931–940 of 954 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why is a radar detector also verboten in VA? Radar != speeding
> Radar != speeding You think a radar return cannot be used to calculate the speed of a constant-velocity object? If a judge ordering you to install a speed governor because you keep getting tickets for excessive speeding is a proximate concern, maybe the problem isn’t the radar detector.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually not possible in the US. The US is too car dependent and as such it's practically non-viable to - put high (skill/knowledge) requirements on drivers (especially given that this normally entails increased monetary requirements) - put high car maintenance/road safety requirements on cars and in generally fundamentally changing driving rules is hard in general and also a safety hazard during transition. I.e…
As I said to someone else, look at NYS: 1. There are annual mandatory vehicle inspections. Driving an uninspected vehicle is illegal and you cannot get the inspection certificate for your windshield unless your vehicle passes. 2. The state requires a driving test to get a license (in addition to prelicensing education requirements) and effectively forces everyone to take driver education courses every 3 years by rais…
The problem is, it's only NYS. Not the entirety of the US. And the federal government can't go and mandate it without a constitutional amendment - and the last one has been passed over 30 years ago, so there is no practical chance something as controversial as that could ever become law.
The only way around this would be a repeat of the Minimum Drinking age, similar to what's being discussed for the "SAVE Act" - the federal government effectively forcing states to abide by tying federal highway or other funding to that condition. And that tactic is, let's be real, outright disgusting and trampling on states rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hybrid SUV halves its mileage over 40-45 mph which is enough incentive for me not to be a maniac. I treat the average mpg as a game, trying to maximize it for my driving pattern. Sucks when I have long stretches on the highway though.
Why buy a SUV then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is generally true for actions at every level of risk. Designing around how humans will actually behave is better than trying to artificially restrict everyone's behavior preemptively.
[citation needed] Preemptively restricting the space of possible (or likely) situations is the cornerstone of designing safe systems.
Giving system owners RBAC controls so they can choose who is an admin, versus not giving system owners admin privileges at all.
But more importantly, the point of my comment is that the axiom that everyone thinks themselves competent enough, is true at every level of risk. No matter how low risk something is, someone can and will still overestimate their capabilities and muck it up. If we're using that as justification to impose restrictions, there would be no actions that someone could not justify restricting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about interstates though. And from my New Englander perspective traffic mostly self regulates without draconian speed limit enforcement, it's the slow end of the distribution that is far more scattered and worse for road safety. For surface roads, I'll take our bespoke road layout over a grid any day. Although I do share the sentiment that driving in the Northeast Megalopolis is much more suffocating th…
I really like the grids for cities. Say what you want about traffic in Houston or Dallas but, though they move tons of people, driving their is way, way better than e.g. Boston. I don't object to bespoke layouts out in the country so much as that the "through roads" in the northeast are extremely un-fun to drive on if you have distance to cover. Probably bias from how I grew up, but when I have hundreds of miles to g…
It's not the roads themselves, it's the sheer number of people.
Also the definition of "through road" is much different. You can't just get on any random numbered route and once you're "out of town" you're good - because there is no "out of town". Traveling longer distances you focus on interstates plus a handful of controlled-access state/US routes. For example, don't get on (a non-interstate-part-of) US route 1 expecting a nice drive. They let the US route get built up with businesses and lights, with the expectation that trough traffic will be using I-95.
Don't remove the rights of normal folks not breaking the law because a few people have zero sense or respect for the safety of others.
Both sides of the isle could learn a lot from this kind of thinking...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just reading phrases like "sky-high rate of crash deaths", "Blazing-fast vehicles" (and similar ones throughout the article) makes it very clear that this is not an attempt to report news, but push an agenda. Reminds me of the "German news is different" video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jphacgBLrc0 ) that explains the difference between US "news" and Tagesschau (famous for being considered a neutral, trusted so…
After decades of reading internet news stories, my brain automatically starts deducting trust points as it encounters more adverbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The grand-parent suggested that the source of low German fatalities despite higher speeds is a driving culture that has respect for the "correct" way to do things. Can you explain how you think encouraging such a culture would be at odds with measures like cameras or speed limiters? I'm also unsure why you think it's "misguided" to expect those technologies to help reduce behaviors like illegal speeding. I don't see…
When I said that draconian measures were often opposite of what is needed to make roads safer, I was mainly referring to attempts to get people to drive slower on highways. Any attempt to force people to drive slower than the 85th percentile speed poses a danger to others on the road. If you do not believe me, try driving in the left lane at the 55mph speed limit in NYS in areas around NYC. You will undoubtably have…
Why the left lane? I used to live in NYC and when traffic was light enough to actually drive the speed limit I generally stuck to the right lane to avoid inconveniencing other people who wanted to drive faster. Wouldn't people with court-mandated speed limiters simply stick to the right lane?
> Any attempt to force people to drive slower than the 85th percentile speed poses a danger to others on the road.
Perhaps they'd need the "ATTENTION: This vehicle's speed is monitored by GPS" stickers that I occasionally see on fleet trucks in the city.
Regardless, this seems to be an objection to selective enforcement methods, right? For example, if all drivers are subject to the same constraints (whether speed cameras, universal speed limiters, road diet, etc) then not only would this not increase discrepancies in speed, but it would likely decrease them. Does this mean you would support such measures?
> Doing draconian things that are ineffective has an opportunity cost
Agreed. But that applies to ineffective things whether or not they are draconian.
I do agree that stoplight cameras have mixed results -- typically reducing serious T-bone collisions while increasing rear-end collisions -- but to be clear, when I said "cameras" I was referring to speed cameras, not red-light cameras. On the topic of NYS, their school zone speed cameras seem to have been effective at reducing injuries caused by drivers in school zones.
> As long as the distance between vehicles remains non-zero, collisions are avoided. Efforts really should be focused on maximizing the distance between vehicles, rather than on minimizing the speed at which they travel.
Due to human reaction times and the physical limitations of braking, maintaining a time between vehicles is more relevant than distance. That's why defensive driving courses teach you to keep about three seconds between your car and the car in front of you, more if you're hauling a trailer. If you're driving at 8mph that's only about 10ft, but at 80mph that's 100ft. So while I agree that increasing distance is useful, the distance necessary to ensure safe operation is a direct function of speed.
I heard of a few cases in which so many drivers were already breaking the speed limit on an overengineered highway that raising the speed limit did not increase collisions e.g. in Michigan, Texas, British Columbia. But otherwise the data is pretty clear that making people drive more slowly improves safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just limit it to 70 mph max, and require some sort of application to be filed to have it disabled. If that application can't be done at time of sale, most people won't bother.
Why 70? The maximum posted speed limit in the US is 85.
I think we'll live without that one.
But yes, 75 would be more correct.