all agree to not kill each other because my loss of freedom to kill is more than offset by my not having to spend my every waking moment wondering who's going to kill me. Yet, some people still murder others. We do need laws to protect us from the harm of others, even if we ourselves would not have engaged in that harmful behaviour anyway.

brey 15y ago
some truly bad reasoning in the article. using that logic, slavery was just fine, because a large percentage of the population at the time owned or profited from slaves.
darklajid 15y ago
Disclaimer 1: The other posts of me in this thread show that I'm in support of going fast. Disclaimer 2: English is not my native language and I very well might miss something in your chain of thoughts. With that out of the way, this is what I read in your last paragraph: You take offense with (?) the idea that the average person shouldn't need (a number of/this kind of/as much as) speed limits. You then jump back to the comparison to murder and seem to say (my words) that: "Since he's not running around and killing people he obviously understands that it's morally wrong and rational for us to agree upon not doing that sort of thing. Some people still do that nevertheless. We need laws to protect us from others" Now I think the 'morally wrong' part doesn't translate to driving here. I'm not sure how to parse the rest: I'd rather agree on driving safely than on driving slower than X. Safe is hard to define for a complex thing like driving. You already rely on the common sense of other people anyway (Do they drink/do drugs and drive? Do they use their mobile/search cigarettes in the back of the car while driving? Are their tires in a good shape or flat like those of a formula 1 car? Do they reduce their speed according to the situation, not just the signs - think fog, rain, snow? Are they able to judge their own ability to drive in general - think granny w/ limited vision). The speed is already variable (legally only in the downward direction right now) and you're relying on other people to notice and understand that if you're taking part in that game called traffic. The question whether it's not okay to go faster than the speed on the sign allows you to _in the right situation_ is a real one and doesn't necessarily lead to reckless driving and mayhem on the roads. Edit: Erm - I agree that the line of reasoning of the original article is .. unfortunate. No questions about that.
- davekinkead 15y ago
  This issue is really why we should have laws: the post argues that speeding is ok because lots of people do it and it doesn't hurt many people. I say that is completely wrong. Speed kills - Road deaths in the US in 1 month are more than all US terror related deaths in the last 20 years. And just because lots of people do something doesn't make it right. Do we need speed limits is a different question however - I can imagine a world without speed limits (but severe punishment for any harm done to others equivalent to violent crime, or even sharp knives sticking out of the steering wheel - a sure way to encourage people to drive safely). Disclaimer: I love driving on the autobahn (but germany still has one of the worst road fatality rates in Europe)
  - andrewla 15y ago
    "One of the worst road fatality rates in Europe" -- that's not really accurate; even a quick glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re..., assuming the accuracy of the numbers, indicates that Germany is among the safest from this viewpoint. Only Sweden, the UK, Iceland, the Netherlands, Malta, and San Marino are better (and the last two probably aren't statistically significant). France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway, Finland, ... -- almost every country in Europe is less safe than Germany.
    - davekinkead 15y ago
      Happy to stand corrected on that one. I had thought that autobahn fatalities were worse than Euro average (noting that Germany but it seems that Germany pays no penalty for unlimited motorway speeds.
Djehngo 15y ago
I think the idea that a law which criminalises a majority of the population is invalid stems from the following logic: 1. Governments are supposed to represent the will of people 2. People would not want a law which criminalises them 3. By 1. and 2. any law which criminalises the majority would be rejected by a perfectly efficient government (where efficiency being the minimisation of overall dissatisfaction with the legal state) I am not sure I agree 100% with 1 or 2 (Self interest and tragedy of the commons poke slight holes in each) However the notion of a country where 51%+ of the people commonly committed murder is so far removed from our cultural norms it's a baseless comparison.

brey 15y ago

some truly bad reasoning in the article. using that logic, slavery was just fine, because a large percentage of the population at the time owned or profited from slaves.

darklajid 15y ago

Disclaimer 1: The other posts of me in this thread show that I'm in support of going fast. Disclaimer 2: English is not my native language and I very well might miss something in your chain of thoughts. With that out of the way, this is what I read in your last paragraph: You take offense with (?) the idea that the average person shouldn't need (a number of/this kind of/as much as) speed limits. You then jump back to the comparison to murder and seem to say (my words) that: "Since he's not running around and killing people he obviously understands that it's morally wrong and rational for us to agree upon not doing that sort of thing. Some people still do that nevertheless. We need laws to protect us from others" Now I think the 'morally wrong' part doesn't translate to driving here. I'm not sure how to parse the rest: I'd rather agree on driving safely than on driving slower than X. Safe is hard to define for a complex thing like driving. You already rely on the common sense of other people anyway (Do they drink/do drugs and drive? Do they use their mobile/search cigarettes in the back of the car while driving? Are their tires in a good shape or flat like those of a formula 1 car? Do they reduce their speed according to the situation, not just the signs - think fog, rain, snow? Are they able to judge their own ability to drive in general - think granny w/ limited vision). The speed is already variable (legally only in the downward direction right now) and you're relying on other people to notice and understand that if you're taking part in that game called traffic. The question whether it's not okay to go faster than the speed on the sign allows you to _in the right situation_ is a real one and doesn't necessarily lead to reckless driving and mayhem on the roads. Edit: Erm - I agree that the line of reasoning of the original article is .. unfortunate. No questions about that.

davekinkead 15y ago
This issue is really why we should have laws: the post argues that speeding is ok because lots of people do it and it doesn't hurt many people. I say that is completely wrong. Speed kills - Road deaths in the US in 1 month are more than all US terror related deaths in the last 20 years. And just because lots of people do something doesn't make it right. Do we need speed limits is a different question however - I can imagine a world without speed limits (but severe punishment for any harm done to others equivalent to violent crime, or even sharp knives sticking out of the steering wheel - a sure way to encourage people to drive safely). Disclaimer: I love driving on the autobahn (but germany still has one of the worst road fatality rates in Europe)
- andrewla 15y ago
  "One of the worst road fatality rates in Europe" -- that's not really accurate; even a quick glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re..., assuming the accuracy of the numbers, indicates that Germany is among the safest from this viewpoint. Only Sweden, the UK, Iceland, the Netherlands, Malta, and San Marino are better (and the last two probably aren't statistically significant). France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway, Finland, ... -- almost every country in Europe is less safe than Germany.
  - davekinkead 15y ago
    Happy to stand corrected on that one. I had thought that autobahn fatalities were worse than Euro average (noting that Germany but it seems that Germany pays no penalty for unlimited motorway speeds.

Djehngo 15y ago

I think the idea that a law which criminalises a majority of the population is invalid stems from the following logic: 1. Governments are supposed to represent the will of people 2. People would not want a law which criminalises them 3. By 1. and 2. any law which criminalises the majority would be rejected by a perfectly efficient government (where efficiency being the minimisation of overall dissatisfaction with the legal state) I am not sure I agree 100% with 1 or 2 (Self interest and tragedy of the commons poke slight holes in each) However the notion of a country where 51%+ of the people commonly committed murder is so far removed from our cultural norms it's a baseless comparison.