Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

What I would give for an eyeroll emoji. Yeah, I'm sure that the story outlined in the article of a guy that killed 9 people in a single accident while on PCP and cocaine could have been avoided if he just had a few more drivers' ed courses...

View on HN

I agree with your comment but otoh would a guy on pcp no be just as deadly at 90 mph?

If we doing this we should rather do automated reaction speed/sobriety tests. Had a friend almost die bc he drove the day after being drunk bc he fell asleep from being sleep deprived even if he was "sober" by then

Hard to quantify 'deadly' but kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared. 100mph has 23% more kinetic energy than 90mph and 56% more than 80mph.

Let it go, while your unrelated point may be true either way the car will pulverize a body so it’s a moot point.

This reductive comment only applies to car vs person.

The real world has buildings and vehicles that offer protection against impacts. The faster you go, the higher the likelihood of multiple fatalities.

I think that's rather the point in TFA: both the chance of accident and realised impact force goes up with speed, regardless of cause and fault.

We codify limits. What's the advantage of allowing higher performance hardware on our roads?

It's just: I can go faster, if I want to (or for some reason need to). I'm really not a fan of doing the Apple thing and to infantilize the user by disallowing sideloading because it's dangerous. The discussion got dragged to compare force and impact but similarly to train tracks, highways are usually a place of motion. People don't walk around and cars are usually also fast. We counter the emergency situation such as the infamous end of a traffic jam by adding brake assistants that warn the driver to brake and then hit the brake on their own. This kind of technology seems to reduce traffic incidents so that the most danger comes from older cars without this technology.

I completely agree, that we don't need hyper cars or racing cars on the road. But the 100 mph limit wouldn't help at all in cities. There are better ways like obstacles that force a driver to slow down or routing with curves instead of straight lines.

In the case in the article, when talking about geosensitive limiters, presumably they would have been limited to somewhere around the 35mph speed limit in the area.

35 mph is still fairly deadly.

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2011Ped...

Sure. But it’s not really on the same level as 105.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com