Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to start with limiting cars somewhere around 90-110MPH; IE, the fastest that anyone would ever drive on a public road.

Where I live, speed limits are routinely set artificially low due to a cultural belief that rules are meant to be broken. IE, if the safest speed is 75MPH, then the speed limit is set to 55MPH because everyone will break the rule. If the limit was really 75MPH, then everyone would drive faster.

I do think we need frank discussions about what is a safe speed to drive, and the general public's tolerance for risk, before "speed limit aware" limiters are commonplace. Otherwise, these just smell like a scheme from an "enthusiastic rule follower" to try force unneeded rules when these rules don't need to exist.

View on HN

> Otherwise, these just smell like a scheme from an "enthusiastic rule follower" to try force unneeded rules when these rules don't need to exist.

Also, a lot of these "enthusiastic rule follower" lawmakers who push for these things are really only interested in making other people follow the rules. They will find a way to exempt themselves.

> then the speed limit is set to 55MPH

The speed limit is set to 55MPH because the road services vehicles that weigh 600lbs all the way up to 80,000lbs. "Safe speed" is not a single universal number for a given stretch of road.

The laws even acknowledge this, as if the weather is extremely unfavorable, you can be pulled over for driving _at_ the speed limit as it will be declared "unsafe speed under given conditions."

This doesn't even approach things like construction zones, traffic accidents and other roadway hazards that can't be flagged in a way for the automated system to recognize correctly.

> because the road services vehicles that weigh 600lbs all the way up to 80,000lbs

The laws recognize that those vehicles are different. Where I live those vehicles are only allowed to drive in the right two lanes.

There's already a federal push to have speed limiters in vehicles like that and it is getting a lot of pushback: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fmcsa-delays-speed-limiter...

Again, That's why I said it's important to have a frank discussion about the general public's tolerance for risk. Otherwise, whatever authority is pushing for speed limiters under the claim of "safety" is just unintentionally taking an authoritarian approach.

> Where I live those vehicles are only allowed to drive in the right two lanes.

Motorcycles can't use the left lane?

> There's already a federal push to have speed limiters in vehicles like that and it is getting a lot of pushback

A 26,000lb vehicle, going down a 5% grade, with brake failure, goes whatever speed it pleases.

> discussion about the general public's tolerance for risk

The general public, famously, does not have the skill set needed to make correct measurements here. The discussion can only be on that is manipulated.

> Motorcycles can't use the left lane?

Trucks. It is very conspicuously posted 2-4 times a mile. See https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Ch... (I live in MA) and https://www.findlaw.com/injury/car-accidents/no-trucks-in-th... (To see how these laws change by state.)

> A 26,000lb vehicle, going down a 5% grade, with brake failure, goes whatever speed it pleases.

Don't get bogged down by corner cases. This is why there are runaway truck ramps when this is a risk.

> The general public, famously, does not have the skill set needed to make correct measurements here

That is how authoritarian leadership justifies itself. You clearly do not have the maturity to be part of this discussion if you have to resort to authoritarianism and "ends justify the means."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com