[OutOfHere]

I am of two minds about it. On one hand, speeding alone when done by a mature highly-attentive driver isn't really dangerous no matter the limit, because the driver has enough expertise to know what his personal limit ought to be. The residual risk is more from immature drivers, the mistakes of other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.

I have been on both sides of it. I have been the speeder who can drive very safely, and much earlier than that I have been the one to get hit by a car on a street. If the car had been going faster, or if it had been an SUV or a truck, I could have been less than lucky.

I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets, with heavy mandated use of automated collision avoidance systems. Moreover, I think that all pedestrian collisions, no matter how small, must be investigated thoroughly, with a hard action taken to minimize such an incident. School zones and other low-speed zones are a complete moneygrubbing racket because we already use schoolbuses which have protections.

Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.

[cmdoptesc]

> On one hand, speeding alone when done by a mature highly-attentive driver isn't really dangerous no matter the limit, because the driver has enough expertise to know what his personal limit ought to be. The residual risk is more from immature drivers, the mistakes of other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.

The problem is the vast majority of drivers overestimate their skills and underestimate the risks. Many people are also emotional drivers and will drive faster when angry or stressed. A great combo.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets, with heavy mandated use of automated collision avoidance systems.

So what are you going to do about all the millions of existing cars out there without collision avoidance systems?

Given all this, the easiest solution is for people to drive the speed limit, especially in urban areas with pedestrians and bicyclists.

If you really want to gas it, go to a racetrack or buy a motorcycle and donate your brain.

[jcranmer]

> the driver has enough expertise to know what his personal limit ought to be

It is actually somewhat amusing that you worded this as "ought to be" rather than "is". Because one of the big problems with most drivers is they have an overly inflated idea of how competent they are at driving (I am not so churlish as to exclude myself from the category). And our system does nothing to bring drivers' beliefs about their capabilities in line with their actual capabilities--drivers are tested generally once on their competence [1], and that pass result then gets to hold for several decades, physical or mental decline notwithstanding.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets

Most residential streets are not safe to travel at 25 mph, let alone 35 mph. There's a line of parked cars in the shoulders, children playing in the driveways, sidewalks, and street? Yeah, if you're traveling 35 mph, you've got no hope of stopping in time (recall that stopping distance goes to the square of speed).

> Moreover, I think that all pedestrian collisions, no matter how small, must be investigated thoroughly, with a hard action taken to minimize such an incident.

We already know how to minimize collisions. The top 3 actions to take are a) reduce speed limits, b) redesign roads to be narrower to make drivers less comfortable traveling at speed, and c) ban right turns on red.

> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.

Why? It's not like wildlife like bears, moose, or deer that wander onto the roads wear such gear, and a "mature highly-attentive driver" should be equally aware of such dangers.

[1] And to be honest, even that is somewhat generous a statement.

[OutOfHere]

Speed limits below 30 are lazy copouts by lazy people that have for decades come in the way of instituting proper safety systems that don't require lowering the speed. Making roads narrow is worse; it is simply horrific. Extending your depraved logic, disallowing cars on the road would work even better. Your metric is one-sided in that it accounts for wanting pedestrian safety but not driver utility.

If you actually begin to use your head, there are other ways to lower collisions:

1. Make roads and lanes substantially wider. This allows pedestrians to be seen from the edges before they come in the front of a car.

2. Shoulder parking is a pathetic substitute for a absence of multilevel parking lots, so these lots should be constructed and used. The shoulder parking should be eliminated as it is very detrimental to pedestrian visibility.

3. There should be well-maintened painted crosswalks, with a walk button that actually works, also with dynamic traffic lights to go with them. These exist at some places in NYC. No-stair bridges also work if they stay maintained.

[plorg]

What you are describing is a legislation of the attitude of the average careless driver in the United States. I should be able to drive however I want until or unless I kill someone, the car should be the thing that keeps me from killing people, and anyone who doesn't use the roadway like me should be responsible for preventing me from killing them.

[mindslight]

Spot on, well said. Personally I think inattentive driving is a bigger problem than speeding, but by the time someone is justifying it for themselves by saying they're safer than everyone else, they've lost the plot.

In my experience, the only thing that really feels too fast in a car is going faster than you've become used to driving.

And yeah, how someone talks about cyclists is always a tell.

[piva00]

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets, with heavy mandated use of automated collision avoidance system.

Why does it need to be so contrived when there's empirical evidence from many other countries in the world about measures which do make traffic safer for everyone involved? Why can't the USA look at that and implement what has worked? It doesn't even need to do the heavy lifting, it's been done, just improve measures which have already saved countless lives in other countries...

Or don't and keep killing 30-50k people every year in traffic.

[iso1631]

> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.

The leading cause of death for car occupants is head injuries, I assume you believe that all car occupants must wear a helmet.

All cars needless to say need to be bright orange

Any infringement should have the car crushed.

[OutOfHere]

I actually absolutely believe that all cars should be brightly colored. It doesn't have to be orange. It is an easy win.

As for helmets in cars, yes, it's a particularly good idea for small cars that have a lower collision safety score. An appropriate helmet should be used that does not obstruct viewing mirrors or the blind spot. Pedestrians too can benefit from a helmet.

[rationalist]

People should be taught how to adjust their mirrors properly so that they do not have a blindspot.

If a car is designed so that no amount of adjusting can get rid of the blindspot, then that car should be illegal (Chevy Malibu).

[OutOfHere]

I don't believe that is possible. If it were possible, it wouldn't be called a blindspot. Of course a mirror should be well adjusted, but I don't see how it substitutes for checking the blindspot. Try it in a driving test; you will fail the test.

[rationalist]

I literally have no blindspot in my vehicle, my parents' vehicles, or the vehicles I have rented except the Chevy Malibu.

When the mirrors are positioned properly, other cars transition from the side window, to the side mirror, to the rear mirror.

There is literally no spot that a vehicle or person standing in the next lane, is not visible.

[toraway]

I live near a middle school in the suburbs and it may come as a surprise but kids are frequently crossing a busy street using a regular, unprotected crosswalk.

[dpkirchner]

No amount of child deaths and dismemberments are enough to deny me the right to get to where I'm going 30 seconds faster. Don't you know how important I am?

[greedo]

Sandyhook showed that we don't care about kids...

[OutOfHere]

It is an engineering problem. Almost all pedestrian concerns are engineering problems. If kids are doing this, they should be instructed repeatedly to use the painted crosswalk instead. If there are no painted crosswalks, ideally with a walk button to press, there should be more, potentially also with traffic lights. If this is insufficient, a well thought out and maintained stair-free bridge could be better.

[eightysixfour]

Is your underlying assumption that cars should be have the highest priority as a method of transportation, everywhere? Do you live in a rural area or something?

> School zones and other low-speed zones are a complete moneygrubbing racket because we already use schoolbuses which have protections.

What does this even mean? Does every kid ride a bus where you are? Do your school buses have seat belts and crumple zones?