[CamperBob2]

Usually, posting an Ayn Rand quote on the Internet is a good way to start a flame war. But there's one quote in particular that few intelligent people will disagree with, and that even fewer will be able to dispute.

  “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any 
  government has is the power to crack down on criminals. 
  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. 
  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes 
  impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” 

By itself, speeding is a victimless crime: if you hit something or someone with your car, you were doing something wrong besides just speeding. The main idea behind speed limits is to "make criminals," in Rand's words. They are a tool that gives law enforcement a valid reason to pull over virtually anybody and everybody on the road. At the end of the day, the result is less respect for traffic laws and police in general, but more revenue for police departments, municipalities, and insurance companies.

As a young driver, speed limits on open highways -- or simply the idea that an untrained, politically-appointed bureaucrat in Washington, DC has any insight into what's optimal for drivers on I-10 in West Texas -- were my very first encounter with the idea she's referring to.

[stinkytaco]

>By itself, speeding is a victimless crime: if you hit something or someone with your car, you were doing something wrong besides just speeding.

This is so untrue I don't even know where to begin. The number of accidents that could be prevented if people would just slow down is amazing. Icy, rainy, foggy... going too fast is by far the most common cause of accidents.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/knowledge...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-...

I said this in another reply and I will say it again, speed limits are designed by engineers, not by "untrained, politically-appointed bureaucrats". Of all the things you could come down on the government for, this is one of those first-world problems that just makes you look uninformed.

[CamperBob2]

Icy, rainy, foggy... going too fast is by far the most common cause of accidents.

Your mistake is in confusing "going too fast for conditions" with "going too fast for a sign at the side of the road." The relevant laws are more complex than your beliefs. Failure to maintain appropriate speed for conditions does indeed get people killed, but it has nothing to do with "speeding."

Under the wrong conditions, even driving 10 MPH below the speed limit can be suicidally reckless. Under the right conditions, driving at twice the speed limit confers negligible incremental risk.

I said this in another reply and I will say it again, speed limits are designed by engineers, not by "untrained, politically-appointed bureaucrats"

You can say it as much as you want, but this not being Harry Potter Land, it won't make it true. Speed limits are typically set by engineers by taking the 85th percentile speed into consideration, but it's trivial to find countless examples where local and state politics have dictated lower limits for the sake of revenue-raising, misguided ideas of what makes for safe driving conditions, or both.

[stinkytaco]

Considering all anyone has done is make assertations with no proof, I will take the view of the many traffic engineers I work with over your so called "trivial to find" examples, none of which you or anyone else has been able to provide or prove. I'm sure your expert driving skills keep you very safe, but I will count myself lucky that the 17 year old that cruises down my street at 45 MPH despite his percieved ability got pulled over.

Incidentally, do you propose that "too fast for conditions" be the law? I find that surprising, considering how much discretionary power that would put in the hands of the government.

[jrockway]

Speeders are falling for the old "99% of people rate themselves as above average" thing. Most people feel safe speeding because they have never personally gotten into an accident. The lack of consequences creates a feeling of being invincible, or competence at the very least.

The fact is, if you hit a person at 35 they have a much higher chance of dying than if you hit them at 25. We encourage people to drive slowly so that they have more time to react to unexpected conditions and that if they fail to react, other people are not injured. Speeding is like dumping toxic waste into the nearby river: pure selfishness.

[CamperBob2]

Incidentally, do you propose that "too fast for conditions" be the law?

It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

You need to consult your state's driver's handbook, rather than asking some random guy on HN. Chances are it uses almost the same phrasing you're asking about. Failing that, have a look at the Michigan State Police's site: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1593_30536_25802-16... . I didn't read the whole page but it seems to do a good job explaining the difference between prima facie speed limits and "basic speed law."

I find that surprising, considering how much discretionary power that would put in the hands of the government.

Artificially-low speed limits give them that discretion now, which is sort of the whole point of my mini-rant.

[stinkytaco]

>It is the law. The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

Yes I know it's the law. I should have been more clear:

Do you propose it be the exclusive law.

And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

[CamperBob2]

Do you propose it be the exclusive law.

I don't know. I'm not a traffic engineer, and that's the sort of question they would be best equipped to hash out. It certainly needs to be a component of the law, or a policeman would have no legal way to stop some lunatic who drives at the posted 75 MPH limit in a foggy blizzard.

I do know that "reasonable and prudent" was the exclusive rule on Montana's highways prior to the 55 MPH Federal NMSL law in the 1970s, and that they tried returning to it for a time after the NMSL was repealed. For whatever reason, it didn't work for them, and they went back to setting specific limits.

And the point of my reply is that speed limits are not artificially low, that's simply your contention, one that you have failed to provide any proof for.

Sorry, I'm not a librarian either. I'm satisfied that my position is correct and I have the same right (or lack thereof) to state it here that you do.

As far as our disagreement is concerned, it might help if we could drill down and find out exactly where our opinions diverge. Here are the premises I'm working from:

1) To optimize safe and efficient traffic flow, speed limits should be set by traffic engineers, and not by mayors, police chiefs, legislators, or soccer moms. (My main concern is highway speed limits, as I almost never find myself exceeding posted limits in populated areas, but I assert that this is true in all cases.)

2) However, not all speed limits are set by traffic engineers. It's indisputable that some are set for political reasons, and no, I am not going to "provide citations" for something this obvious. Subjectively, as my initial post in the thread stated, I'd go so far as to say that most limits are politically influenced. An organization such as www.motorists.org would be a better place to look for cases and statistics.

3) People who have the political authority to set or influence speed limits, and who are not qualified traffic engineers, almost always want lower limits than the engineers would advise setting for the conditions at hand.

From these I conclude that it cannot be the case that speed limits are always set at the optimal point for safe and efficient traffic flow. Experience as a driver suggests that speed limits are not commonly set at artificially high values. That leaves only one conclusion: that at least some speed limits are set artificially low.

Which specific assertion(s) do you disagree with, and why? I'd invite you to show this reply to your friends in traffic engineering as well, so we could see what areas they would agree/disagree with.

[regularfry]

> if you hit something or someone with your car, you were doing something wrong besides just speeding.

Only if you assume the driver has perfect knowledge of the nearby pedestrians, the road surface, what other road users are going to do before they do it, arbitrarily fast reaction speeds and flawless judgement. Oh, and brand new brakes.

Shit happens. Speeding makes it much worse when it does.

[CamperBob2]

Shit happens. Speeding makes it much worse when it does.

Statistics repeatedly fail to bear out your assertion. Promised increases in death rates that accompany increased highway speed limits essentially never materialize.

Modeling drivers as ideal gas particles whose collision rate is proportional to speed is simply wrong.

[regularfry]

When in a hole, stop digging.

> Statistics repeatedly fail to bear out your assertion.

Except they don't: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.p...

More interestingly: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/157220.aspx

I'll leave off the usual pedestrian fatality statistics here, because you seem not to be interested in that, and it's shooting fish in a barrel.

> Promised increases in death rates that accompany increased highway speed limits essentially never materialize.

From the second link's abstract:

    ...a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 mi/h on the average section would
    be associated with a 24% increase in the probability of an occupant being 
    fatally injured, once a crash has occurred.

That study looked at actual collision data. Where people had raised the speed limits, and actually seen actual increases in actual death rates.

> Modeling drivers as ideal gas particles whose collision rate is proportional to speed is simply wrong.

Don't do that, then. It's not directly proportional to speed, but there is a positive correlation. If you're going to convince me that speed limits are pointless and irrelevant, you're going to need to explain away some pretty basic physics.

[VBprogrammer]

I present this more as a interesting anecdote than a real argument but the fatality rate on the roads in Germany (where the autobhans have no enforced speed limit and seeing someone drive at 150mph is not uncommon) is considerably lower than in the US.

The reason this isn't a particularly great comparison is that driver training, car design and even the German attitude to driving are all built around the potential for high speeds.

[CamperBob2]

When in a hole, stop digging.

Always good advice.

  When the speed limit went up on 
  four stretches of road between Nephi and 
  Cedar City, accidents went down by 20 percent, 
  according to the three-year study by UDOT.

http://fox13now.com/2012/09/19/freeway-speed-limit-may-incre...

[graue]

Collision rate isn't what we want to minimize; fatality rate is. And the odds of pedestrian death in a collision are about 5% at 20mph, 45% at 30mph, and 85% at 40mph. Source: http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

As a side note, when claiming statistics support your point of view, please cite those statistics. Keeps everyone honest. Thanks.

[mbell]

He is talking about highway speeds not side streets in a city.

I grew up in Maine, I-95 while I was younger had a completely baseless speed limit of 65mph. North of Augusta there is an average of about 20 miles between exits and very few travelers, there is no reason what-so-ever to impose a 65mph speed limit.

I now live in Boston and I-95 north to Maine travels though New Hampshire (for a whopping ~10 miles). Everyone knows that you follow the letter of the law in regards to the speed limit in New Hampshire. Why? I assure you it has nothing to do with safety, just as the $2 toll has nothing to do with maintaining 10 miles of highway. The state farms income from that highway in the form of tolls and tickets.

I'll give you speed limits make sense in cities, but given the fact that I've lived in Boston for 6 years now and seen about 3 people pulled over for speeding in that time, it doesn't really appear to be much enforced. Highways on the other hand have absurdly low speed limits and are farmed for ticket income regularly.

[nitrogen]

I don't think anyone here wants to raise speed limits in pedestrian-heavy areas. Talking about pedestrian fatalities is not constructive to an argument about freeway speed limits.

[stinkytaco]

It's not an argument about freeway speed limits, but about speed limits in general and in principle. I don't know where "freeway" was introduced as a limiter.

[nitrogen]

Different roads have such widely differing conditions that it's not possible to discuss speed limits in general and come to any meaningful conclusion. Since the implicit point of an argument is to come to a meaningful conclusion, it can be assumed that arguments which do not terminate in a meaningful conclusion are excluded. "In principle" is also not an argument that will fly with a lot of hackers who reject deontology.

[aba_sababa]

My God, this is entirely, entirely, wrong. When you speed, you're JUST as culpable of killing someone whether you actually kill them or not. This is an old ethics issue: you can imagine two scenarios, both of which you do exactly the same actions: speeding down a road. The difference is that in one of them, a pedestrian doesn't see you bearing down on him, and you kill him. The pedestrian may or may not be there, but in one scenario, you're a monster, and in the other, you're just a speeder - even though your actions are identical in each case!

The right answer is that you're a monster in BOTH scenarios, and you should never fucking speed.

[westicle]

I think you missed the entire point of the discussion.

Where speed limits are set arbitrarily or cannot be set at a consistently appropriate level, there is no moral consequence of exceeding them.

Thought experiment: A geriatric, possible senile driver runs his car into a traffic barrier at 5mph on a busy road. In my infinite wisdom I declare that 5mph is clearly too fast for geriatric, possible senile old men and set the speed limit to 3mph. Is it then immoral for you to exceed 3mph on this road?

How about 4mph? 5? Etc. up to arbitrary speed limit.

You're conflating driving at a certain speed with driving at a speed which is unsafe, which is purely a question of degree. 10mph may be marginally more dangerous than 5, but that doesn't make it immoral to drive at 10mph.

Therefore, if you drive at a speed which is unsafe and likely to result in your scenario above, you are morally responsible for your actions. But there is nothing immoral per se about an expert driver, in clear conditions, exceeding a speed limit while maintaining control of the vehicle and being aware of their surroundings.

[CamperBob2]

It's a waste of time. My suspicion is that we're arguing with a bunch of folks who spend a lot of time riding buses, and/or who don't even hold drivers' licenses.

[vacri]

What a load of absolute tosh. Governments provide a lot more than 'cracking down on criminals'. Or are you one of these supposedly 'intelligent' people who see public schools as a sequestering station for criminals? When an industry receives a government subsidy, how is that 'cracking down on criminals'? Perhaps we should ask the street-sweepers how effective they are at 'cracking down on criminals'? What about firefighters and paramedics, how are they turning the common citizen into a criminal?

Why must libertarians so egregiously misdefine common terms? Why are they so wilfully self-delusional?

[CamperBob2]

Or are you one of these supposedly 'intelligent' people who see public schools as a sequestering station for criminals?

Try keeping your kid home from public school without obtaining permission to withdraw them, and see what happens.

When an industry receives a government subsidy, how is that 'cracking down on criminals'?

Try not paying your share of the tax money that the government is turning over to the industry, and see what happens.

Perhaps we should ask the street-sweepers how effective they are at 'cracking down on criminals'?

Street maintenance is not an exercise of "power."

What about firefighters and paramedics, how are they turning the common citizen into a criminal?

Fire/paramedic services are not exercises of "power."

[vacri]

Try keeping your kid home from public school without obtaining permission to withdraw them, and see what happens.

Permission is actually not that hard to get. Try talking to someone who home-schools their kids. As for 'see what happens', are you suggesting that the parents get jailed? Could you please cite some references? Because otherwise you're just using weasel words, leaving it 'out there' for the imagination, rather than actually specifying what happens.

I have to say also that it's a neat trick of yours to turn the entire educational system into a 'system to create criminals' simply because you think it's hard to homeschool.

Try not paying your share of the tax money that the government is turning over to the industry, and see what happens.

Uh... taxation is separate to subsidies. I know that libertarians try and turn everything into an argument about tax, but saying 'subsidies are an exercise of power making people criminals because... tax!' is just being childish. Rand's comment is saying that the government can only act through punishment, and clearly it does other things as well.

Hey, embassy staff helping out a citizen who has run into trouble in a foreign country... well, that's the evil of the government coming to the fore... because... tax!

Hey, government interpreters translating materials for new immigrants so they know their rights and responsibilities... well... that's the evil of the government coming to the fore... because... tax!

Hey, government-provided lawyers to represent you if you can't afford one... well... evil tax!

Street maintenance is not an exercise of "power."

It is a power the government has - which proves Rand's comment incorrect. Rand didn't say "Governments exercising power can only make criminals", she said "the only power a government has is to crack down on criminals".

Fire/paramedic services are not exercises of "power."

Ditto.

Libertarian arguments rely on the government being turned into a fantasy boogyman. All governments have problems, but how do you expect a pragmatic solution to them if you don't actually care about using truthful definitions?

[icebraining]

Governments have many powers besides cracking down on criminals, that speed limits are designed to make criminals is a baseless claim, and bureaucrats in Washington, DC don't decide them - federal speed limits were repealed in 1995. In particular, the speed limit on West Texas are set by the Texas Department of Transportation.

[CamperBob2]

In particular, the speed limit on West Texas are set by the Texas Department of Transportation.

Not when I was driving there, it wasn't. (This is called "showing my age," for the benefit of those who haven't had the opportunity to catch themselves doing that yet.)

Governments have many powers besides cracking down on criminals

What are some examples, apart from foreign policy where the basis of power is ultimately military?

[stinkytaco]

Examples?

Cleaning streets, putting out fires, educating, infrastructure...

As someone who's spent some time in places with no government I will say there are many examples, but punishing criminals is one I've become fond of.

[icebraining]

Controlling the supply of money.

[CamperBob2]

Think it through a bit farther. How exactly do they "control the supply of money?"

Hint: try printing your own, and see how that goes.

[stinkytaco]

This is purely pedantic, but making printing money illegal is controlling the supply of currency, which is different than controlling the money supply.

The money supply is elastic and can't strictly be controlled by anyone. The government will artifically increase it by printing currency or loaning money, however, which has essentially the same effect.

[icebraining]

BerkShares Inc. has been doing it for years now.