181–190 of 954 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medical emergencies are not "unrealistic action movie scenarios". If my family member is bleeding and I'm driving them to the ER, I don't and shouldn't have to care about precise speed limits.
If you're in that situation and you've already broken the speed limit so flagrantly multiple times that the courts have installed a speed limiter, that family member may well be safer waiting for the ambulance.
If a lot of cars get these it would be scary that someone would hack the speed limit database and set 1 mph on all roads around a large city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what happens if you sell the car. What happens if the thing thinks the speed limit on a 65 MPH highway is 30 MPH? Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Machines should never enforce laws because they don't have the ability to know when doing so would be unreasonable.
> Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Can you provide such a scenario? Or, more importantly... can you provide a reason why this hypothetical, extremely unusual edge case should take precedence over the 12,000 speeding deaths per year in our calculation? For example, I'm willing to wager more people get hurt speeding TO the hospital while their wife is in la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what happens if you sell the car. What happens if the thing thinks the speed limit on a 65 MPH highway is 30 MPH? Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Machines should never enforce laws because they don't have the ability to know when doing so would be unreasonable.
> Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Can you provide such a scenario? Or, more importantly... can you provide a reason why this hypothetical, extremely unusual edge case should take precedence over the 12,000 speeding deaths per year in our calculation? For example, I'm willing to wager more people get hurt speeding TO the hospital while their wife is in la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what happens if you sell the car. What happens if the thing thinks the speed limit on a 65 MPH highway is 30 MPH? Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Machines should never enforce laws because they don't have the ability to know when doing so would be unreasonable.
> Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Can you provide such a scenario? Or, more importantly... can you provide a reason why this hypothetical, extremely unusual edge case should take precedence over the 12,000 speeding deaths per year in our calculation? For example, I'm willing to wager more people get hurt speeding TO the hospital while their wife is in la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TFA says 75% of people with suspended licenses drive anyways.
Sounds like 75% of people with a suspended license need to spend some time out in jail where they can ponder their life choices.
I think a general speed limit for all vehicles would be a good idea. If you want it removed then your vehicle can't travel public roads, any kind of modification of it in secret would be a crime. Not sure about the US but in Europe (at least the EU) 150km/h max would be fine, at least it would make life harder for some sociopaths that treat public roads as a racing track.
EU includes Germany with its no-limit Autobahns. Left lane usually does around 180km/h, with occasional vehicles going way past 200km/h. Even 300km/h is not unheard of. I kind of hoped more EU would become like that, not the other way round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what happens if you sell the car. What happens if the thing thinks the speed limit on a 65 MPH highway is 30 MPH? Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Machines should never enforce laws because they don't have the ability to know when doing so would be unreasonable.
> Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Can you provide such a scenario? Or, more importantly... can you provide a reason why this hypothetical, extremely unusual edge case should take precedence over the 12,000 speeding deaths per year in our calculation? For example, I'm willing to wager more people get hurt speeding TO the hospital while their wife is in la…
That one's easy. Because the 12,000 "speeding deaths" are caused by 300+ million people, so the probability that one is caused by any given person is extremely low. And even 12,000 is an overestimate because those statistics count every fatality where speeding was occurring, but some large fraction of those fatalities would have occurred regardless. And this measure would prevent only a small fraction of that smaller number of actual speeding fatalities.
Meanwhile more than 3 million people die every year of something else, so it doesn't take a large percentage of those being impacted to add up to a larger number.
> For example, I'm willing to wager more people get hurt speeding TO the hospital while their wife is in labor than preventing any sort of injury due to out of hospital birth.
That's because child birth outside of a hospital isn't actually that dangerous, not because some large fraction of people die in car crashes on the way to the hospital. But there are a lot of things that are more dangerous than child birth and are very likely to be fatal if you don't receive prompt medical attention.
> Speed cameras reduce crashes and fatalities, and car breathalyzers reduce the incidences of drunk driving.
Speed cameras don't actually stop you from speeding. If you had to get to the hospital then you can make your case to the judge after the fact instead of having a dead kid.
Car breathalyzers "reduce the incidences of drunk driving" by causing the same problem. What happens if you've been drinking not expecting to go anywhere before you learn you need to evacuate immediately because of a wildfire?
> Even still, humans (judges) review these cases individually and decide which offenders' cars to put breathalyzers / speed limiters on.
The issue is there is no judge available on site to take it back off again in an emergency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By speeding, and nothing else? This shit is so silly man.
Speeding is widely accepted, because it seems such a low level offense. 50km/h instead of 30, it’s only 20 more. But the physics are against you - the energy of the vehicle grows quadratic with the speed. At 30, you need about 18 meters to come to a stop. So you can prevent an accident if a person appears about 20 meters from your hood. At 50, you’ll run them over with a remaining speed of more than 30km/h. Speeding…
For speed limits, the conditions are so variable that we compromise and set a number that’s reasonable-ish, most likely calibrated to the least safe conditions the road regularly experiences, and leave it at that. It’s still entirely possible, however, that a particular driver can have a much greater understanding of the risks implicit in going 10 over given their conditions, and thus increase the risk only a slight bit to save a large amount of time. This isn’t intrinsically some horrific moral crime; if you think it is then it sounds like law for the law’s sake type shit.