4 ms·

The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you alre

by RIMR 2y ago

The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is that it has to apply to everyone. If 90% of the cars on the road don't have governors, and your car does, when you merge onto a highway where everyone is driving 20mph over the limit, you'll be in real danger since your car won't let you drive with traffic.

HeWhoLurksLate 2y ago
More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
- flerchin 2y ago
  Like when
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    Like when everyone else is speeding. If everyone is going 80 mph, then being the one driver actually obeying the 65 mph speed limit puts you and everyone around you in MORE danger. Would it be safer for everyone to be going 65 mph? Absolutely. I'm definitely not disputing that. But speed differential is more dangerous than speed itself. EDIT: To be more accurate, speed differential makes crashes more likely, but speed overall obviously makes the crashes more likely to be fatal. Whether it's safer to go 80 when everyone is going 80 to reduce the likelyhood of a crash, or if it's safer to go 65 mph to reduce the severity of a crash if it happens is very debatable, and I'm not sure there are good enough statistics to back up either claim.
    - flerchin 2y ago
      Without data, this reads like self justification for poor behavior.
    - foxyv 2y ago
      One thing to keep in mind is when is the breaking point? If one person drives 100mph, should every single driver match that speed? What about 90? 80? What is the cutoff? There is a reason there are speed limits. They are the cutoff.
      - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
        > If one person drives 100mph, should every single driver match that speed? What about 90? 80? What is the cutoff? Completely irrelevant to my scenario. Let me try to be more clear. If everyone is driving 65 mph, then the person driving 80 mph is in the wrong. If everyone is driving 80 mph, then the person driving 65 mph is in the wrong.
        foxyv 2y ago
        So who determines what speed everyone should drive? Maybe we should put up signs! Oh wait...
  - foxyv 2y ago
    I've found that many drivers feel uncomfortable being passed by other drivers. They translate that discomfort to being "Less Safe." Despite the fact that they are objectively much safer traveling at slower speeds. Not many people appreciate the difference in fatality rates between 65 and 85 mph. Fatality rates go from 20% to 70%. In addition, your ability to control your car in a minor collision at high speeds is heavily compromised. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Res... Edit: It appears the source above is for pedestrian collisions in kph. However speeding is a factor in 1/3 of traffic fatalities. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding-fatalities-14-year-high https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      I've read both of your links, and both fail to address one scenario and a question regarding it: If EVERYONE is driving 80 mph, is it more dangerous to be the one person deciding to drive 65 mph? Most studies and statistics either focus on speed alone OR being the ONE person driving 80 while everyone else is driving 65. Speed differential increases the frequency of crashes, and overall speed makes crashes worse. I posit that the best crash is the one that doesn't happen, so reducing the frequency of a crash by going with the flow of traffic is the safer option.
      - foxyv 2y ago
        So you are arguing FOR speed governors which would keep everyone at the same speed?
- foxyv 2y ago
  No, it is not. https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#:~:text=Dangers%20of%20speed,-Speed%20has%20a&text=It%20increases%20the%20distance%20a,result%20in%20loss%20of%20control https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#:~:text=Dangers%20of%20spe....
- RIMR 2y ago
  I literally covered the "driving with traffic" issue in the comment you are responding to. Driving at higher speeds isn't inherently safer, it is conditionally safer. If the speed limit is 60MPH, and everyone is driving 80MPH, it is safer to drive 80MPH than to drive the speed limit and get hit from behind by someone going 20MPH faster than you. Of course, every single person driving 80MPH in this scenario is breaking the law (in most states this is reckless driving), and making the road less safe for everyone, especially motorist obeying the law. The status quo isn't great if we just accept that everyone has to drive recklessly because the people around them are. That's a problem in need of a solution - a solution that can include mandatory speed governors and geo-fencing. If you require governors and geo-fencing, the condition of "everyone is driving 20MPH over the limit" doesn't exist, because everyone's cars will be capped at the legal speed limit. Driving with traffic will only entail speeds up to the speed limit, not up to the fastest speed that drivers around you feel like driving. Thus why I said that regulators would have to go all-in on this technology, rather than allowing slow roll-out, because a transition period would make the roads more dangerous allowing older vehicles to drive recklessly fast while not allowing newer vehicles to safely drive according to road conditions (created by reckless drivers).
kelipso 2y ago
Freedom is not an on off switch. You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument. Seeing it as a min max problem is better. Maximize freedom while minimizing problems or something.
- foxyv 2y ago
  I agree. My freedom to not be killed far outweighs the freedom of idiots to drive too fast.
- RIMR 2y ago
  >You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument. The context I am talking about is a logistical issue that kills between 35,000-40,000 Americans every year. Nearly twice as many annual deaths as all forms of murder combined. It's the leading cause of accidental death. There aren't that many "freedoms" that have such a staggering human cost. There are already laws that exist that prohibit you from driving at unsafe speeds, so it isn't even a freedom to begin with. You don't have the freedom to break the law. I see no issue with enforcing those laws proactively rather than reactively when that many lives are on the line.
foxyv 2y ago
Requiring speed governors on all vehicles is the only thing that makes sense. You would probably require installation by a certain date with a phasing in of activation for geofences and radio speed limits.

by RIMR 2y ago

HeWhoLurksLate 2y ago

More speed can also be safer in some scenarios

flerchin 2y ago
Like when
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  Like when everyone else is speeding. If everyone is going 80 mph, then being the one driver actually obeying the 65 mph speed limit puts you and everyone around you in MORE danger. Would it be safer for everyone to be going 65 mph? Absolutely. I'm definitely not disputing that. But speed differential is more dangerous than speed itself. EDIT: To be more accurate, speed differential makes crashes more likely, but speed overall obviously makes the crashes more likely to be fatal. Whether it's safer to go 80 when everyone is going 80 to reduce the likelyhood of a crash, or if it's safer to go 65 mph to reduce the severity of a crash if it happens is very debatable, and I'm not sure there are good enough statistics to back up either claim.
  - flerchin 2y ago
    Without data, this reads like self justification for poor behavior.
  - foxyv 2y ago
    One thing to keep in mind is when is the breaking point? If one person drives 100mph, should every single driver match that speed? What about 90? 80? What is the cutoff? There is a reason there are speed limits. They are the cutoff.
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      > If one person drives 100mph, should every single driver match that speed? What about 90? 80? What is the cutoff? Completely irrelevant to my scenario. Let me try to be more clear. If everyone is driving 65 mph, then the person driving 80 mph is in the wrong. If everyone is driving 80 mph, then the person driving 65 mph is in the wrong.
      - foxyv 2y ago
        So who determines what speed everyone should drive? Maybe we should put up signs! Oh wait...
- foxyv 2y ago
  I've found that many drivers feel uncomfortable being passed by other drivers. They translate that discomfort to being "Less Safe." Despite the fact that they are objectively much safer traveling at slower speeds. Not many people appreciate the difference in fatality rates between 65 and 85 mph. Fatality rates go from 20% to 70%. In addition, your ability to control your car in a minor collision at high speeds is heavily compromised. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Res... Edit: It appears the source above is for pedestrian collisions in kph. However speeding is a factor in 1/3 of traffic fatalities. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding-fatalities-14-year-high https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    I've read both of your links, and both fail to address one scenario and a question regarding it: If EVERYONE is driving 80 mph, is it more dangerous to be the one person deciding to drive 65 mph? Most studies and statistics either focus on speed alone OR being the ONE person driving 80 while everyone else is driving 65. Speed differential increases the frequency of crashes, and overall speed makes crashes worse. I posit that the best crash is the one that doesn't happen, so reducing the frequency of a crash by going with the flow of traffic is the safer option.
    - foxyv 2y ago
      So you are arguing FOR speed governors which would keep everyone at the same speed?
foxyv 2y ago
No, it is not. https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#:~:text=Dangers%20of%20speed,-Speed%20has%20a&text=It%20increases%20the%20distance%20a,result%20in%20loss%20of%20control https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#:~:text=Dangers%20of%20spe....
RIMR 2y ago
I literally covered the "driving with traffic" issue in the comment you are responding to. Driving at higher speeds isn't inherently safer, it is conditionally safer. If the speed limit is 60MPH, and everyone is driving 80MPH, it is safer to drive 80MPH than to drive the speed limit and get hit from behind by someone going 20MPH faster than you. Of course, every single person driving 80MPH in this scenario is breaking the law (in most states this is reckless driving), and making the road less safe for everyone, especially motorist obeying the law. The status quo isn't great if we just accept that everyone has to drive recklessly because the people around them are. That's a problem in need of a solution - a solution that can include mandatory speed governors and geo-fencing. If you require governors and geo-fencing, the condition of "everyone is driving 20MPH over the limit" doesn't exist, because everyone's cars will be capped at the legal speed limit. Driving with traffic will only entail speeds up to the speed limit, not up to the fastest speed that drivers around you feel like driving. Thus why I said that regulators would have to go all-in on this technology, rather than allowing slow roll-out, because a transition period would make the roads more dangerous allowing older vehicles to drive recklessly fast while not allowing newer vehicles to safely drive according to road conditions (created by reckless drivers).

kelipso 2y ago

Freedom is not an on off switch. You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument. Seeing it as a min max problem is better. Maximize freedom while minimizing problems or something.

foxyv 2y ago
I agree. My freedom to not be killed far outweighs the freedom of idiots to drive too fast.
RIMR 2y ago
>You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument. The context I am talking about is a logistical issue that kills between 35,000-40,000 Americans every year. Nearly twice as many annual deaths as all forms of murder combined. It's the leading cause of accidental death. There aren't that many "freedoms" that have such a staggering human cost. There are already laws that exist that prohibit you from driving at unsafe speeds, so it isn't even a freedom to begin with. You don't have the freedom to break the law. I see no issue with enforcing those laws proactively rather than reactively when that many lives are on the line.

foxyv 2y ago

Requiring speed governors on all vehicles is the only thing that makes sense. You would probably require installation by a certain date with a phasing in of activation for geofences and radio speed limits.