4 ms·
Point taken. But I do think it’s wrong to put no value on the reason behind the popularity of that visceral reaction. Unless safety and efficiency are the only
by DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Point taken. But I do think it’s wrong to put no value on the reason behind the popularity of that visceral reaction. Unless safety and efficiency are the only things we are optimizing for.
Being able to drive what you want, where you want, when you want, and how you want, within reason, is one of the emergent freedoms ever granted by the progress of civilization.
- joshlemer 2y agoI think it's a bit hyperbolic to characterize limiting car speeds to, say, 150 or 170 km/h, as a serious curtailment of our civilization's fundamental freedoms.
- simondotau 2y agoHow many people are dying because cars are exceeding 150 km/h?
- joshlemer 2y agoI don't know, but many people are caught driving in excess of 200km/h where I live in BC, when the maximum speed limit anywhere is 110km/h. There's literally never ever one single reason to drive over 150km/h, so any case of anyone ever doing it is already one too many. Even if there is just one death, that's too many, according to me. How many would it take to convince you?
- david-gpu 2y agoWhy would that matter? How many people are exceeding posted speed limits in highly populated areas? That is what increases collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, and for that reason I would love to see speed governors installed in all motor vehicles, and not only e-bikes, which ironically are the ones that are the least likely to cause serious injury to others.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoBecause in these "highly populated areas" speed limits are typically around 30MPH. There's a substantial gulf between 30 and 90mph. Are you suggesting that cars should be speed limited to something like 35mph?
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoWell thankfully I have no intention of making that characterization...?
- david-gpu 2y ago> But I do think it’s wrong to put no value on the reason behind the popularity of that visceral reaction. Not being killed is also a very popular visceral reason for pedestrians and cyclists to want cars to slow down in our cities, and for motor vehicle regulations to address the yearly carnage they cause every year. What value should we give to their desire of not being killed, and how should it be weighted against drivers' desire to drive what they want, where they want, when they want, and how they want? Just a fun experiment: try replacing "driving a car" with "stabbing random people on the street" or any other activity that involves people killing around three people per 100,000 population every year in your country. It's interesting how our perception changes when we get out of the context of motonormativity.
- singleshot_ 2y agoIt’s a terrible metaphor but if everyone had to stab someone in the morning and the evening in order for the economy to even begin to function, we would pretty soon get over it. Upton Sinclair and all that.
- immibis 2y agoWhat if the economy was built that way by stabbing industry lobbyists?
- actionablefiber 2y agoWe had a perfectly functioning economy prior to car domination and all the alternatives have progressed by incredible leaps and bounds in the time since as well.
- joshlemer 2y agoThis analogy fails because there's nothing about our economy that specifically demands that people drive cars that can drive over 150km/h. They would be able to commute exactly the same as they do today, if their cars had speed governors.
- david-gpu 2y agoOther economies work just fine with far fewer pedestrian deaths. We don't need to sacrifice our neighbors in the altar of making mo' money.
- actionablefiber 2y agoI've been to two funerals in as many years for personal friends who died when drivers killed them with their cars. I'll make sure to throw in a good word for "emergent freedoms" and "the progress of civilization" at the next funeral I end up at.
- maxwellg 2y agoDoes any country or government enshrine "Right to Drive" in their constitution?