This is a pleasant thought, but we can't even get most people to obey speed limits most days, even though it's far easier and we know it would save large numbers of lives.
strictly speaking, speed in and of itself isn’t the primary problem, it’s distracted driving in its many forms. speed only makes the severity of those accidents greater.
That doesn’t really make sense. If you’re driving too fast, even with perfect focus you could hit someone or something before your normal reaction time could recognize and avoid it.
you’re missing the second half of the random chance argument. you could also have driven right past a collision that would have happened at a slower speed.
I'm sympathetic to raising speed limits like any good Californian. But there's an asymmetry in the positions, in that more reaction time is universally better than less reaction time.
that’s not so self-evident. reaction time is a property of the driver, not the speed. slower speeds can lull drivers into slower reaction times, so it’s not so obviously asymmetrical. drunk drivers tend to drive slower than normal but have higher fatality crash rates, for example.
active driving and avoiding distractions (including drugs) are the difference makers, not speed limits. the reason people oppose this is because they want to treat driving like lounging by the pool, rather than operating machines that collectively kill a million people a year.
Allow me to ensure I understand your position. Overall, you believe that lower speed limits will result in more accidents?
I am certainly on the side of raising speed limits to 100 mph where possible. Or providing turbo lanes for "Class C+" drivers or something. But that's because I think I'm willing to make the trade-off in lives. Your opinion is more that we're making not a trade-off but costing ourselves both lives and speed?
no, i’m saying speed is largely beside the point when discussing saving lives in auto accidents. the critical behavior change we need is constant active driving, which is hard, but that’s what would make a meaningful difference, not lowering speed limits. people tend to drive as fast as conditions allow anyway.
Sure, but you work within the constraints you have. What we really need is a cure for all cancers but that doesn't exist just like no universal method for constant active driving exists. Given that, it's a pointless thing to bring up.
"Just have everyone be better at things" isn't a helpful alternative.
that’s a false equivalence. every driver has the ability to refrain from texting, talking on the phone, eating their breakfast, doing their makeup, reading the paper (yes, i’ve seen this), etc. and instead focus on scanning the road and their mirrors while actively controlling their car.
I'm talking about from the view of public health administration. There is no intervention available to us that will ensure a change in behaviour economically.
That makes no sense. The “collision that would have happened at a slower speed” wouldn’t happen at a slower speed because you’d see it coming in time to react and avoid it.
