4 ms·

Lots of things that could harm or kill someone just get a small fine. For example, going 5 mph over the speed limit has likely killed many people over the decad

by ipqk 3y ago

Lots of things that could harm or kill someone just get a small fine. For example, going 5 mph over the speed limit has likely killed many people over the decades, yet it's still only a $100 ticket or so.

kuchenbecker 3y ago
Do you have statistics on the marginal cost of 5mph? Id be interested to understand your certainty that e.g. 60mph is both more fatal and the number of deaths that could be prevented by going 55mph. I expect there are relatively few deaths that can be directly attributed to 5mph, but given evidence I'll reconsider.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  to be fair, they didnt claim it is likely, just that it could kill. You could make the same point about going 5mph under the speed limit. It is somewhat interesting to think about the factors that go into setting a punishment. It is rarely the magnitude of potential damage (worst case), and often not even the damage adjusted by the probability of occurrence. Most often, it has more to do with subjective custom and norms. Some dangerous things are OK, some are harshly punished.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Certain companies dumping massive amounts of certain chemicals into water supply for many years are not even found guilty. 5mph over in a city or intentional plane crash in the wilderness and misleading investigators are small enough to be bad things, but do bad things at sufficient scale and those things are no longer bad.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    Level of risk has something to do with it too. Also the benefit. There’s small risk and tremendous benefit to letting everyone go 5 mph faster (time is money) but no benefit and relatively high risk to letting them turn Cessnas into missiles. The calculus on this one is easy
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianR... Risk of death for pedestrians goes up 250% when hit by a car going 32mph vs one going 23mph. Given the rising rate of pedestrian deaths in North America (at a 40 year high), it is an almost certainty that 5mph has made the difference in a great number of pedestrian deaths.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    This seemed like a carefully chosen representation of the pdf, here's the quote from the linked 2011 estimated risks > The average adjusted, standardized risk of death reached 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risk of death increased approximately linearly with speed for speeds between 32 mph and 50 mph, with an average increase of 2.8 percentage points (95% CI: 2.2 – 3.4) for each 1 mph increase in impact speed for speeds within this range. Imo, though the risk of death from increased speed does obviously make a difference, particularly at the low end, the difference between 55mph and 60mph is predictably marginal, as in you're still at least 75% likely to die.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      True, I did cherry-pick the data, but pedestrian/vehicle interactions are the most likely to occur in areas where the speed limit is lower. i.e. Most 55mph roads do not have crosswalks at every corner and pedestrians using uncontrolled intersections. Most 25mph roads DO have crosswalks (marked or unmarked) at every corner, and intersections are likely to be uncontrolled for peds. In other words, I am much more worried about getting hit by someone doing 30 in a 25 zone than I am about someone doing 60 in a 55 if only because I rarely walk or cross on roads like that. I suspect that data extrapolates since pedestrian infrastructure tends to be densest in low speed areas. In any case, the GP was arguing that 5mph was arguably inconsequential. The paper I linked shows that at almost any speed risk of death rises in a meaningful way every 5mph. To put it all into perspective. Would you rather get hit by a car at 55mph or 60mph? Is the difference marginal if you have to make that choice?
fsckboy 3y ago
the biggest danger in car accidents is not speed, but speed differentials. going 5 mph over the speed limit does carry an enhanced risk, the danger of colliding with all the other people going 15 over the limit.
- mminer237 3y ago
  That's an increased risk of accident, but not a big danger. In your scenario, you're getting rear-ended at 10 mph. That's unlikely to cause a serious danger, whereas there is a real difference in surviving a crash at 70 versus 75.
RagnarD 3y ago
Arbitrarily low speed limits for political reasons including cynical revenue generation have certainly caused more accidents. Interstates were designed to be safely driven at much higher speeds than 55 or 65. Causing traffic to pile up is certainly a cause of chain collisions.
mattmaroon 3y ago
I’d guess the relative risk of sending a plane to an uncontrolled crash is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of speeding. We do punish things that have higher risk profiles such as driving drunk, and I’d guess I’m still much more likely to kill someone by abandoning my cessna than driving with a .08 bac.

by ipqk 3y ago

kuchenbecker 3y ago

Do you have statistics on the marginal cost of 5mph? Id be interested to understand your certainty that e.g. 60mph is both more fatal and the number of deaths that could be prevented by going 55mph. I expect there are relatively few deaths that can be directly attributed to 5mph, but given evidence I'll reconsider.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
to be fair, they didnt claim it is likely, just that it could kill. You could make the same point about going 5mph under the speed limit. It is somewhat interesting to think about the factors that go into setting a punishment. It is rarely the magnitude of potential damage (worst case), and often not even the damage adjusted by the probability of occurrence. Most often, it has more to do with subjective custom and norms. Some dangerous things are OK, some are harshly punished.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Certain companies dumping massive amounts of certain chemicals into water supply for many years are not even found guilty. 5mph over in a city or intentional plane crash in the wilderness and misleading investigators are small enough to be bad things, but do bad things at sufficient scale and those things are no longer bad.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Level of risk has something to do with it too. Also the benefit. There’s small risk and tremendous benefit to letting everyone go 5 mph faster (time is money) but no benefit and relatively high risk to letting them turn Cessnas into missiles. The calculus on this one is easy
dghlsakjg 3y ago
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianR... Risk of death for pedestrians goes up 250% when hit by a car going 32mph vs one going 23mph. Given the rising rate of pedestrian deaths in North America (at a 40 year high), it is an almost certainty that 5mph has made the difference in a great number of pedestrian deaths.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  This seemed like a carefully chosen representation of the pdf, here's the quote from the linked 2011 estimated risks > The average adjusted, standardized risk of death reached 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risk of death increased approximately linearly with speed for speeds between 32 mph and 50 mph, with an average increase of 2.8 percentage points (95% CI: 2.2 – 3.4) for each 1 mph increase in impact speed for speeds within this range. Imo, though the risk of death from increased speed does obviously make a difference, particularly at the low end, the difference between 55mph and 60mph is predictably marginal, as in you're still at least 75% likely to die.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    True, I did cherry-pick the data, but pedestrian/vehicle interactions are the most likely to occur in areas where the speed limit is lower. i.e. Most 55mph roads do not have crosswalks at every corner and pedestrians using uncontrolled intersections. Most 25mph roads DO have crosswalks (marked or unmarked) at every corner, and intersections are likely to be uncontrolled for peds. In other words, I am much more worried about getting hit by someone doing 30 in a 25 zone than I am about someone doing 60 in a 55 if only because I rarely walk or cross on roads like that. I suspect that data extrapolates since pedestrian infrastructure tends to be densest in low speed areas. In any case, the GP was arguing that 5mph was arguably inconsequential. The paper I linked shows that at almost any speed risk of death rises in a meaningful way every 5mph. To put it all into perspective. Would you rather get hit by a car at 55mph or 60mph? Is the difference marginal if you have to make that choice?

fsckboy 3y ago

the biggest danger in car accidents is not speed, but speed differentials. going 5 mph over the speed limit does carry an enhanced risk, the danger of colliding with all the other people going 15 over the limit.

mminer237 3y ago
That's an increased risk of accident, but not a big danger. In your scenario, you're getting rear-ended at 10 mph. That's unlikely to cause a serious danger, whereas there is a real difference in surviving a crash at 70 versus 75.

RagnarD 3y ago

Arbitrarily low speed limits for political reasons including cynical revenue generation have certainly caused more accidents. Interstates were designed to be safely driven at much higher speeds than 55 or 65. Causing traffic to pile up is certainly a cause of chain collisions.

mattmaroon 3y ago

I’d guess the relative risk of sending a plane to an uncontrolled crash is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of speeding. We do punish things that have higher risk profiles such as driving drunk, and I’d guess I’m still much more likely to kill someone by abandoning my cessna than driving with a .08 bac.