4 ms·
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 migh
by 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 agoThis 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 agoHappy 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.