4 ms·

I think the more objectionable part of the comment is the assessment that nobody was endangered because the accident didn't materialize. "Empty road" is a mitig

I think the more objectionable part of the comment is the assessment that nobody was endangered because the accident didn't materialize. "Empty road" is a mitigating circumstance, which is probably why the officer was nice. But it's certainly not a guarantee, the potential danger was there and the law was applied. The law aims to discourage the behavior because someone who's riding a motorcycle at well over 100mph on a "remote and desolate" public road is likely to start riding too fast on less desolate roads too.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
> The law aims to discourage the behavior because someone who's riding a motorcycle at well over 100mph on a "remote and desolate" public road is likely to start riding too fast on less desolate roads too This doesn't track at all. Everyone speeds up on empty roads. Not everyone speeds and weaves in traffic. Driving very fast in a more or less straight line is not very dangerous, especially when no other cars are around.
- buran77 4y ago
  > Everyone speeds up on empty roads. Not everyone speeds and weaves in traffic. Don't defend a point by plucking figures out of thin air and applying your subjective interpretation as a conclusion. Here we're not talking "everyone goes 5 over the limit" but rather double the limit. I've also heard "everyone drinks and drives" being used to justify the same kind of recklessness. But "everyone" might have half a watered down beer. Some will have a whole bottle of hard liquor. "But it's fine, at this hour the roads are empty". > especially when no other cars are around. Until there are. This is quite literally how accidents happen, people get used to following their own rules, based on assumed numbers and their safety, and it works a lot of times until it doesn't. Nobody goes out and says "today I want to speed until I kill a family of 5". They just go out and do what they always do, go past any limit, because it worked so far. But this is not Schrodinger's cat, to assume that all behavior is the same until someone gets hurt and only then can we classify it as dangerous. And finally remember that ideally a government would also try to protect you from your own recklessness because otherwise they either lose a member of society (you die) or they gain a weight around its neck (you live to be a burden).
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    People mostly drive based on their comfort on the road. Have you ever been behind someone on a single lane road who is going slow but when the road widens to two lanes and you try to pass, they suddenly speed up? It's (usually) not because they are trying to race you or they're being an asshole. It's because the wider two lane road is usually more comfortable to speed up on so they do. And chances are they don't realize they are doing it. It's very easy to adjust 10 km/h without even realizing. Look at it this way. A drivers comfort is based on their own skill level, their vehicles capabilities, the road conditions, the weather, and the traffic around them. It takes actual effort to go slower than you are comfortable driving. It makes you more likely to make mistakes when you are having to force yourself to drive slower than you are comfortable with, just to be under a speed limit. The problem drivers are the ones who overestimate parts of their comfort. They overestimate their skill (maybe they're drunk or just stupid), maybe they think their car should handle like a sports car when it isn't one, maybe they think the road isn't as slippery as it is. Those people wind up feeling more comfortable than they should and therefore drive much faster or more recklessly than they should. Anyways, feel free to disregard everything I am saying as being plucked from thin air. Have a great day!
    - brewdad 4y ago
      > The problem drivers are the ones who overestimate parts of their comfort. This. The problem with justifying excessive speed on an empty road is the fact that a road can be empty, until it isn't. The speeding driver has now given away all of their buffer that might allow them to avoid a collision. In most cases the collision still won't occur but when it does it will almost certainly be fatal to someone.
      - bluefirebrand 4y ago
        > The problem with justifying excessive speed on an empty road The problem is that automated enforcement catches everyone regardless if it's 5 km/h over or 100. I'm not ok getting fines for going 5 over so you can prevent one guy a year going 100 over.
- entropie 4y ago
  > Everyone speeds up on empty roads. No? That is just not true. My mother for example would _never_ speed up. Thats just an argument you made out of your mind. > Driving very fast in a more or less straight line is not very dangerous This is also not true at all. Especially on a bike going to fast with no experience could end up very badly.

bluefirebrand 4y ago

> The law aims to discourage the behavior because someone who's riding a motorcycle at well over 100mph on a "remote and desolate" public road is likely to start riding too fast on less desolate roads too This doesn't track at all. Everyone speeds up on empty roads. Not everyone speeds and weaves in traffic. Driving very fast in a more or less straight line is not very dangerous, especially when no other cars are around.

buran77 4y ago
> Everyone speeds up on empty roads. Not everyone speeds and weaves in traffic. Don't defend a point by plucking figures out of thin air and applying your subjective interpretation as a conclusion. Here we're not talking "everyone goes 5 over the limit" but rather double the limit. I've also heard "everyone drinks and drives" being used to justify the same kind of recklessness. But "everyone" might have half a watered down beer. Some will have a whole bottle of hard liquor. "But it's fine, at this hour the roads are empty". > especially when no other cars are around. Until there are. This is quite literally how accidents happen, people get used to following their own rules, based on assumed numbers and their safety, and it works a lot of times until it doesn't. Nobody goes out and says "today I want to speed until I kill a family of 5". They just go out and do what they always do, go past any limit, because it worked so far. But this is not Schrodinger's cat, to assume that all behavior is the same until someone gets hurt and only then can we classify it as dangerous. And finally remember that ideally a government would also try to protect you from your own recklessness because otherwise they either lose a member of society (you die) or they gain a weight around its neck (you live to be a burden).
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  People mostly drive based on their comfort on the road. Have you ever been behind someone on a single lane road who is going slow but when the road widens to two lanes and you try to pass, they suddenly speed up? It's (usually) not because they are trying to race you or they're being an asshole. It's because the wider two lane road is usually more comfortable to speed up on so they do. And chances are they don't realize they are doing it. It's very easy to adjust 10 km/h without even realizing. Look at it this way. A drivers comfort is based on their own skill level, their vehicles capabilities, the road conditions, the weather, and the traffic around them. It takes actual effort to go slower than you are comfortable driving. It makes you more likely to make mistakes when you are having to force yourself to drive slower than you are comfortable with, just to be under a speed limit. The problem drivers are the ones who overestimate parts of their comfort. They overestimate their skill (maybe they're drunk or just stupid), maybe they think their car should handle like a sports car when it isn't one, maybe they think the road isn't as slippery as it is. Those people wind up feeling more comfortable than they should and therefore drive much faster or more recklessly than they should. Anyways, feel free to disregard everything I am saying as being plucked from thin air. Have a great day!
  - brewdad 4y ago
    > The problem drivers are the ones who overestimate parts of their comfort. This. The problem with justifying excessive speed on an empty road is the fact that a road can be empty, until it isn't. The speeding driver has now given away all of their buffer that might allow them to avoid a collision. In most cases the collision still won't occur but when it does it will almost certainly be fatal to someone.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      > The problem with justifying excessive speed on an empty road The problem is that automated enforcement catches everyone regardless if it's 5 km/h over or 100. I'm not ok getting fines for going 5 over so you can prevent one guy a year going 100 over.
entropie 4y ago
> Everyone speeds up on empty roads. No? That is just not true. My mother for example would _never_ speed up. Thats just an argument you made out of your mind. > Driving very fast in a more or less straight line is not very dangerous This is also not true at all. Especially on a bike going to fast with no experience could end up very badly.