4 ms·

The math does not work that way. If you’re going 70mph you travel 16.6% further in the same amount of time. But your average stopping distance increases 240 t

by dangus 2y ago

The math does not work that way. If you’re going 70mph you travel 16.6% further in the same amount of time. But your average stopping distance increases 240 to 315 feet, 31% increase. This also stresses your reaction time. Risk of severe injury in pedestrian accidents goes like this: 16mph: 10% 23mph: 25% 31mph: 50% So if you slow down in a pedestrian heavy area from 31mph to 23mph, you travel 30% slower but if you hit someone you’ve cut the chance of seriously injuring them in half. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/ https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stoppin... https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/ https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve...

toast0 2y ago
Is your position that motor vehicles should be limited to 16 mph? I don't disagree that a reasonable and appropriate maximum speed in a pedestrian heavy area is lower than a reasonable and appropriate maximum speed on a restricted highway. But, I've seen pedestrian heavy areas with posted speed limits above a reasonable and appropriate speed, and restricted highways with posted speed limits below a reasonable and appropriate speed. A system that annoys and distracts the driver and other occupants when the vehicle is traveling above the posted speed limit does not help safety when the posted limit is unreasonably high or unreasonably low. It could possibly help if the posted limit is reasonable and the posted limit is detected correctly. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to mandate a system like this when advisory detection systems have poor accuracy and posted limits are commonly set based on criteria other than the safety of road users.
- dangus 2y ago
  No of course that’s not my position, that’s quite a conclusion to jump to. But I’ve definitely seen a lot of drivers going 35-40mph in 25mph pedestrian-heavy zones where they should be driving the speed limit or possibly even slower. Those drivers are barely saving seconds of time in their travels while increasing the risk to bystanders dramatically. What I’m trying to say centers on this: You say you’ve seen restricted highways with posted speed limits below reasonable and appropriate speeds. My point is that if all drivers are limited to that lower speed, there is nothing unsafe about going “too slow.” Your opinion that it’s unreasonable is based on convenience, not safety. E.g., urban freeways where the speed limit is 50 but most drivers are going 70 and some drivers are going much faster. That’s a dangerous situation. What ISN’T dangerous is if everyone was governed electronically by 50mph by that road. If everyone is limited to 50mph that dangerous speed differential has been removed and it’s safer. Presumably the government could wait until basically all drivers have a vehicle with this technology and then flip the switch on the actual governing feature. Maybe this is “anti-freedom” and all that, but my hypothesis would be that road deaths would decrease. Almost 1/3 of all driving fatalities involve excessive speed: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding-fatalities-14-year-high https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding... On a tangent, I have a theory that drivers who demand high throughput and fast speeds want to avoid the uncomfortable truth that alternatives like public transit and cycling are more efficient modes of atransportation. When we look at some urban freeways that slow to a crawl during commuting hours and the local news tells me that the average speed is 27 mph, that just tells me that more people should be commuting on alternatives like e-bikes, buses, and trains, because these personal vehicles that supposedly save so much time and convenience are no longer doing so.
  - toast0 2y ago
    It's not just convenience. AAA says > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 [1] If you reduce speeds and increase trip time by 1%, that's 930 million more hours, which is the equivalent of about 1000 lifetimes [2]. At some point you save lives from acute injuries but take lives by wasting everyone's time on the road. There's also issues with the current fleet where a gasoline car is going to be much less fuel efficient at say 25 mph vs 50 mph, and you're killing people with emissions; although EVs and hybrids turn that around. [1] https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/202309_2022-AAAFTS-American-Driving-Survey-Brief_v3.pdf https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/202309_... [2] https://www.dreams.co.uk/sleep-matters-club/your-life-in-numbers-infographic https://www.dreams.co.uk/sleep-matters-club/your-life-in-num... reports a average lifetime of 692,040 hours, I'm running loose math.
    - jpc0 2y ago
      > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 I don't have a dog in this race but I want to spark conversation. I feel like assuming that saving 1% of those drivers time would lead to an increase in productivity, possibly a tiny increase in happiness but are you happy now driving 20 over the limit and on high alert all the time during your commute? Generally I am less tired going 100 km/h in a 120 than I am doing 140km/h in a 120 for the exact same trip... And usually I would just move my commute a bit, have breakfast close to work / at work and hit the gym after work at work and you significantly cut down your commute time... It also reminds me just a little of Brook's law... I'm never going to believe a car is more fuel efficient at say 35 vs 50... Maybe 25 but where are you driving that the majority of your trip is at 25? The few minutes you spend at 25 won't even put a dent on your efficiency numbers if you have a reasonably long commute and if you don't what the hell are you complaining about. At least where I am 25 would only be used i residential areas or places where high pedestrian activity is expected... The limit is almost exclusively 35/50/75 and you may get 60 in rural areas...

by dangus 2y ago

toast0 2y ago

Is your position that motor vehicles should be limited to 16 mph? I don't disagree that a reasonable and appropriate maximum speed in a pedestrian heavy area is lower than a reasonable and appropriate maximum speed on a restricted highway. But, I've seen pedestrian heavy areas with posted speed limits above a reasonable and appropriate speed, and restricted highways with posted speed limits below a reasonable and appropriate speed. A system that annoys and distracts the driver and other occupants when the vehicle is traveling above the posted speed limit does not help safety when the posted limit is unreasonably high or unreasonably low. It could possibly help if the posted limit is reasonable and the posted limit is detected correctly. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to mandate a system like this when advisory detection systems have poor accuracy and posted limits are commonly set based on criteria other than the safety of road users.

dangus 2y ago
No of course that’s not my position, that’s quite a conclusion to jump to. But I’ve definitely seen a lot of drivers going 35-40mph in 25mph pedestrian-heavy zones where they should be driving the speed limit or possibly even slower. Those drivers are barely saving seconds of time in their travels while increasing the risk to bystanders dramatically. What I’m trying to say centers on this: You say you’ve seen restricted highways with posted speed limits below reasonable and appropriate speeds. My point is that if all drivers are limited to that lower speed, there is nothing unsafe about going “too slow.” Your opinion that it’s unreasonable is based on convenience, not safety. E.g., urban freeways where the speed limit is 50 but most drivers are going 70 and some drivers are going much faster. That’s a dangerous situation. What ISN’T dangerous is if everyone was governed electronically by 50mph by that road. If everyone is limited to 50mph that dangerous speed differential has been removed and it’s safer. Presumably the government could wait until basically all drivers have a vehicle with this technology and then flip the switch on the actual governing feature. Maybe this is “anti-freedom” and all that, but my hypothesis would be that road deaths would decrease. Almost 1/3 of all driving fatalities involve excessive speed: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding-fatalities-14-year-high https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding... On a tangent, I have a theory that drivers who demand high throughput and fast speeds want to avoid the uncomfortable truth that alternatives like public transit and cycling are more efficient modes of atransportation. When we look at some urban freeways that slow to a crawl during commuting hours and the local news tells me that the average speed is 27 mph, that just tells me that more people should be commuting on alternatives like e-bikes, buses, and trains, because these personal vehicles that supposedly save so much time and convenience are no longer doing so.
- toast0 2y ago
  It's not just convenience. AAA says > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 [1] If you reduce speeds and increase trip time by 1%, that's 930 million more hours, which is the equivalent of about 1000 lifetimes [2]. At some point you save lives from acute injuries but take lives by wasting everyone's time on the road. There's also issues with the current fleet where a gasoline car is going to be much less fuel efficient at say 25 mph vs 50 mph, and you're killing people with emissions; although EVs and hybrids turn that around. [1] https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/202309_2022-AAAFTS-American-Driving-Survey-Brief_v3.pdf https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/202309_... [2] https://www.dreams.co.uk/sleep-matters-club/your-life-in-numbers-infographic https://www.dreams.co.uk/sleep-matters-club/your-life-in-num... reports a average lifetime of 692,040 hours, I'm running loose math.
  - jpc0 2y ago
    > Projecting these results to all drivers nationwide [US], 255 million drivers made a total of 227 billion driving trips, spent 93 billion hours driving, and drove 2.8 trillion miles in 2022 I don't have a dog in this race but I want to spark conversation. I feel like assuming that saving 1% of those drivers time would lead to an increase in productivity, possibly a tiny increase in happiness but are you happy now driving 20 over the limit and on high alert all the time during your commute? Generally I am less tired going 100 km/h in a 120 than I am doing 140km/h in a 120 for the exact same trip... And usually I would just move my commute a bit, have breakfast close to work / at work and hit the gym after work at work and you significantly cut down your commute time... It also reminds me just a little of Brook's law... I'm never going to believe a car is more fuel efficient at say 35 vs 50... Maybe 25 but where are you driving that the majority of your trip is at 25? The few minutes you spend at 25 won't even put a dent on your efficiency numbers if you have a reasonably long commute and if you don't what the hell are you complaining about. At least where I am 25 would only be used i residential areas or places where high pedestrian activity is expected... The limit is almost exclusively 35/50/75 and you may get 60 in rural areas...