Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Again: "exceeding arbitrary limits" does not equate with "driving recklessly".

A safe speed to drive at depends on all sorts of factors that are not included in the posted speed limit, including the amount of traffic around, the amount of pedestrians around, the weather, how much sleep you've had, what car you're driving.

The only fair way to enforce it is to check whether anyone was actually harmed by your actions. If nobody is harmed, no harm was done.




I entirely agree that safe-driving speed depends on numerous factors. Some specific to the driver and vehicle. Some general. But the problem is that speed differentials are far more hazardous than speed per se.

In some places, there's a requirement for slow drivers to pull over, allowing other traffic to pass. In Mexico, slow drivers tend to use the shoulder. But even on multi-lane roads, speed differentials are hazardous.


Why should I wait until your fist makes contact with my face to consider your action a harmful crime? That's absurd.


How do you conclude that speed limits are arbitrary? Speed limits depend on the circumstances, and in combination with all the other traffic measures orchestrate the use of roads for drivers and pedestrians. If there's a certain speed limit on a road, people expect the other users of the road to obey them limits, and behave accordingly. It's like in an orchestra, everyone depends on everyone else, if one player is out of sync, the whole piece sounds off.


If speed limits aren't set based on a real world survey of organic driving speeds on a given road segment then they are 100% arbitrary. In the vast majority of the U.S. it's just a number that a bureaucrat picks for any number of reasons that aren't related to actual safety.

Anyone complaining about speeding on this thread needs to spend some time reading up on the available research. For example, on the highway the drivers with the lowest accident rate tend to go 10mph over the limit. There are many more findings along these lines that should piss off any safe driver that likes to go at an appropriate speed for their own vehicle/reflexes/conditions.


I cannot disagree with this line of reasoning at all - the whole idea behind reckless is a disregard for danger or consequence, not the actual consequence itself.

I was younger and first got a license, for sure my friends and I would drive faster than we could reasonably react to a sudden change or would purposefully spin out or fish tail when there was snow; no one was ever hurt but I considered it reckless then and still do. Just because we were lucky and didnt hurt someone or cause damage it doesnt mean it wasnt a reckless maneauver. A single change, a patch of ice we didnt see, slipped the clutch, misjudged the stopping distance, and it easily could have been an accident.

Recklessness can't be judged just by "did anyone get hurt?"; that defies the definition of the concept. I'm not able to argue the data on speed limits, but we're certainly told they're not arbitrary. Likewise, it at least sets an expectation as to what vehicles on the road will be doing. I have seen and have been a person who felt 60 mph in a residential was a fine idea, but just because we didn't hurt someone those times doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's better to have some consistency than people just driving what feels right, and removing the limits removes the ability for us to correct judgement of those who are clearly erring in their judgement. (If there's no law, there's no consequence unless they cause harm, which is someone else paying for their lesson; hardly a fair proposition)

If we think limits are too low, the answer is "prove it with evidence and change the limits." Make a case, back it with data, and get it out there. It's not just do whatever you want.


Well there are two options wrt controlling speed, one are the limits so that everyone kniws what to do and expect, and the second is bumps, e.g. London where driving on tarmac is as comfortable as driving down on steps. It's not reasonable to trust people driving tonnes of steel with liters of flammables inside impeccably at high speeds, especially in residential areas where roads are more like a tightly knit cobweb than a straight line from a to b.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: