3 ms·

Actually not accepting the given speed limit is a form of voting against said speed limit (especially when done en masse). Yes, it is not formal, but it is voti

by genman 3y ago

Actually not accepting the given speed limit is a form of voting against said speed limit (especially when done en masse). Yes, it is not formal, but it is voting nonetheless. If the system was really democratic and not tyrannical then it would take it into account and would not resort to more control and punishment.

nickpeterson 3y ago
I guess I’ve always viewed it from the standpoint of, at what speed are crashes rarer and most survivable (do those even coincide?) I think a lot of people really overestimate the difference highway speed makes in their overall transit time. If everyone going 55 led to far fewer fatalities, better fuel economy, and less delays because of accidents, I’d imagine we’d do it already.
- fragmede 3y ago
  > better fuel economy that is, btw, the history of why we have a 55 speed limit. In 1973 there was a gas crisis, so in 1974 President Nixon drafted the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), ostensibly to conserve gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
- Kamq 3y ago
  > I guess I’ve always viewed it from the standpoint of, at what speed are crashes rarer and most survivable They're most rare at 0 mph. In fact, they're so rare to be impossible. Once you've accepted non-zero speeds (including walking), you've also accepted some level of risk. We're just arguing about what level of risk is acceptable.
survirtual 3y ago
You are correct. The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation. People seem to have a distorted view on what freedom means. If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them. History is filled with people who "knew better" for the populace. We have the technology to measure in realtime what the mass consensus for things like speed limits are. This type of voting is implicit, automated, and accurately captures the will of the people without friction. Right now, this technology has been hijacked by creepy advertising vermin to sell us things we don't need. I think that a time is coming soon when it is reclaimed and put to proper use.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. Correct, and there's a way to do that: by contacting your local transportation department and/or representatives. > The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation. I don't know where you live, but in the US we have these things called "elections" where you can vote for who you want and the policies that they implement, and after the election they'll usually even listen to their constituents if they're contact on large enough scales. There's no tyranny. > If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. You're intentionally conflating terms. The "speed limit" by definition is something that the state sets - it cannot be set by drivers. > Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them. This is absolutely crazy. One of the primary functions of a democratic government is to determine and then implement consensus, such as how fast cars should travel on roads. The speed limits around my area literally reflect my preferences. Taking the public's desire and implementing it is the exact opposite of tyranny. Maybe you should come to the US, where we actually have elections and you can email your governor if you don't like the speed limit - it sounds like you live in a non-democratic country. In the meantime, you've inspired me to contact my governor and ask them to step up speed limit enforcement.
  - survirtual 3y ago
    [flagged]
throw10920 3y ago
You are incorrect. "Voting", by definition, involves a formal set of rules designed to best measure the preferences of voters. "Not accepting the speed limit" is illegal, dangerous, kills the environment, and does not have any sort of formal rules or any sort of mechanism for measuring consensus. It's extremely undemocratic.
- survirtual 3y ago
  [flagged]

by genman 3y ago

nickpeterson 3y ago

I guess I’ve always viewed it from the standpoint of, at what speed are crashes rarer and most survivable (do those even coincide?) I think a lot of people really overestimate the difference highway speed makes in their overall transit time. If everyone going 55 led to far fewer fatalities, better fuel economy, and less delays because of accidents, I’d imagine we’d do it already.

fragmede 3y ago
> better fuel economy that is, btw, the history of why we have a 55 speed limit. In 1973 there was a gas crisis, so in 1974 President Nixon drafted the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), ostensibly to conserve gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
Kamq 3y ago
> I guess I’ve always viewed it from the standpoint of, at what speed are crashes rarer and most survivable They're most rare at 0 mph. In fact, they're so rare to be impossible. Once you've accepted non-zero speeds (including walking), you've also accepted some level of risk. We're just arguing about what level of risk is acceptable.

survirtual 3y ago

You are correct. The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation. People seem to have a distorted view on what freedom means. If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them. History is filled with people who "knew better" for the populace. We have the technology to measure in realtime what the mass consensus for things like speed limits are. This type of voting is implicit, automated, and accurately captures the will of the people without friction. Right now, this technology has been hijacked by creepy advertising vermin to sell us things we don't need. I think that a time is coming soon when it is reclaimed and put to proper use.

throw10920 3y ago
> The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. Correct, and there's a way to do that: by contacting your local transportation department and/or representatives. > The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation. I don't know where you live, but in the US we have these things called "elections" where you can vote for who you want and the policies that they implement, and after the election they'll usually even listen to their constituents if they're contact on large enough scales. There's no tyranny. > If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. You're intentionally conflating terms. The "speed limit" by definition is something that the state sets - it cannot be set by drivers. > Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them. This is absolutely crazy. One of the primary functions of a democratic government is to determine and then implement consensus, such as how fast cars should travel on roads. The speed limits around my area literally reflect my preferences. Taking the public's desire and implementing it is the exact opposite of tyranny. Maybe you should come to the US, where we actually have elections and you can email your governor if you don't like the speed limit - it sounds like you live in a non-democratic country. In the meantime, you've inspired me to contact my governor and ask them to step up speed limit enforcement.
- survirtual 3y ago
  [flagged]

throw10920 3y ago

You are incorrect. "Voting", by definition, involves a formal set of rules designed to best measure the preferences of voters. "Not accepting the speed limit" is illegal, dangerous, kills the environment, and does not have any sort of formal rules or any sort of mechanism for measuring consensus. It's extremely undemocratic.

survirtual 3y ago
[flagged]