4 ms·

Speed limits are a classic safety vs economy trade off.

tcfhgj 3y ago
In Germany a speed limit of 130 would save a billion euros each year[0]. It would also save fuel, i.e. carbon and particulate matter emissions [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923001131?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  But it would cost people's time. I almost guarantee that even if you pay people minimum wage, the savings in people's time outweigh any extra fuel use.
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    when it matters, i.e. traffic hours in the morning and evening, it probably would rather save time as less traffic jams will occur (more likely the higher the variance of velocities) > the savings in people's time outweigh any extra fuel use. opinion
  - acdha 3y ago
    Try following traffic laws for a week and time your commute. You’ll find that you’re not saving anything significant at all - and unless you have unlimited piece work you can swap to any time you have an extra 37 seconds there’s no economic value to cancel out the fuel and elevated wear and tear on your vehicle.
acdha 3y ago
Safety versus making fun vrooming noises. Collisions cost enormous sums even before you think of the thousands of people who have life-altering injuries, and the vast majority of the time the driver is not saving any time at all (just sitting longer at the next signal or patch of congestion), or an economically negligible amount of time. Because speeding causes traffic congestion, there is a fair chance this would even be an economic win since tamer traffic moving consistent speeds is better for commercial drivers. Speeding helps on very long trips through lightly trafficked areas: if you’re driving on a desert highway through the American southwest, sure, going 85 instead of 75 will shave an hour off of your all-day drive but the vast majority of trips are much, much shorter than that and the risks to others are much higher.
- cameronh90 3y ago
  On the other hand, higher speeds use a LOT more fuel, so going faster needs to be balanced out with more frequent fuel stops. Especially for electric cars where charging can take a while. Can definitely see situations where driving faster takes longer overall.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Definitely - that’s why I described it as drivers seeking excitement since it rarely is a win from a logical standpoint but there’s so much culture around driving fast.
sjdfbnionio 3y ago
No they aren't. Poor safety leads to economic damage. A collision can delay thousands of people.

In Germany a speed limit of 130 would save a billion euros each year[0]. It would also save fuel, i.e. carbon and particulate matter emissions [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923001131?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...

londons_explore 3y ago
But it would cost people's time. I almost guarantee that even if you pay people minimum wage, the savings in people's time outweigh any extra fuel use.
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  when it matters, i.e. traffic hours in the morning and evening, it probably would rather save time as less traffic jams will occur (more likely the higher the variance of velocities) > the savings in people's time outweigh any extra fuel use. opinion
- acdha 3y ago
  Try following traffic laws for a week and time your commute. You’ll find that you’re not saving anything significant at all - and unless you have unlimited piece work you can swap to any time you have an extra 37 seconds there’s no economic value to cancel out the fuel and elevated wear and tear on your vehicle.

acdha 3y ago

Safety versus making fun vrooming noises. Collisions cost enormous sums even before you think of the thousands of people who have life-altering injuries, and the vast majority of the time the driver is not saving any time at all (just sitting longer at the next signal or patch of congestion), or an economically negligible amount of time. Because speeding causes traffic congestion, there is a fair chance this would even be an economic win since tamer traffic moving consistent speeds is better for commercial drivers. Speeding helps on very long trips through lightly trafficked areas: if you’re driving on a desert highway through the American southwest, sure, going 85 instead of 75 will shave an hour off of your all-day drive but the vast majority of trips are much, much shorter than that and the risks to others are much higher.

cameronh90 3y ago
On the other hand, higher speeds use a LOT more fuel, so going faster needs to be balanced out with more frequent fuel stops. Especially for electric cars where charging can take a while. Can definitely see situations where driving faster takes longer overall.
- acdha 3y ago
  Definitely - that’s why I described it as drivers seeking excitement since it rarely is a win from a logical standpoint but there’s so much culture around driving fast.

sjdfbnionio 3y ago

No they aren't. Poor safety leads to economic damage. A collision can delay thousands of people.