2 ms·

> The automotive industry has lost one of the great saviors of speed. The article glamorizes speeding. Here's one reason not to: Imagine a speeder hitting som

by neilv 2y ago

> The automotive industry has lost one of the great saviors of speed. The article glamorizes speeding. Here's one reason not to: Imagine a speeder hitting someone, and the difference between the innocent person being OK, and being disabled/killed, was the speeding. That's not hard to imagine, and seems to be a frequent occurrence in the US. Another thing to imagine: Imagine that everyone obeyed speed laws. Wouldn't there then be more pressure to make the laws more sensible? Instead, we have dangerous speeding by random people, who feel justified in it, and a ton of people individually and unilaterally trying to apply their own judgment of what speeding of theirs is safe for others. Personally, I sure don't want the stupidest and cockiest people deciding what's safe for 'themselves', and applying it counter to the expectations of imminent victims. When we normalize speeding, that's what we get.

sokoloff 2y ago
When we normalize 55 mph speed limits on roads where 80 mph is completely reasonable, that’s also what we get: plenty of people breaking a bad law. (If over 95% of people break that law, it’s clearly not codifying what behavior society expects/demands of its members.)
crazydoggers 2y ago
The problem you’re ignoring is that there are many places around the country where speed limits are set unreasonably low with the intention of collecting revenue. Until we seperate speed enforcement from revenue collection, then speed limits won’t be about the science and engineering or what is safest for the road, but what is collects the most revenue. I’ve witnessed firsthand a major roadway whose speed limit was lowered from 65 to 55 arbitrarily, along with a jump in enforcement. The road is definitely less safe in fact, since I’ve noticed people on their phones more as the lower speed gives people more confidence. The people who speed dangerously and no speed limit will stop, now drive more aggressive around cars with greater differentials in speed. One time I drove behind a women who I could clearly see had her phone propped up on her steering wheel. She and others driving irrationally or dangerously but at or below the speed limit drive right by the police. At one point when I was stopped for going 60 and given a warning, I asked how come they don’t stop people driving dangerous or on their phones. He’s response was the “laws didn’t let him”. I’m assuming he really meant they can’t reliably collect fines for it since they can’t prove it in court with a radar detector. > Personally, I sure don't want the stupidest and cockiest people deciding what's safe for 'themselves', and applying it counter to the expectations of imminent victims. When we normalize speeding, that's what we get. The safest is supposed to be 85% percentile of speed on a given roadway. Many places have this specified in the books at a state level, however, after doing some research on that years ago, that’s almost never followed locally.
bluGill 2y ago
If the speed limit is more than about 10mph then legal speeds are potentially deadly if you are hit. Deadliness goes up with speed, but by around 35mph it is safe to assume anyone hit will die - so if you are arguing about speeds faster than that it doesn't really matter anymore.

by neilv 2y ago

sokoloff 2y ago

When we normalize 55 mph speed limits on roads where 80 mph is completely reasonable, that’s also what we get: plenty of people breaking a bad law. (If over 95% of people break that law, it’s clearly not codifying what behavior society expects/demands of its members.)

crazydoggers 2y ago

The problem you’re ignoring is that there are many places around the country where speed limits are set unreasonably low with the intention of collecting revenue. Until we seperate speed enforcement from revenue collection, then speed limits won’t be about the science and engineering or what is safest for the road, but what is collects the most revenue. I’ve witnessed firsthand a major roadway whose speed limit was lowered from 65 to 55 arbitrarily, along with a jump in enforcement. The road is definitely less safe in fact, since I’ve noticed people on their phones more as the lower speed gives people more confidence. The people who speed dangerously and no speed limit will stop, now drive more aggressive around cars with greater differentials in speed. One time I drove behind a women who I could clearly see had her phone propped up on her steering wheel. She and others driving irrationally or dangerously but at or below the speed limit drive right by the police. At one point when I was stopped for going 60 and given a warning, I asked how come they don’t stop people driving dangerous or on their phones. He’s response was the “laws didn’t let him”. I’m assuming he really meant they can’t reliably collect fines for it since they can’t prove it in court with a radar detector. > Personally, I sure don't want the stupidest and cockiest people deciding what's safe for 'themselves', and applying it counter to the expectations of imminent victims. When we normalize speeding, that's what we get. The safest is supposed to be 85% percentile of speed on a given roadway. Many places have this specified in the books at a state level, however, after doing some research on that years ago, that’s almost never followed locally.

bluGill 2y ago

If the speed limit is more than about 10mph then legal speeds are potentially deadly if you are hit. Deadliness goes up with speed, but by around 35mph it is safe to assume anyone hit will die - so if you are arguing about speeds faster than that it doesn't really matter anymore.