4 ms·

Yes, but the objection is that an average driver cannot go beyond 10 MPH “in practice” without losing control. Which is nonsense. A driver who can control the

Yes, but the objection is that an average driver cannot go beyond 10 MPH “in practice” without losing control. Which is nonsense. A driver who can control their car in 20 MPH can control it in 35 MPH; it happens all the time. As to your point: I suppose all is well if a pedestrian is hit at 40 mph in a 40 MPH local zone?

acdha 3y ago
The objection isn’t that people can’t drive 35mph but that there are exceedingly few real life situations where people need to go massively over the limit and can do so safely. Those scenarios which most drivers will never be in are being used to justify not having safety precautions which would save thousands of lives annually.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  “Joe Soccer Dad is going to get t-boned trying the same thing on the way to the ER.” That is what I’m responding to. That implies pretty clearly that people can’t handle more than +10 mph, which certainly isn’t true.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I know, I wrote that. Getting t-boned does not mean that you can’t handle driving faster but rather that road conditions aren’t safe for it: in most places you aren’t averaging that kind of speed for a non-trivial time without running red lights or being in situations where you really don’t have visibility to do so safely – and you end up getting t-boned by someone who _thought_ they could proceed safely because they weren’t expecting cross traffic going that much faster than normal. The point is simply that it’s extreme rare to be in a situation where going that much over the limit is the right choice.
    - nobodyandproud 3y ago
      > Getting t-boned does not mean that you can’t handle driving faster but rather that road conditions aren’t safe for it When you get t-boned—your words and scenario—it’s the other driver that lost control. And I will point out that there’s a large leeway in low speeds; the type of vehicle, weight, and tires all contribute and I stand by my original point. The other point you made is unsafe speeds for the given condition. Conditions—like icy or wet roads—is situational and subject to change. Do you govern for all and introduce a very complex system? Only for ideal conditions? Then there’s the question of changing speed limits (over the years) and the software's ability to keep up: Do you require open source software and hardware? Enforce an end-of-life after 10 years? Studies and data.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I have driven 250K accident-free miles. I’d wager that more than half of those were more than 10 mph over the posted limit. Highways in New England are often posted at 55 or 65 and moving at 75-80. Is that “massively over”? No, but a bill to limit to 10 over is kinda impractical.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I’ve done a bit closer to 300k but I can’t say any of the times I went over the speed limit were necessities like the person I responded to was claiming. There was a single time where I sped up to avoid hitting something - pickup truck right in front of me on the 405 had a mattress fly up after a strap broke and I gunned it to go under before it came down, but I didn’t go anywhere near the freeway speed limit because the only reason I was that close was because we were all stuck in the slowdown approaching the 55 interchange. So that’s almost once in my life where the movie plot scenario came close to happening. Over the same time period I have known 3 people who were killed and half a dozen people who had life-altering injuries due to being hit, and speed was a factor in all of those cases. It’s not as fun as pretending you are shaking the terrorists gunning for the president but that’s the threat I worry about because it happens orders of magnitude more frequently.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I wasn't arguing that the speeding was necessary for safety or accident avoidance, but rather that if you put 20% of new cars onto New England highways that are posted at 55 mph and they're governed to 65 mph, that you're going to create an utter shitshow of unsafe speed differentials as the 80% of traffic that's moving at a prevailing 75-85 mph encounters these new rolling roadblocks with the accelerator matted and governed to 65 mph.
      - pokerface_86 3y ago
        in other words, what driving in the South already feels like!
alistairSH 3y ago
The speed range from 20mph to 35mph (give or take) has been pretty well researched and documented as a range where pedestrian fatalities ramps up dramatically. Additionally, stopping distance (very rough average) will double for most drivers from 20mph to 35mph. So, yeah, for this range of speeds, that 10-15mph difference is absolutely critical to maintain pedestrian safety. Remember, 20mph is slower than the default residential speed of 25mph (in the US). It's almost exclusively used in tight neighborhood streets, where pedestrians (children in particular) should be expected. 70mph vs 80mph, I don't so much care about. In theory, those speeds are only ever seen on a limited-access highway. The California bill is stupid, but probably DOA as well. But, that doesn't mean the problem it's trying to solve doesn't exist.

acdha 3y ago

The objection isn’t that people can’t drive 35mph but that there are exceedingly few real life situations where people need to go massively over the limit and can do so safely. Those scenarios which most drivers will never be in are being used to justify not having safety precautions which would save thousands of lives annually.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
“Joe Soccer Dad is going to get t-boned trying the same thing on the way to the ER.” That is what I’m responding to. That implies pretty clearly that people can’t handle more than +10 mph, which certainly isn’t true.
- acdha 3y ago
  I know, I wrote that. Getting t-boned does not mean that you can’t handle driving faster but rather that road conditions aren’t safe for it: in most places you aren’t averaging that kind of speed for a non-trivial time without running red lights or being in situations where you really don’t have visibility to do so safely – and you end up getting t-boned by someone who _thought_ they could proceed safely because they weren’t expecting cross traffic going that much faster than normal. The point is simply that it’s extreme rare to be in a situation where going that much over the limit is the right choice.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    > Getting t-boned does not mean that you can’t handle driving faster but rather that road conditions aren’t safe for it When you get t-boned—your words and scenario—it’s the other driver that lost control. And I will point out that there’s a large leeway in low speeds; the type of vehicle, weight, and tires all contribute and I stand by my original point. The other point you made is unsafe speeds for the given condition. Conditions—like icy or wet roads—is situational and subject to change. Do you govern for all and introduce a very complex system? Only for ideal conditions? Then there’s the question of changing speed limits (over the years) and the software's ability to keep up: Do you require open source software and hardware? Enforce an end-of-life after 10 years? Studies and data.
sokoloff 3y ago
I have driven 250K accident-free miles. I’d wager that more than half of those were more than 10 mph over the posted limit. Highways in New England are often posted at 55 or 65 and moving at 75-80. Is that “massively over”? No, but a bill to limit to 10 over is kinda impractical.
- acdha 3y ago
  I’ve done a bit closer to 300k but I can’t say any of the times I went over the speed limit were necessities like the person I responded to was claiming. There was a single time where I sped up to avoid hitting something - pickup truck right in front of me on the 405 had a mattress fly up after a strap broke and I gunned it to go under before it came down, but I didn’t go anywhere near the freeway speed limit because the only reason I was that close was because we were all stuck in the slowdown approaching the 55 interchange. So that’s almost once in my life where the movie plot scenario came close to happening. Over the same time period I have known 3 people who were killed and half a dozen people who had life-altering injuries due to being hit, and speed was a factor in all of those cases. It’s not as fun as pretending you are shaking the terrorists gunning for the president but that’s the threat I worry about because it happens orders of magnitude more frequently.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    I wasn't arguing that the speeding was necessary for safety or accident avoidance, but rather that if you put 20% of new cars onto New England highways that are posted at 55 mph and they're governed to 65 mph, that you're going to create an utter shitshow of unsafe speed differentials as the 80% of traffic that's moving at a prevailing 75-85 mph encounters these new rolling roadblocks with the accelerator matted and governed to 65 mph.
    - pokerface_86 3y ago
      in other words, what driving in the South already feels like!

alistairSH 3y ago

The speed range from 20mph to 35mph (give or take) has been pretty well researched and documented as a range where pedestrian fatalities ramps up dramatically. Additionally, stopping distance (very rough average) will double for most drivers from 20mph to 35mph. So, yeah, for this range of speeds, that 10-15mph difference is absolutely critical to maintain pedestrian safety. Remember, 20mph is slower than the default residential speed of 25mph (in the US). It's almost exclusively used in tight neighborhood streets, where pedestrians (children in particular) should be expected. 70mph vs 80mph, I don't so much care about. In theory, those speeds are only ever seen on a limited-access highway. The California bill is stupid, but probably DOA as well. But, that doesn't mean the problem it's trying to solve doesn't exist.