4 ms·

> The board issued the recommendations Tuesday at a public board meeting after determining the crash was caused by excessive speed, drug-impaired driving and Ne

> The board issued the recommendations Tuesday at a public board meeting after determining the crash was caused by excessive speed, drug-impaired driving and Nevada’s failure to deter the driver’s speeding recidivism due to systemic deficiencies, despite numerous speeding citations. So, despite drug use and a history of speeding by the at-fault driver, the rest of us must suffer. Got it.

CoastalCoder 3y ago
I'm interested by the way societies balance the freedom of one individual vs. the risk they pose to a large number of others. Personally, I'm inclined towards solutions that many would consider very harsh towards the offender. But that's softened over time as I've become more aware human's limited ability to dispense true justice. E.g., wrongful convictions in death-penalty cases.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  > Personally, I'm inclined towards solutions that many would consider very harsh towards the offender. What is your reasoning? The literature suggests that harsher penalties do not significantly affect the rate or severity of offenses. Even if you feel that those punishments are just, long jail sentences are expensive to society. Probably the most straightforward thing is to burden people who do care about rules, eg. not only take away their license, but make it illegal to sell or furnish a car to anyone listed on an online "no drive" list.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    > What is your reasoning? Just to be clear, I'm talking about my instinctive gut-reaction to the issue, not my settled view. I'm not 100% sure where that instinct comes from; probably somewhere in the depths of my psyche and/or world view.
sgift 3y ago
"suffer". Being warned when you speed or in the future (cause we all know that HN loves slippery slope arguments) not being able to speed. The horror.
strict9 3y ago
In 2021 12,000 people died[1] in speeding-related car crashes. Many of those innocent victims of circumstance through no fault of their own. Preventing these deaths by eliminating the ability to drive at unsafe speeds is not suffering. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding-fatalities-14-year-high https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
- garciasn 3y ago
  Increase active enforcement; make penalties more severe; and treat repeat offenses like DUI. It's not the place of the government to put limits like these on devices just because they want to avoid having to commit to behavioral change through enforcement and penalty.
  - stock_toaster 3y ago
    > It's not the place of the government to put limits like these on devices just because they want to avoid having to commit to behavioral change through enforcement and penalty. I mean... That kind of _is_ half of their jobs, isn't it? Dictionary definition of the word "regulation": Rules made by a government or other authority in _order to control the way something is done_ or the way people behave. Note: Not that I necessarily agree with a gps based speed limit facility. My car displays posted speed limits on the dashboard, and it frequently shows the wrong one, from a nearby surface road or who knows what -- a nice feature but more than occasionally wrong. I do think things like top speed governors make sense though (eg. no need for street legal vehicles to go over 100mph public roads instance).
  - Volundr 3y ago
    While I'm not supporting the proposal it's pretty unclear to me why it's the governments role to: > Increase active enforcement; make penalties more severe; and treat repeat offenses like DUI. But not limit these "devices". In general I find interference with my person MORE invasive than interference with the capacity of my devices.
- sershe 3y ago
  What is speeding related? Speed limits are completely arbitrary. 395 in Eastern CA, a straight line for miles thru the desert (i.e. perfect conditions most of the time; there are stretches near Bishop and south where you could take a nap as long as your wheels are true) has 65 state limit, and I90 winding thru snowy mountain passes in WA is 70. So, if I go 70 in the icy forest and cause a crash, I'm not speeding and it's ok; and if I go 70 on the dry straight road I am a terrible person who was speeding.
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
The government saw how docile the public was during the pandemic and now knows it can get away with just about anything in the name of safety. Some people will grumble but most will simply accept what they've been told they must do.

CoastalCoder 3y ago

I'm interested by the way societies balance the freedom of one individual vs. the risk they pose to a large number of others. Personally, I'm inclined towards solutions that many would consider very harsh towards the offender. But that's softened over time as I've become more aware human's limited ability to dispense true justice. E.g., wrongful convictions in death-penalty cases.

nwiswell 3y ago
> Personally, I'm inclined towards solutions that many would consider very harsh towards the offender. What is your reasoning? The literature suggests that harsher penalties do not significantly affect the rate or severity of offenses. Even if you feel that those punishments are just, long jail sentences are expensive to society. Probably the most straightforward thing is to burden people who do care about rules, eg. not only take away their license, but make it illegal to sell or furnish a car to anyone listed on an online "no drive" list.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > What is your reasoning? Just to be clear, I'm talking about my instinctive gut-reaction to the issue, not my settled view. I'm not 100% sure where that instinct comes from; probably somewhere in the depths of my psyche and/or world view.

sgift 3y ago

"suffer". Being warned when you speed or in the future (cause we all know that HN loves slippery slope arguments) not being able to speed. The horror.

strict9 3y ago

In 2021 12,000 people died[1] in speeding-related car crashes. Many of those innocent victims of circumstance through no fault of their own. Preventing these deaths by eliminating the ability to drive at unsafe speeds is not suffering. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding-fatalities-14-year-high https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...

garciasn 3y ago
Increase active enforcement; make penalties more severe; and treat repeat offenses like DUI. It's not the place of the government to put limits like these on devices just because they want to avoid having to commit to behavioral change through enforcement and penalty.
- stock_toaster 3y ago
  > It's not the place of the government to put limits like these on devices just because they want to avoid having to commit to behavioral change through enforcement and penalty. I mean... That kind of _is_ half of their jobs, isn't it? Dictionary definition of the word "regulation": Rules made by a government or other authority in _order to control the way something is done_ or the way people behave. Note: Not that I necessarily agree with a gps based speed limit facility. My car displays posted speed limits on the dashboard, and it frequently shows the wrong one, from a nearby surface road or who knows what -- a nice feature but more than occasionally wrong. I do think things like top speed governors make sense though (eg. no need for street legal vehicles to go over 100mph public roads instance).
- Volundr 3y ago
  While I'm not supporting the proposal it's pretty unclear to me why it's the governments role to: > Increase active enforcement; make penalties more severe; and treat repeat offenses like DUI. But not limit these "devices". In general I find interference with my person MORE invasive than interference with the capacity of my devices.
sershe 3y ago
What is speeding related? Speed limits are completely arbitrary. 395 in Eastern CA, a straight line for miles thru the desert (i.e. perfect conditions most of the time; there are stretches near Bishop and south where you could take a nap as long as your wheels are true) has 65 state limit, and I90 winding thru snowy mountain passes in WA is 70. So, if I go 70 in the icy forest and cause a crash, I'm not speeding and it's ok; and if I go 70 on the dry straight road I am a terrible person who was speeding.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

The government saw how docile the public was during the pandemic and now knows it can get away with just about anything in the name of safety. Some people will grumble but most will simply accept what they've been told they must do.