4 ms·

The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that li

The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that line. > In this case I would rather have the freedom to intentionally speed (because I need to get my wife to the hospital more quickly, because I'm in the middle of nowhere and want to, or any other reason I deem rational) than be marginally more "safe" thanks to my vehicle nannying me. It's not you that your vehicle is keeping safe. It's the other people you put at risk with your decision to speed. Your actions affect other people. "Because you need to get your wife to the hospital more quickly" is not a good reason to speed. I'm a first responder, and one of the things they teach you in the cert class is to not make more patients. There are numerous examples of people making bad situations worse by taking risks that don't meaningful improve their patient's chances. And the reality is, people who try to justify speeding, mostly just speed because they're impatient. The "taking wife to hospital" hypothetical is rare and even in the rare cases where it happens, speeding isn't helpful.

wavemode 2y ago
> The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that line. The reason I'm not free to assault others is because I'm directly causing them to lose their right to life and/or well-being. Whereas speeding merely creates a risk of harm, not harm itself. Almost anything could be argued to create a risk of harm to others, including driving itself. If we outlawed driving, we would certainly be saving a lot of lives. But we don't, so clearly there is more at play here than the mere fact of creating risk for another human being. So I think your wholesale dismissal of the argument for personal freedom and judgment, on the basis of infringement of other's rights, does not really hold up to practical scrutiny.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > The reason I'm not free to assault others is because I'm directly causing them to lose their right to life and/or well-being. Whereas speeding merely creates a risk of harm, not harm itself. And speeding is illegal. So it seems we as a society have agreed this is not a violation of personal freedoms. Your argument here is really "speeding is okay and speeding creates risk to others, therefore I should be able to create risk to others"? Do you see how maybe that doesn't work here? Let's start with: "speeding is okay" isn't in evidence. That's the thing you're trying to prove, so you can't just start by saying it's true. > Almost anything could be argued to create a risk of harm to others, including driving itself. If we outlawed driving, we would certainly be saving a lot of lives. This isn't an honest argument. Obviously there's some tradeoffs involved, which you know.
  - wavemode 2y ago
    > And speeding is illegal. So it seems we as a society have agreed this is not a violation of personal freedoms. Correct. And nobody in this thread is arguing that speeding should not be illegal. > Your argument here is really "speeding is okay and speeding creates risk to others, therefore I should be able to create risk to others"? Nope. Never said anything of the sort. You're again straying from the actual topic at hand, which is, specifically, my car automatically forcing me to drive a certain speed. > This isn't an honest argument. Obviously there's some tradeoffs involved, which you know. It wasn't an argument at all. It was a statement, taken out of context. The context being that you can't dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating risk for others. The concept that a driver would sometimes be given the freedom to surpass the speed limit, when they judge it necessary, is not even particularly controversial. Police use broad discretion to not enforce speed limits to the letter of the law. In fact many states have laws that crack down on police departments staging "speed traps" to generate speeding ticket revenue. Which is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but that illegality isn't meant to be a lever for government oppression.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > The context being that you can't dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating risk for others. You can, in fact, dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating a life and death risk for others, though. You've presented no cogent argument otherwise. > The concept that a driver would sometimes be given the freedom to surpass the speed limit, when they judge it necessary, is not even particularly controversial. We're in the middle of a controversy on this topic, therefore it is in fact controversial. QED. > Police use broad discretion to not enforce speed limits to the letter of the law. Yes, and that is clearly an abuse of power--one of many police abuses of power that our society is struggling to curb. Is that really the argument you want to be making? > In fact many states have laws that crack down on police departments staging "speed traps" to generate speeding ticket revenue. Yes: and why is that? Is it because they think police should have discretion to not enforce the letter of the law? How on earth does that follow? > Which is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but that illegality isn't meant to be a lever for government oppression. Alternative explanation: this is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but road infrastructure should be designed to make the law useful and possible to follow. The "no speed traps" laws I'm aware of are focused on a) giving drivers signage that adequately indicates a change in speed limit in advance to give drivers a chance to adjust their speed, and b) removing police perverse incentives to enforce the law in ways that don't achieve its purpose. These laws address very specific problems that have nothing to do with your vague "lever for government oppression" idea. Be honest with yourself: you've experienced having the ability to speed "at your discretion" if you've driven a car, because cars currently don't have speed limiters. Have you ever, even once used that discretion to speed for a good reason? Or are you just grasping at straws to justify why you should be allowed to put other people's lives in danger because you're impatient?

wavemode 2y ago

> The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that line. The reason I'm not free to assault others is because I'm directly causing them to lose their right to life and/or well-being. Whereas speeding merely creates a risk of harm, not harm itself. Almost anything could be argued to create a risk of harm to others, including driving itself. If we outlawed driving, we would certainly be saving a lot of lives. But we don't, so clearly there is more at play here than the mere fact of creating risk for another human being. So I think your wholesale dismissal of the argument for personal freedom and judgment, on the basis of infringement of other's rights, does not really hold up to practical scrutiny.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> The reason I'm not free to assault others is because I'm directly causing them to lose their right to life and/or well-being. Whereas speeding merely creates a risk of harm, not harm itself. And speeding is illegal. So it seems we as a society have agreed this is not a violation of personal freedoms. Your argument here is really "speeding is okay and speeding creates risk to others, therefore I should be able to create risk to others"? Do you see how maybe that doesn't work here? Let's start with: "speeding is okay" isn't in evidence. That's the thing you're trying to prove, so you can't just start by saying it's true. > Almost anything could be argued to create a risk of harm to others, including driving itself. If we outlawed driving, we would certainly be saving a lot of lives. This isn't an honest argument. Obviously there's some tradeoffs involved, which you know.
- wavemode 2y ago
  > And speeding is illegal. So it seems we as a society have agreed this is not a violation of personal freedoms. Correct. And nobody in this thread is arguing that speeding should not be illegal. > Your argument here is really "speeding is okay and speeding creates risk to others, therefore I should be able to create risk to others"? Nope. Never said anything of the sort. You're again straying from the actual topic at hand, which is, specifically, my car automatically forcing me to drive a certain speed. > This isn't an honest argument. Obviously there's some tradeoffs involved, which you know. It wasn't an argument at all. It was a statement, taken out of context. The context being that you can't dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating risk for others. The concept that a driver would sometimes be given the freedom to surpass the speed limit, when they judge it necessary, is not even particularly controversial. Police use broad discretion to not enforce speed limits to the letter of the law. In fact many states have laws that crack down on police departments staging "speed traps" to generate speeding ticket revenue. Which is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but that illegality isn't meant to be a lever for government oppression.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > The context being that you can't dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating risk for others. You can, in fact, dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating a life and death risk for others, though. You've presented no cogent argument otherwise. > The concept that a driver would sometimes be given the freedom to surpass the speed limit, when they judge it necessary, is not even particularly controversial. We're in the middle of a controversy on this topic, therefore it is in fact controversial. QED. > Police use broad discretion to not enforce speed limits to the letter of the law. Yes, and that is clearly an abuse of power--one of many police abuses of power that our society is struggling to curb. Is that really the argument you want to be making? > In fact many states have laws that crack down on police departments staging "speed traps" to generate speeding ticket revenue. Yes: and why is that? Is it because they think police should have discretion to not enforce the letter of the law? How on earth does that follow? > Which is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but that illegality isn't meant to be a lever for government oppression. Alternative explanation: this is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but road infrastructure should be designed to make the law useful and possible to follow. The "no speed traps" laws I'm aware of are focused on a) giving drivers signage that adequately indicates a change in speed limit in advance to give drivers a chance to adjust their speed, and b) removing police perverse incentives to enforce the law in ways that don't achieve its purpose. These laws address very specific problems that have nothing to do with your vague "lever for government oppression" idea. Be honest with yourself: you've experienced having the ability to speed "at your discretion" if you've driven a car, because cars currently don't have speed limiters. Have you ever, even once used that discretion to speed for a good reason? Or are you just grasping at straws to justify why you should be allowed to put other people's lives in danger because you're impatient?