Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 954 posts

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#921

Post by CalRobert »

ozim wrote: post #866
CalRobert wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a toddler who’s a runner radicalised me. Every walk outside required a death grip.

I think I have seen in the news at least 3 separate instances where parent drove over and killed their own child in their front yard while just trying to drive out. It is like over my entire lifetime so I may made up and it was 2 or once - but I cannot forget it as I imagine such tragedy even writing about while never been nowhere close to such an event it makes me feel uneasy in my chest and stomach.

https://www.kidsandcars.org/frontovers/facts has more data

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#922

Post by gregoriol »

const_cast wrote: post #854
op00to wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let’s just do nothing! Why bother doing anything!

Yes, this is exactly my problem with this type of reasoning. You can make these arguments for anything. If we can't even get the most obvious low-hanging fruit because "aww it's slightly inconvenient" then we can't even DREAM of solving complex problems. This new "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" mentality towards policy is so toxic. That's the only guaranteed way to not solve a problem! It's an anti-s…

Sometimes not solving a problem could actually be better. We have to try new things, I do agree, all the time. But every time you change something, you also create ways for new problems.

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#923

Post by bluecalm »

branko_d wrote: post #918
bluecalm wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wrong about absolute numbers, still if you subtract suicides and gang infightings reckless driving kills and hurts way more people. >>Gun utility: small Car utility: large It's not about cars but speeding in cars. You can eliminate one without the other. This is not the case with guns. Utility of speeding is negative even if you never kill anyone.

> It's not about cars but speeding in cars. That's like saying "it's not about guns but killing by guns". If we could only identify those pesky people that will kill with their guns before they do it, we could solve our problem! Just as if we could separate out only the drivers that will crash before they actually do it. Alas, while you can probably speed many times without serious consequences, shooting someone with…

It's not like that because it's very easy to prevent cars from speeding. It's just matter of political will. With guns the only way to prevent most of gun violence of to take the guns away.

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#924

Post by tfourb »

dwighttk wrote: post #905
tfourb wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. Even accepting your case (I assume you mean the US revolutionary war, which, for the record, I don't think is that great of an example to begin with), you provide a n=1 in support of your argument. On the other hand, there are literally dozens of examples of civil society organizations organizations and protest movements successfully countering government overreach or military coup d'etats with peaceful means…

Peaceful protests, even if they’re successful, have nothing to do with the discussion of “Trying to guard against tyranny by increasing private gun ownership is dumb“

The entire argument for private gun ownership to guard against tyranny is that it is effective and more so than other approaches. If private gun ownership is not more effective against tyranny than other approaches, why accept its considerable and provable downsides (gun crime, gun-assisted suicides, domestic violence, accidents, etc. etc.)?

But peaceful resistance (which goes beyond protests and can – depending on situation and definition – encompass everything from sabotage to strikes, espionage, boycotts and "Work to Rule") has been demonstrated to be more effective to both establish long-term democratic rule, as well as safeguard it against authoritarian rollback, when compared to violent means.

There simply is no actual argument based on historical facts that widespread civilian gun ownership is particularly effective at establishing democratic rule or deterring authoritarian tendencies. Which makes sense, because (again) guns are only good at projecting or threatening violence and authoritarian actors (in contrast to democratic ones) are quite comfortable with violence.

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#925

Post by pas »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #896
const_cast wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many places it's just not a big enough problem. And, either way, it's a perception issue usually. I mean yeah, subway homeless people make you feel unsafe. But you're not actually unsafe. Just by taking the subway you're a few orders of magnitude less likely to die during your journey.

I never felt "unsafe", but as soon as I could afford to drive to work, I chose that.

was it convenience?

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#926

Post by pas »

vel0city wrote: post #800
graemep wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the consequences? About 1% of cars do not have insurance in the UK at any given time. > When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live. In cities, definitely. In rural areas?

What are the consequences? For most drivers most of the time, they save a few hundred bucks a month. If caught, they'll issue a ticket with a fine that's about a month or two of insurance. Maybe their car will get impounded (unlikely). Maybe they'll face jail time with enough repeat offenses, but once again its unlikely they'll get pulled over in the first place. We'll just continue crushing the poor. The consequence…

hundreds? what!?

why is it so expensive? :0

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#927

Post by tremon »

afavour wrote: post #695
xandrius wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being more strict with people who break driving laws, I don't see why that shouldn't happen.

"make people depend on the thing and that will incentivize the government to make it better" feels like logic that doesn't play out in reality.

It only works in places where the government works for the people.

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#928

Post by smeej »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #477
smeej wrote: post #472

Why are typical passenger vehicles even sold with the ability to go so fast? Or perhaps more pertinently, why aren't any typical passenger vehicles I've ever heard of sold without the ability to go so fast? I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph. Many who only rarely leave their cities and would be happy to use alternate transportation if they…

Because people dont want to buy cars that cant go over 100 mph. > I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph You are empirically wrong I think.

How can you make an empirical assessment when one of the options isn't available?

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#929

Post by smeej »

twobitshifter wrote: post #482
smeej wrote: post #472

Why are typical passenger vehicles even sold with the ability to go so fast? Or perhaps more pertinently, why aren't any typical passenger vehicles I've ever heard of sold without the ability to go so fast? I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph. Many who only rarely leave their cities and would be happy to use alternate transportation if they…

There is always the autobahn. If systems like that existed endangered there could be incredible time savings. A related question of mine is ‘If cars can go so fast why do we not find ways to raise speed limits while keeping roads safe?’

I don't know what percentage of cars sold on the U.S. ever get transported across the Atlantic to the autobahn, but I'm willing to bet there are several zeroes between the decimal and the answer. I can't see how the existence of the autobahn an ocean away would actually be the answer for this question. Like, OK, fine, sell cars without limits on speed near the autobahn, but why the rest of the world?

I'm not even saying such cars shouldn't be available. I'm just asking why they're the default when so few people will ever actually care to drive over 100 mph.

Re: Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

#930

Post by sgarland »

ryao wrote: post #808
sgarland wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a significant percentage of vehicles are deemed unsafe to drive because of this, then removing them from the road would be a good thing. “Good” is not a binary state, and it’s also wildly subjective. If by removing 100,000 unsafe cars from the road, you prevented 10,000 vehicle collisions, but 20,000 people became impoverished, is that good? It depends on your point of view. New York State, being largely dominat…

They also could introduce standards gradually by grandfathering older vehicles into the previous lack of standards, which is what NY did. Newer vehicles subject to the standards can be repaired to stay up to the minimum standard. This largely avoids the issue of impoverishment. You can read about the 85th percentile principle here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=85th+percentile+speed https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=8…

Thanks for the links, I appreciate it.

The GScholar link had many studies, yes. I found some conflicting opinions.

Institute of Transportation Studies, UC California [0]:

“There is, however, no empirical study that demonstrates that the 85th percentile rule optimizes safety.”

Hilda Ofori-Addo, University of Louisiana [1]:

“85th percentile speeds of vehicles are greatly affected by roadway characteristics. Therefore, roadway characteristics should be considered as equally important…”

I’ll note that this also had the lowest rate of crashes when vehicle speeds were [0]: https://escholarship.org/content/qt5hg5m6sm/qt5hg5m6sm.pdf

[1]: https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/PFT/2/gUjrJ?_s=mHpv4T4%...

Post reply on HN