5 ms·

Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to accelerate in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the

Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.

jncfhnb 2y ago
Like when
- grobbyy 2y ago
  You're passing a broken-down vehicle, a deer that hoped into the road, a toddler, or otherwise go into the opposite lane. There is an incoming car, and you need to merge back before a head-on collision, without hitting whatever you're passing. Floor it and merge. I can name many other scenarios, but generally, emergency maneuvers are helped by good control over the car, including braking, turning, and acceleration. There are nice charts showing accidents per million miles driven by car, and the best ones I've seen are anyone, but not testosterone-promoting agile. Crash ratings are misleading since many of the safest cars in a crash also crash a lot more often and have higher fatalities overall since bigger cars are less likely to be able to avoid an accident.
  - foxyv 2y ago
    In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?
    - grobbyy 2y ago
      In the situation described, I already charged lanes to avoid the toddler / deer / stopped car. The question is what I do about the incoming car I didn't notice. A) change back and hit the toddler B) do nothing, and have a fatal head-on collision C) hit the brakes, and have a non-fatal head-on collision D) speed up a little bit, so I can get back into my lane before the other car gets here
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        If swerving into another lane to avoid a toddler rather than stopping is a “common” scenario, you already sound like a psychopathically reckless driver. In none of those situations should you be swerving into the wrong side of traffic. You should be stopping. And then, if necessary, carefully going into the other lane. Your examples are comically dangerous Edit: in fact, specifically you remind me of Richard Horne in twin peaks season 3: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V62BJFn-BTQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V62BJFn-BTQ
      - foxyv 2y ago
        So, you are driving in such a manner that you cannot stop in time for toddlers, deer, or broken down cars. Perhaps if you were driving slower you would not need to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid road hazards?
foxyv 2y ago
Fatality rates drop dramatically with lowered speed. I have yet to see an emergency situation where acceleration makes any difference. Brakes are often an order of magnitude more powerful than the car's engine.
- grobbyy 2y ago
  Never been in the path of a speeding police car or ambulance rushing to an emergency from behind you and wanted to get out of the way at the next intersection, just 100m ahead? Statistics didn't support you. Look at deaths per mile for vehicles. The worst ones are lumbering hulks which can't do avoidance maneuvers.
  - foxyv 2y ago
    If you are in the path of a police car or ambulance, you are required to slow down and pull over to the right. Death rates per mile have a loose correlation to vehicle size. However, engine size has a high correlation to deaths per mile. Sports cars love to kill their drivers. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
    - grobbyy 2y ago
      I would encourage you to look more closely. Safest mainstream car is Chevy Bolt which (1) isn't bought by douchebags to show off (2) does 0-60 on 6.6 seconds, on par with muscle cars, exactly as I described.
      - foxyv 2y ago
        So would you say that Chevy Bolt drivers tend to drive slower? And are thus safer? Why should douchebags be able to buy cars that drive 100+mph on public roads?
drozycki 2y ago
> Because It would make roads less safe. Speeding makes roads less safe too. Wouldn’t you agree that there would be a net reduction in serious injury and death from enforcing the speed limit? > It’s very common to need to accelerate in emergency situations Very common to accelerate past the speed limit when you’re already at/above it? Acceleration is usually useful as a safety tool when you’re at a stop and want to cross before oncoming traffic reaches the intersection. Your acceleration from a stop would not be limited beyond what your drivetrain can do.
- grobbyy 2y ago
  I think there are soft mechanisms which could enforce speed limits which would need both needs. Even an obnoxious beeper like for seatbelts. I prefer the seatbelt beeper to having seatbelts which won't unfasten until the car has come to a complete stop, or cars which don't start without seatbelts. Not everything needs to be enforced with force.
  - foxyv 2y ago
    Evidence indicates that speed limits need to be enforced by some other method. Nearly 1/3 of all fatal accidents are a result of speeding. Speeding is so commonplace that people barely even pay attention to it. Seatbelt laws are important, however they have much less impact on the people around the vehicle. Speeding kills pedestrians and other drivers.

Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the

jncfhnb 2y ago

Like when

grobbyy 2y ago
You're passing a broken-down vehicle, a deer that hoped into the road, a toddler, or otherwise go into the opposite lane. There is an incoming car, and you need to merge back before a head-on collision, without hitting whatever you're passing. Floor it and merge. I can name many other scenarios, but generally, emergency maneuvers are helped by good control over the car, including braking, turning, and acceleration. There are nice charts showing accidents per million miles driven by car, and the best ones I've seen are anyone, but not testosterone-promoting agile. Crash ratings are misleading since many of the safest cars in a crash also crash a lot more often and have higher fatalities overall since bigger cars are less likely to be able to avoid an accident.
- foxyv 2y ago
  In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?
  - grobbyy 2y ago
    In the situation described, I already charged lanes to avoid the toddler / deer / stopped car. The question is what I do about the incoming car I didn't notice. A) change back and hit the toddler B) do nothing, and have a fatal head-on collision C) hit the brakes, and have a non-fatal head-on collision D) speed up a little bit, so I can get back into my lane before the other car gets here
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      If swerving into another lane to avoid a toddler rather than stopping is a “common” scenario, you already sound like a psychopathically reckless driver. In none of those situations should you be swerving into the wrong side of traffic. You should be stopping. And then, if necessary, carefully going into the other lane. Your examples are comically dangerous Edit: in fact, specifically you remind me of Richard Horne in twin peaks season 3: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V62BJFn-BTQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V62BJFn-BTQ
    - foxyv 2y ago
      So, you are driving in such a manner that you cannot stop in time for toddlers, deer, or broken down cars. Perhaps if you were driving slower you would not need to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid road hazards?

foxyv 2y ago

Fatality rates drop dramatically with lowered speed. I have yet to see an emergency situation where acceleration makes any difference. Brakes are often an order of magnitude more powerful than the car's engine.

grobbyy 2y ago
Never been in the path of a speeding police car or ambulance rushing to an emergency from behind you and wanted to get out of the way at the next intersection, just 100m ahead? Statistics didn't support you. Look at deaths per mile for vehicles. The worst ones are lumbering hulks which can't do avoidance maneuvers.
- foxyv 2y ago
  If you are in the path of a police car or ambulance, you are required to slow down and pull over to the right. Death rates per mile have a loose correlation to vehicle size. However, engine size has a high correlation to deaths per mile. Sports cars love to kill their drivers. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
  - grobbyy 2y ago
    I would encourage you to look more closely. Safest mainstream car is Chevy Bolt which (1) isn't bought by douchebags to show off (2) does 0-60 on 6.6 seconds, on par with muscle cars, exactly as I described.
    - foxyv 2y ago
      So would you say that Chevy Bolt drivers tend to drive slower? And are thus safer? Why should douchebags be able to buy cars that drive 100+mph on public roads?

drozycki 2y ago

> Because It would make roads less safe. Speeding makes roads less safe too. Wouldn’t you agree that there would be a net reduction in serious injury and death from enforcing the speed limit? > It’s very common to need to accelerate in emergency situations Very common to accelerate past the speed limit when you’re already at/above it? Acceleration is usually useful as a safety tool when you’re at a stop and want to cross before oncoming traffic reaches the intersection. Your acceleration from a stop would not be limited beyond what your drivetrain can do.

grobbyy 2y ago
I think there are soft mechanisms which could enforce speed limits which would need both needs. Even an obnoxious beeper like for seatbelts. I prefer the seatbelt beeper to having seatbelts which won't unfasten until the car has come to a complete stop, or cars which don't start without seatbelts. Not everything needs to be enforced with force.
- foxyv 2y ago
  Evidence indicates that speed limits need to be enforced by some other method. Nearly 1/3 of all fatal accidents are a result of speeding. Speeding is so commonplace that people barely even pay attention to it. Seatbelt laws are important, however they have much less impact on the people around the vehicle. Speeding kills pedestrians and other drivers.