7 ms·
We need speed governors on cars even more badly. They go way too fast and kill by far the largest share of people by any transportation method.
by CydeWeys 4y ago
We need speed governors on cars even more badly. They go way too fast and kill by far the largest share of people by any transportation method.
- londons_explore 4y ago15 mph should be plenty for everyone right?
- TulliusCicero 4y agoPeople can't even handle speed cameras without freaking out. It's true that cars are extraordinarily deadly, and it's also true that most drivers don't want anything done about it if it might inconvenience them.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoUsually when someone's habitual activities cause routine death and misery to others we don't factor in their desires too heavily when we change it.
- duped 4y agoIt would help if there wasn't blatant corruption in the installation and maintenance of those cameras. At least locally, multiple municipal officers have been arrested for taking bribes. It doesn't have anything to do with convenience.
- ISL 4y agoI used to believe that speed-cameras were "unsportsmanlike" until I a) grew up a little, and b) visited a country where they were in extensive use and driving felt safer. Speed cameras massively decrease the need for traffic-stops, which is a huge win for both safety and potential profiling/discrimination. Lowering speeds can decrease the consequences of a crash and more-uniform low-cost enforcement can allow law-enforcement to focus limited human resources on responding to calls that actually require a human. I'm a big fan of speed cameras now, especially those that measure average speed by photographing cars at the ends of a long road segment.
- jabroni_salad 4y agoThose segment cameras are great and they made a good impact where I live. They control a school zone that up until recently has been massively disrespected by commuters trying to avoid a stoplight on the main artery. Honestly the only cameras I really don't like are the red light cams that for some reason are also accompanied by lowering the yellow signal's time by half compared to a non-cam light controlled intersection. I'm sure there's a great reason for that happening but I can't think of anything charitable.
- kayodelycaon 4y agoA lot of the cases I know about here in Ohio is they reduced the yellow time to generate more tickets. Ended up being banned state-wide because they being used for revenue generation rather than safety.
- TulliusCicero 4y agoWhich is obviously terrible, but that's not fundamental to the system. It would make more sense to have a state law mandating, say, a minimum yellow time for such cameras. But when most people drive, it's easier to do something that seems very pro-driver, even if it's anti-safety.
- sokoloff 4y agoThe average speed system has an advantage for drivers: if there's congestion in one section, you can make the time up on the later stage of the road (because there tends to be no live enforcement).
- colinmhayes 4y agoMy biggest issue with speed cameras is that one in my city also enforces the school zone limit even if it's not currently in effect. It's on a main arterial road that people usually go 40 on but brake check to slow down to 20 for a few blocks which inevitably causes traffic + crashes around the school.
- sokoloff 4y ago90 mph on the highway is probably much, much safer than 40 mph in a residential area.
- CydeWeys 4y agoYes, the speed governors would be GPS-based, like they are for e-scooters. You'd be limited to going the speed limit of whatever road you're currently on.
- rootusrootus 4y agoGiven how excellent my Model 3 wasn't at determining the speed limit of the freeway near me, let's not. If you want people to slow down, there are effective ways to design roads that work better than arbitrary speed limits.
- CydeWeys 4y agoThis is more of an indictment of Tesla than anything else. And if governors were actually required then they would come with a good open access source of data with updated speed limits on all roads.
- alistairSH 4y agoDesign roads to the speed. Too many of our roads (US) are wide, open, and "trick" drivers into going faster than necessary. Things that can help reduce speeds: - narrower lanes - less shoulder/median space - trees, bushes - traffic circles instead of red/yellow/green signals - various curbing arrangements
- mjevans 4y agoBlindspots like bushes and shrubs only REDUCE SAFETY. People can't see the cars, cars can't see the people. Probably 70% of the cars will slow down, making it even more dangerous with a false sense of security among pedestrians. Since pedestrians don't have signaling apparatuses, the only way to share the parts of the road that must be shared is to clearly see everyone.
- okokwhatever 4y agoBecause education has failed. No? BS
- criddell 4y agoI would have guessed motorcycles are more deadly.
- CydeWeys 4y agoOnly to their own riders, not to others. Plus motorcycles are a tiny share of overall motor vehicles on the road.
- TulliusCicero 4y agoMotorcycles are more deadly for the rider. Cars cause more danger for everyone else.
- NoImmatureAdHom 4y agoMotorcycle insurance is cheap!
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoBecause people who self select to drive some alternative vehicle for fun are a safer demographic than the general public because the "I don't like commuting so I'm gonna do my nails and post on HN about how cars are evil while sitting in traffic" types are absent in the former group. If the general public started driving motorcycles it would get more expensive.
- TulliusCicero 4y agoWell, motorcycles are cheaper to fix/replace, and being much lighter than cars, are less likely to cause property damage or injuries to other parties.
- munificent 4y ago> kill by far the largest share of people by any transportation method. That's only because cars are by far the largest share of transportation period. When you normalize by looking at the death rate per person-mile, the numbers are very different. If you're trying to decide "what is the safest way to get to work", then the best numbers I could cobble together (which are not great) from a few sources are: Deaths per 100 million miles: Car: ~1 Bicycle: ~9 Walking: ~16 Motocycle: ~40 It's very hard to get good numbers here because most car fatality numbers also include fatalities from pedestrians and cyclists who were hit by cars. Really, there are two different questions to ask: 1. What is the safest way for me to get to work? 2. What is the safest way for all of us to get to work? You might assume those have the same answer, but they don't. The safest way for all of us to get to work is probably to have everyone walk and/or bike. But if you unilaterally decide to start biking or walking to work in a heavily car-dominated area, you are increasing your own personal risk unless you can find a route that separates you from the cars well. Transportation safety is fiendishly complex and no one sentence comment on HN will capture it well.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoYour statistic is how many people are killed while using the method of transportation, not how many people the method of transportation kills. Approximately 100% of the walking and cycling deaths and a good portion of the motorcycle deaths are caused by cars. Approximately 0 deaths are caused by walking or cycling.
- munificent 4y agoAlas, when walking or cycling, one does not have the option of unilaterally opting out of the risk of being hit by a car.
- lupire 4y agobut the solution is still to slow down the cars and reduce their prevalence.
- 4y ago
- bogota 4y agoYes but people also aren’t expected to walk on roads with cars except at certain outlined points