[clort]

Incitement to riot is no excuse for rioting, surely?

Holding up a line of cars that would otherwise be driving too fast is not going to be the cause of an accident. The cause of the accident would be the driver who was driving too fast!

[nitrogen]

The point of traffic is to run an economy, not to parade at a precise speed for the amusement of deontologically obsessed nannies. If a line of traffic wants to go at speed+5, then the proper speed of traffic is speed+5, and going speed-5 is causing economic harm.

[TeMPOraL]

You need to balance it against the amount of disutility from deaths caused by the line going at speed+5 on a road where they were supposed to be going at speed. You need to also add the disutility generated by that line fucking up traffic flow in the nearby area.

Seriously, this stuff is to be determined from top down, not from perspective of individual self-interested drivers with zero context, little responsiblity and no interest of ensuring optimum flow.

Also, the general culture of aggression and disregard for law is something that is not healthy for neither society, nor economy.

[cyber]

Road speeds need to be re-evaluated every 5 years. They take into account the speeds of traffic that are currently flowing on the road.

[judk]

How very undemocratic of you. Sometimes the law from top down is incorrect. The experiences of stakeholders matters.

[TeMPOraL]

> How very undemocratic of you.

Yes, it is. So what? Democracy is not a silver bullet. Some problems it solves well, others it can't tackle.

> Sometimes the law from top down is incorrect.

Sometimes it is. And sometimes it isn't. I argue this is a case where top-down approach is the right one.

> The experiences of stakeholders matters.

I think health and life of innocent third parties should matter more.

[clort]

I think that in reality, the innocent third parties concerned about their health and life on a road such as this are stakeholders. Moreover, there may be more of them so their needs would trump the few who simply wanted to drive fast and reach their destination 2 minutes earlier.

I'm not suggesting that the non drivers should always get their way though. There are roads where cars are allowed to be driven faster than this, and roads where pedestrians are not permitted.

[Piskvorrr]

By inductive reasoning, the proper speed of traffic is equal to the maximum speed of the car, and anything less is causing economic harm. (#cc: That was sarcasm)

In other words, that would only work for a traffic system which only moves one way, linearly, and has zero branches. Out there in meatspace, things are...a little bit more complex. Intersections and buses and trucks and pedestrians, oh my.

[nitrogen]

To clarify, I'm referring to freeways, not suburban neighborhoods. No pedestrians.

[talmand]

Take humans out of that equation and I would agree. Otherwise, that kind of thinking gets people killed. Which, I suppose, you don't care about since you are more concerned over the minute details of the economy.