undefined | Better HN

0 pointschoeger5y ago0 comments

The same holds for a lot of other rules, from public transportation tickets over legal fireworks and drinking age to softer drugs and taxes. Society as a whole seems to be generally fine with smaller infractions and I consider this a good thing, tbh. I would be perfectly fine with a similar scheme for traffic laws.

The thing with speeding cameras is that they could easily be adjusted to allow for 20% (say at most 20kph) margin (which would be perfectly fine for me even on the German Autobahn), but drivers would learn that fact and adjust perfectly to just 1kph below that limit. This would then enrage puritans that would DEMAND that these MURDERES be PUNISHED. Sadly for some reason traffic law is an area of zero tolerance for some.

0 comments

dodobirdlord5y ago

Unsafe driving is a real cause of a substantial amount of death, and unlike most causes of death it is not over represented in the elderly, giving it a massively outsized impact in terms of reduction in expected years of life. Motor vehicle collisions are reliably the leading cause of death of teenagers and young adults in many parts of the world. People are bad at appraising events that are rare with high negative impact, so most people, who have never experienced the consequences of unsafe (or drunk) driving consider it a minor issue.

choegerOP5y ago

Unsafe driving is not characterized by speeding a slight margin over the limit on good roads (see German Autobahn for statistics, these are among the safest roads on the planet). Similarly, I am pretty certain that driving 40 in a 30 zone (when 30 is safely possible) is not the cause of most, if any, deaths. Causes are varied, but generally the situations where one or two meters of road would make a difference are obviously rare.

So to emphasize my point: Permanent and ubiquitous speed control is the wet dream of many people, but it's a proxy. These people have a problem with cars. And there are many places where that is absolutely justified (dense inner cities for example, or streets in front of schools).

Symbiote5y ago

The increase in stopping distance from 30km/h to 40km/h is significant, more than 1-2 metres, and much of it is thinking/reacting time, i.e. still travelling at 40km/h. People are much more likely to survive an accident at a lower speed.

"The results from one of these studies is presented in figure 1, which shows a fatality risk of 1.5% at 20 mph [32km/h] versus 8% at 30 mph [48km/h]." [1] (in typically British fashion, the actual data is in km/h, but this general-public version of the document is presented with miles.)

The difference is even greater at the next gap (30mph→40mph, or 48km/h→64km/h). That was the subject of a road safety video a few years ago: [2]

[1] https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-saf...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUX6LABCEA

1 more reply

hannob5y ago

I live in a city where 48 people were killed by cars last year. I am not fine with that.

choegerOP5y ago

Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't. But how many of these deaths would have been prevented by a 20% less speed?

andor5y ago

That's a rather distasteful argument to make and reminds me of Covid deniers blaming underlying medical conditions for deaths.

Kinetic energy is m*v^2, so yes 20% makes quite a difference.

Also, what's the point of a speed limit of x if 1.2x (or x+19) is tolerated. There is no good reason for a margin.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointschoeger5y ago0 comments

0 comments

dodobirdlord5y ago

choegerOP5y ago

Symbiote5y ago

The difference is even greater at the next gap (30mph→40mph, or 48km/h→64km/h). That was the subject of a road safety video a few years ago: [2]

[1] https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-saf...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUX6LABCEA

1 more reply

hannob5y ago

I live in a city where 48 people were killed by cars last year. I am not fine with that.

choegerOP5y ago

Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't. But how many of these deaths would have been prevented by a 20% less speed?

andor5y ago

That's a rather distasteful argument to make and reminds me of Covid deniers blaming underlying medical conditions for deaths.

Kinetic energy is m*v^2, so yes 20% makes quite a difference.

Also, what's the point of a speed limit of x if 1.2x (or x+19) is tolerated. There is no good reason for a margin.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse