People are missing the point of the article because the author doesn’t understand how cars work. Forget the quote about the gears. The point is that the author is advocating for electronic speed limiters in cars close to the speed limit. As he notes, these are required in the EU in the form of intelligent speed assist.
There’s a reasonable discussion to be had there regarding public safety vs individual rights with respect to cars. Of course highway use is not a right nor is being able to drive at 100+ mph on the highway. Strictly speaking, neither is safety on the highway. But we all expect and demand safe roadways if we’re to use them. On the matter of speed this sub veers toward the individual’s right to whatever speed their car is capable of. But when it comes to vehicle size the sub is nearly unanimously in favor of government intervention to limit the size and weight of vehicles on the road. In practical terms large, heavy vehicles are a hazard at every speed and fast vehicles are hazards only at high speeds. But conceptually, what is the difference? In both cases it’s a question of whether the risk to public safety is worth restricting individual freedoms. If it’s simply that electronic speed limiters shift the balance to individual freedoms, why do people feel that way?
if on a road the average speed goes down from 120 to 119 km/h, the number of road fatalities is estimated to be reduced by 3,8% and the serious road injuries by 2,9%. And if on a road the average speed goes down from 50 to 49 km/h, this is expected to result in 5,9% fewer fatalities and 4% fewer serious road
injuries.
I’ve always wondered if the evil’s of speeding were used as a scapegoat. Something that people want to demonize for their own profit. I know sections of road where the speed limits are seemingly arbitrary and the enforcement is much higher than expected.
And it seems that there may be truth to the exaggerating of the dangers of speeding. Misleading stats?
How would people profit from restricting speed? I think it’s likely about control more than profit.
And it seems that there may be truth to the exaggerating of the dangers of speeding.
That’s why I linked a European study that correlates average speed with fatality instead of estimating how many crashes are influenced by speeding. You’re right though, “speeding” isn’t the objective metric it should be.
My biggest issue regarding most of this is the enforcement of it all.
There are existing laws already in place to discourage and punish those for a whole host of dangerous things - speeding, reckless driving, DUI as well as illegal lifts, vehicle inspections to ensure safety of the vehicle, other illegal modifications.
The laws are in place, and maybe it’s a bigger problem in Texas, but I rarely if ever see them enforced.
Hop on literally any road at any time of day, and you will see almost everything I mentioned above. It’s a daily occurrence. And I have watched the police completely ignore dangerous driving and dangerously modified cars on these roads.
I think actual enforcement of the laws we already have would be a better step to take than mandatory limiters.
I think actual enforcement of the laws we already have would be a better step to take than mandatory limiters.
There should absolutely be better enforcement of vehicle-related laws. But the issue of speed limiters deserves discussion independent of that. If all the existing laws were properly enforced, we would still have the question of whether it’s reasonable to have mandatory limiters.
People are missing the point of the article because the author doesn’t understand how cars work. Forget the quote about the gears. The point is that the author is advocating for electronic speed limiters in cars close to the speed limit. As he notes, these are required in the EU in the form of intelligent speed assist.
There’s a reasonable discussion to be had there regarding public safety vs individual rights with respect to cars. Of course highway use is not a right nor is being able to drive at 100+ mph on the highway. Strictly speaking, neither is safety on the highway. But we all expect and demand safe roadways if we’re to use them. On the matter of speed this sub veers toward the individual’s right to whatever speed their car is capable of. But when it comes to vehicle size the sub is nearly unanimously in favor of government intervention to limit the size and weight of vehicles on the road. In practical terms large, heavy vehicles are a hazard at every speed and fast vehicles are hazards only at high speeds. But conceptually, what is the difference? In both cases it’s a question of whether the risk to public safety is worth restricting individual freedoms. If it’s simply that electronic speed limiters shift the balance to individual freedoms, why do people feel that way?
For some obvious data, higher average speed is correlated with higher fatality rates.
I’ve always wondered if the evil’s of speeding were used as a scapegoat. Something that people want to demonize for their own profit. I know sections of road where the speed limits are seemingly arbitrary and the enforcement is much higher than expected.
And it seems that there may be truth to the exaggerating of the dangers of speeding. Misleading stats?
How would people profit from restricting speed? I think it’s likely about control more than profit.
That’s why I linked a European study that correlates average speed with fatality instead of estimating how many crashes are influenced by speeding. You’re right though, “speeding” isn’t the objective metric it should be.
There is a large number of towns where a large percentage of revenue comes from speeding tickets it’s not conspiracy.
Google speed trap towns.
My biggest issue regarding most of this is the enforcement of it all.
There are existing laws already in place to discourage and punish those for a whole host of dangerous things - speeding, reckless driving, DUI as well as illegal lifts, vehicle inspections to ensure safety of the vehicle, other illegal modifications.
The laws are in place, and maybe it’s a bigger problem in Texas, but I rarely if ever see them enforced.
Hop on literally any road at any time of day, and you will see almost everything I mentioned above. It’s a daily occurrence. And I have watched the police completely ignore dangerous driving and dangerously modified cars on these roads.
I think actual enforcement of the laws we already have would be a better step to take than mandatory limiters.
There should absolutely be better enforcement of vehicle-related laws. But the issue of speed limiters deserves discussion independent of that. If all the existing laws were properly enforced, we would still have the question of whether it’s reasonable to have mandatory limiters.