Hacker News Reader

So the idiot who drives 50mph on my street, which is 1/4 mile long, and has children under the age of 12 in all ten houses on this road should be allowed to drive whatever speed he feels comfortable? There's a lot of externalities to his behavior. My intuition tells me that in your world where people drive a speed they feel comfortable is why we have so many traffic accidents. I don't give a rats ass about how comfortable a driver is.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You're conflating all instances of speeding with "the idiot who drives 50mph on my street, which is 1/4 mile long, and has children under the age of 12 in all ten houses on this road."

Instead of being able to have a measured conversation about what speed is safe in a given street or area, we get hysterical fear mongering that does two things:

1. It causes the speed limit on a majority of roads to be set to a level that is well below a safe speed to drive, instead of setting reasonable limits in most places and then carving out exceptions in places that are more dangerous.

2. Your tone, both when talking about behavior you'd like to see changed and when referring to the other people whose comfort/time/opinion you "don't give a rats (sic) ass about", is alienating and all too common in these kind of conversations.

Both of these factors contribute to people, en mass, deciding speed limits (on their own) are never actually meaningful, and so they must use other factors to decide how quickly they should drive.

Maybe Traffic Calming should be implemented on your street, instead of posting a small sign that people will ignore?

> It causes the speed limit on a majority of roads to be set to a level that is well below a safe speed to drive, instead of setting reasonable limits in most places and then carving out exceptions in places that are more dangerous.

OK, I'll bite.

I'm assuming you're talking about the US. Do you really think that a "majority" are set to a level "well below" a "safe speed"?

You think 25 mph on a residential street is too low? There's a British video of how even low-speed collisions can be fatal for pedestrians.

I've personally found the speeds in the USA to be eminently reasonable. 25 mph: residental, 30 mph on undivided business streets, 40/45 for multilane main streets. 50 mph for minor highways, and 65+ for interstates and major highways.

Edit: And my actual main point is: A) Speed limits are currently set politically, not scientifically, and B) Yes! let's have this conversation rather than shouting down anyone who wants to change the status quo and painting them as a child-killer.

I'm mostly talking about the US, although I've since moved to the UK, but I still do most of my driving when I come back to visit the US.

As a point of reference, I'm most familiar with Chicago/Illinois & St. Louis/Missouri speed limits, and I think Illinois speed limits tend to be set unreasonably low (lower than almost anyone on the road is actually driving), while Missouri speed limits are generally more reasonable, if a little cautious.

"You think 25 mph on a residential street is too low? There's a British video of how even low-speed collisions can be fatal for pedestrians."

And places where pedestrians are regularly crossing the middle of the street are perfect spots to implement Traffic Calming, and to be honest, 99% of my complaint is regarding non-residential streets.

"25 mph: residental, 30 mph on undivided business streets, 40/45 for multilane main streets. 50 mph for minor highways, and 65+ for interstates and major highways."

I would say this is generally what they are set to in St. Louis, but they're systemically 5 to 10 MPH lower in Chicago and most of the surrounding suburbs.

Missouri has recently also instituted variable speed limits that change based on weather and time of day. This to me speaks mountains about the true intention being closer to safety than either revenue or giving cops the ability to pull basically anyone over.

Should be 60+ for minor highways, 75+ for interstates, and 85+++ for interstates and major highways outside of metro areas.

Fair enough. I now see that speed limits are set differently in different parts of the US. My driving has been mostly in the western and southwestern states.

No, I was simply providing an example of how your thinking is flawed. People simply ignore externalities when it comes to driving safety.

I'm sorry you feel alienated because I'm not sympathetic to unsafe drivers. I feel correspondingly alienated by your lack of concern regarding pedestrians, and the dangers cars pose to small children.

Traffic calming would probably be unsuitable to my road; it's about 1/4 mile long, and only wide enough for two cars. When cars park on the street, it makes it a swerve event when two cars come from opposite directions. Speed bumps might help to some degree, but from what I've seen of the drivers behavior, they'd probably just enjoy that.

I think you're giving drivers far too much credit for making rational judgements regarding speed.

The flaw in your argument is, "I trust myself driving, but I don't trust anyone else."

I am a great driver and people had been present when I got myself out of 'sticky' situations--avoided red-light runner t-bones, people merging into me, parking lot fender benders who don't check their rear, etc.

Problem is, there are plenty of bad drivers out there who would happily go 80-90 and drive recklessly in their parents' BMW (Palm Beach teenagers, anyone?). The deaths due to traffic accidents are staggering and it's a huge public health issue. If speeding is not illegal, then it could be difficult to show wrecklessness or other mitigating circumstances should there be a manslaughter case. IMNAL, but I think it could have wider and unexpected implications.

I agree that many speed limits are somewhat arbitrary, but I disagree with 'smart' means of reducing people's speed. People need to learn how to follow the rules or they don't belong in society... it's as simple as that.

The flaw in my argument is that I'm calling for reasonable and evidence based traffic laws and road planning, rather than making it a political fiasco that's more about revenue generation than safety?

Whereas your argument is, the status quo is fine, people just need to follow the current rules better, even though all evidence says people aren't going to do so?

I agree with the revenue generation/political issue... I think those unfairly influence traffic safety laws.

I think there are certainly some areas where speed limits should be much higher, but my point is that you need to balance your desire to drive faster with the risks of people who are not as responible as you causing major accidents.

Your counter case of reckless teenagers is a strawman -- traffic deaths have dropped over the last few decades. Previous Poster didn't say there shouldn't be speed limits, but was arguing against imagining that lowering a speed limit would generally do anything meaningful in reducing traffic speeds.

Speed limits, when using the textbook, are set by running a study of car speeds on a particular stretch of road, then setting the limit where something like 80% of drivers are at or under it. This survey is done with either cameras or those nearly invisible pressure strips they glue to the road surface, and most people drive through without noticing at their normal speeds.

If it's set slower for political reasons, obviously then many more people are going to naturally be driving faster than the limit. The primary function for this is to increase ticket revenues, not make people safer. Indeed, adding things to the road to make it feel like you need to slow down, and not just a speed sign, do more to control traffic speeds.

Alternatively, it's the one case where I'd consider arguments for speed cameras. Yes, they too only affect local traffic speeds (just before them and a little after). But if the concern is speed in a particular corner of a road, put one up. People will know they're there, slow down, and be safer.

It's not a strawman because eggregious accidents are the ones that generate excesive 'reactionary' changes to local roads. Particularly tragic accidents are the ones that can get political and media coverage necessary to cause 'knee-jerk' changes that are not necessarily evidence-based. The problem is drunks, immature drivers and seniors can and will continue to contribute to these issues regardless of the traffic laws.

Also, traffic deaths dropping is irrelevant because there is no causal relationship. It could be safer cars, more seatbelt use.... heck, changes in weather patterns or population densities could all contribute and it's going to be futile to argue laws may prevent traffic accidents. The point is that when an accident happens, laws need to be on the books so that people can be prosecuted for their mistakes.

So if egregious accidents will contribute to 'knee-jerk' changes regardless of traffic laws, it is indeed a non-argument and a strawman when considering the case of changing the way traffic laws are set.

I poorly supported that with the traffic deaths dropping bit, quite true.

Separately, it would be more apt to observe that traffic speed limits set not with respect to natural driving speeds are shown to increase traffic collisions, because speeds set too high will have some drivers naturally driving far too slow to be safe, and speeds too low will also have drivers driving too slow (the posted limit) versus the natural speed of the road which some will drive.

Maybe you should have read OP's comment until the end before posting your angry reply. He said, that if laws were perfectly enforced, it would basically mean that the set of laws would very quickly be trimmed down to the set of useful laws. In the examples you cite, pot would become legal, and we would get better traffic laws (i.e. "contextual" speeding laws, only when children are present on the pavement/only when the visibility is low).

I did read until the end. I quoted the end. He then added a second paragraph that is more reasonable.

In his initial post, Op didn't ask for 100% enforcement so that we would then get sane laws, he called for 100% enforcement because children are dying.

I do agree that full enforcement would likely lead to vey quick changes in the law.

"People drive a speed they feel comfortable driving. Full Stop."

Reminds me of this AutoBahn video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utOX6R4ImNg&noredirect=1

The only time a speed limit sign changes behavior in the vast majority of drivers (in the US anyway) is when a cop is present.

And that would exactly be the case, if you were tracked and got a ticket the moment you crossed the limit.