Limits... Self Control... The Law

[germanos]

The primary reason for speedlimits is safety.

Humans are not designed to handle high speeds, our system just cannot handle it, be it the driver nor the bystander.

There is a reason that high-speed roads are seperated from slow speed traffic.
Still, if anything out of the ordinary happens, chances are pretty big the driver will over- or underreact.

[Sava]

Interesting points Donegeal, and I'm glad you chimed in because of your experience.

Originally posted by Donegeal

1) Speed doesn't cause traffic accidents, traffic causes traffic accidents.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_038174457.html

I remember this story specifically because it was in the local suburban paper.

I don't study the statistics of accidents, but speed, I'm sure, is a factor, if not a significant one, in a large number of traffic accidents.

To deny that it is, is just... well... wrong.

And nowhere in your post do I see a reason to not do what I'm suggesting. Even if speed is not the most significant factor in accidents, surely, it is enough of a factor that my idea would make an impact on the number of accidents that occur. And surely, that would make the measure worth it... even if it saves 100 lives a year... isn't that worth it?

If not... how many lives is worth your "freedom", to speed?

When you come up with a number, let me know, okay?

How many people could die, and you'd be able to accept it, just so you could enjoy speeding?

a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand?

how many lives are worth it?

3,000 people died on 9-11, and that basically lead to the whole war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, etc...

how many people die on our roads per year, I don't know... 100,000?

But yet people don't want to address the problems, nor do they want to give up the control and "freedom" of driving that is leading to these accidents.

There isn't going to be a perfect solution, but there are measures that can be taken to make things better.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just what we need, more government involvement and control amd less control by individuals.

what government involvement?

I'm talking about putting a chip in a car that doesn't let you drive 100 MPH when you shouldn't so you don't kill people.

and frankly, giving people less control over things like that is a good thing


this whole ideology about "giving people control" is idiotic...

should we legalize nuclear weapons for individuals?

where does it end Sloww?

if it will save 1,000 lives a year, is it worth it to you?

the big bad government isn't doing anything to you...

we are just talking about changing the way how cars are built

[Zkribbler]

Did anyone see the news video of the college kids...I believe it was in Minnesota or some such...where they placed four cars side by side on the freeway and traveled at the speed limit?

No one -- posiotively no one -- was on the road in front of them, but behind them, cars were backed up for as far as the eye could see.

[BlackCat]

Two things has happend here - one is that speeding gives a clip in your driving licence and if high enough, you loose it for a coulple of years; same goes if you have collected a number of clips. With that your ferrari guy would have lost his licence years ago.

Second - speed limits had been raised from 110 to 140 km/h on a lot of highways. The usual suspects of course said that the roads would be soaked in blood because of this, but after a year under this regulaion, they are biting the sour apple - number of deaths and injured are dropping with something like 20 %.

Speed as such doesn't kill - only when accidents happens. Driving fast on a secure highway doesn't kill, but do it on a small road where you can't see the schoolchildren pass the road after next turn do.

The real problem is that speed limits rarely is reasoned in conditions but in some general rules, and then people looses respect for them.

The raise in speed seems to have made people to respect limits.

[mrmitchell]

Did anyone see the news video of the college kids...I believe it was in Minnesota or some such...where they placed four cars side by side on the freeway and traveled at the speed limit?

Atlanta

Most of this looks to be stupid ranting but there is one good informational paragraph

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=12889

Substitute co-anchor Diane Sawyer narrated her March 1story over footage of a documentary created by Georgia State University (GSU) students who tied up traffic on Interstate 285, known locally as "The Perimeter," by driving abreast of each other at exactly 55 miles per hour, the posted speed limit. Sawyer then cited a recent ABC News poll that showed that 89 percent of drivers admitted to driving over the speed limit, while 24 percent admitted to doing so frequently.

[Sava]

and it's not that speed by itself kills... look at NASCAR (well, only as an example... please, don't start watching it... there are no studies, but I think you might turn into a cracker if you do start watching it), they go fast but don't have lots of fatal accidents

well

relative to the general population

I think

I dunno

maybe that's a bad example

but it seems like only Dale Earnhardt has been the one who has died in the last few years or so... maybe decade... and I think that's because he was all macho and against safety measures... dumbass... and then all the toothless hillbillies idolize him with the number 8's on their cars... but whatever...

the point being, speed doesn't kill if there is a skilled driver behind the wheel

and not all drivers are skilled enough to go fast, react to a changing situation, weather conditions, etc...

which is why speed limits are necessary for everyone...

and accidents can occur because you may have better skilled drivers driving faster than the flow of traffic and someone else makes a mistake... the other person made the mistake, but the skilled driver still was going too fast and although he/she didn't make the mistake, speed was a factor in that accident...

How many accidents occur in which one or all of the parties involved was going at or under the speed limit?

Very few I would think.

How many fatal accidents occur in which one or all of the parties involved going at or under the speed limit?

Again... I don't have any exact statistics, and I'm sure there are other contributing factors (like alcohol... which is probably the biggest contributing factor), but still... if you take speeding out of the equation, it's one less thing to worry about.

And it's really about risk reduction.

Couple that with all the other positive things that would happen from limiting speed and acceleration in vehicles (like savings in gas consumption, less non-fatal accidents, better traffic conditions due to less accidents, freeing up law enforcement resources)... frankly, I don't see why this shouldn't be done.




Also, about traffic stops and warrants... if stopping people for speeding is an excuse to not do this (because that's when people with outstanding warrants get arrested)... why, when a warrant is issued, don't the police just immediately go to someone's house?

Maybe that's a stupid question.

It seems awfully random and inefficient to me to wait until someone is stopped for speeding or some other traffic violation to arrest them for an outstanding warrant. And honestly, how can that be more important than saving thousands of lives per year?

How about this... how about if you have an outstanding warrant, your car won't turn on?

Then people with warrants either have to go take care of that, or they can't drive.

Or maybe the car starts, alerts the police to it's location via some GPS device, then locks and shuts down when police arrive on the scene.

I just don't see how you can use the whole "we need random traffic stops" as an excuse to not save lives.

[Donegeal]

Yes, Sava, speed is a factor in traffic accidents; but it is not the number one factor, not even close. Accually, I tend to think that there are only two factor in traffic accidents: Traffic and stupidity. And as we have yet to come up with a good way of regulating stupidity, this leaves traffic to be regulated.

Anyway... i know you are not agrueing about regulating traffic, so I will move on...

I had this disscussion with my father a few years back (he was a civil engineer) where he (indirectly) advocated for some type of speed governors. He was arguing that it wasn't speed that causes accidents or causes traffic backups, but that it was speed differential that caused problems. He said that if everyone drove the same speed, traffic would flow much more smoothly and there would be less accidents. He kept bringing up "average traffic speed". I told him I disagreed. There is no such thing as "average speed" or even the same speed. There will always be a difference, even if it is slight (hell, the closer the two speeds, the worse it gets). Take our computers for example. My clock is susposed to be universily set to CST. I suspect that your is as well. Now I would also bet that our two clocks have different times. It would be that same in governed speed in cars. There will always be a difference. No imagine three cars going down a two lane interstate. They are all "governed" at 65 mph. Unfortunately, the front one (car 1) is moving slower, fractionally, than car 2. Car 2 slowly kreeps up on car 1 and then changes lanes to the passing lane because he is moving faster than car 1. As his car is governed to go only 65, which happens to be slightly faster than car 1's 65, this pass takes a very long time. Car 3 comes along and his 65 is even faster than car 2. He is now stuck behind car 2 as he takes his regulated 65 to pass another regulated 65. The guy driving car 3 gets pissed. Road rage ensues and we all know that people get unreasonable when road rage strikes. Things get dangerous. Plus, we now have 3 cars all sitting next to each other for an extended period of time. This is were traffic comes into play. One of the drivers makes some kind of mistake (or, heaven forbid, that damn deer comes along again) and Bam! You got a three car pile-up. Now if they were allowed to go at different speeds (or non-governed ones) their speeds would be different enough so that traffic doesn't back up. That story about the college kids is a prime example of this.

BTW, there are some situations where it is needed to mash on the accelerator to avoid an accident. Regulating acceleration I feel would impair ones ability to avoid some accidents.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Sava
How about this... how about if you have an outstanding warrant, your car won't turn on?

Then people with warrants either have to go take care of that, or they can't drive.

Or maybe the car starts, alerts the police to it's location via some GPS device, then locks and shuts down when police arrive on the scene.

I would have no problem with this.

See what you can do to implement it...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Donegeal


I would have no problem with this.

See what you can do to implement it...

Sure...

just help me become SUPREME OVERLORD

that and a long list of other things will be implemented



(they are all good, I promise)

[SlowwHand]

Authobahn. End of, people can't handle it.

The real answer is to view a license for what it is, a privilige not a right. BASTARDS THAT CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT THEIR TURN INDICATORS CAN WALK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Atlanta

Most of this looks to be stupid ranting but there is one good informational paragraph

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=12889

It's a good thing I wasn't trapped behind them

I may have engaged in some "bump drafting"

Though, I'm also against banning smoking in restaurants and all that fun 1984 stuff.

[mrmitchell]

Though, I'm also against banning smoking in restaurants and all that fun 1984 stuff.

1984 = Big Brother watching you
Banning smoking = health concern
I don't see the similarities to be honest
The ubiquity of surveillance cameras would be a 1984 thing, smoking bans are common sense.

Besides, Imran, three major cities in Arkansas have passed smoking bans (Fayetteville, Pine Bluff, El Dorado). That means we're more progressive than y'all.

[Sava]

For the record, I support having surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities scanning high traffic public areas. I think it is a great idea. Hook the cameras up, have the computers alert police when there is a match to someone with a warrant, or a person "of interest"... (terrorists, suspects, etc)

Simple, efficient, and I don't have a problem with it in regards to privacy or "big brother"... it's a public area. If you don't want to be seen by people... DON'T GO INTO PUBLIC.

Plus, what about recording a crime? Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Video doesn't lie.

Although, I think there should be proper procedures set up... everything should be in the open, there should be checks and balances, and the technology should be good enough so that there aren't errors. I'm talking high resolution video... no freaking black and white quicky mart video sh1t here.

But if I had my way, I would take it to the next level... I'd do studies of high risk areas... probable targets, high crime areas, high traffic areas, mass transit exits, etc... and put police precincts nearby these locations... maybe even have plain clothes officers on foot walking "beats" for when the cameras pick up people who have warrants and such. That way, someone can be taken into custody right away.

I don't see a problem with any of this.

The cameras are in public areas, watching things out in the open. The police are arresting people who need to be arrested. The process would be open, reviewable... everyone would have due process of law, innocent until proven guilty, etc... the same protections under law.

Why is this a problem for some people?

Technology can be a useful tool for law enforcement if used properly. Don't let fear of it's misuse be an excuse not to use it just because of some fictional movie/book. Let the word justice stand for something.

I'd want the system set up in such a way so that I could still freely walk down the street without fear.

I don't see how instituting these things would change how our society works. It just makes our justice system more efficient. It saves lives. It's no different than how things are now. If the government thinks you are a terrorist or something, they are going to get you... no matter how much technology is at their disposal. If evil people truly do take over, we're ****ed no matter what... I don't see why we should let that possibility stop us from improving things and making everyone safer.


BTW, we can be freer and still have cameras everywhere.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
1984 = Big Brother watching you
Banning smoking = health concern
I don't see the similarities to be honest
The ubiquity of surveillance cameras would be a 1984 thing, smoking bans are common sense.

Besides, Imran, three major cities in Arkansas have passed smoking bans (Fayetteville, Pine Bluff, El Dorado). That means we're more progressive than y'all.

1984 meaning overbearing government. And smoking bans are nonsense. If you don't want to smell smoke, don't go into an establishment that allows smoking.

And I'm pretty sure that Georgia has more cities than Arkansas with smoking bans. Though it ain't like the South cares about personal liberties.