7 ms·

Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.

by nslsm 5mo ago

trehalose 5mo ago
If he hasn't, then why would he refuse to say so?
- garciasn 5mo ago
  > If he hasn't, then why would he refuse to say so? Because he doesn't need to nor should he respond to a blogger? We continually point out that no one should ever talk to the police, the same absolutely goes for the media, particularly when you're a civil servant.
rationalist 5mo ago
When I go faster than usual, I always slow down around other traffic. So if the law accounted for that, that would be nice. It seems silly to be pulled over if you're the only one on the road. However I can understand that slower speeds can reduce catastrophic results if a tire blows. I suppose it's akin to wearing seatbelts: As long as you're driving reasonably around other traffic and only speeding when you're by yourself, then the law primarily is there to protect the one person. Edit: is there something wrong with my comment?
- kordlessagain 5mo ago
  I would say you are rationalizing as is the parent of your reply, whose own reply is now invisible as it's been dv into oblivion. Statistically if you speed the chances of a mishap increase. It's just a fact of observation. You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you, and HN has judged you accordingly.
  - rationalist 5mo ago
    First, thank you for replying to my edit. > You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you I reread my comment, and I don't see that at all. The only thing I said about me is that sometimes I drive faster than usual, which is not even an admission of exceeding the speed limit. Most of the time I set my cruise control to the speed limit, and it is surprising how many people I pass that way.
- addled 5mo ago
  Does the person have children? If so then the law benefits more than just the driver, even if they are the only one on the road. We already have a precedent of compelling parents to pay child-support. I don’t know if I’m really advocating for a nanny state, but last month I went to the funeral of a friend that was driving without a seatbelt and was alone on the road. Now his pregnant wife has to raise their child alone. I guess what I’m trying to say is: Wear a seatbelt. You may not have any concern for your own safety, but there’s probably somebody who does.
  - rationalist 5mo ago
    I agree with wearing seatbelts. I always wear mine. In fact, I hate the feeling of not wearing it. I like to be positioned securely in one spot when driving. However, should it be illegal for someone with no dependants?
    - nemomarx 5mo ago
      At a certain narrow point, what's the use of carving out a particular class of people from a general "use seatbelts in cars" law? I suppose logically though someone with no dependents who signed some sort of waiver could be allowed, but it complicates enforcement measures quite a lot either way.
ceejayoz 5mo ago
> Among the questions he would not answer was: “While driving the RAM 1500, have you been involved in a collision with a car, pedestrian or cyclist?” (We can’t independently find that out because license plates are not in the city database of crashes for some reason.)
noja 5mo ago
Nobody knows. He was driving too fast to get his plate.
OutOfHere 5mo ago
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.
- iso1631 5mo ago
  > 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 5mo ago
    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 5mo ago
condensedcrab 5mo ago
It's not so much whether someone has hit anyone - speeding laws exist for a good reason to protect other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. There's a good reason that school zones are 25 mph for survivability in the case of a car hitting a pedestrian (especially for small children). There's certainly issues with speeding laws and enforcement, but at the end of the day the US is so car-centric that removing someone's license for dangerous driving can severely impact their ability to get to work, etc.
ImJasonH 5mo ago
Reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU
tverbeure 5mo ago
Would you apply the same reason to drunk driving? If not, why?
- nslsm 5mo ago
  …yes? My point is if someone can break the law 547 times and no one is affected then the law is stupid.
  - tverbeure 5mo ago
    Your point is wrong. The offender may be an exceptionally alert driver who doesn't get into an accident, unlike the average person (and statistics show that higher speed results in a higher accident rate.) You also ignore the claim made by the article that it is not known how many accidents are made by the offender, because the license plate data isn't available. Or the fact that the offender is a cop and we all know how they tend to be treated differently by other cops. Maybe you want to system where the speed limit is variable and based on some driving aptitude test. What could possibly go wrong with that.

Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.

by nslsm 5mo ago

Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.

trehalose 5mo ago

If he hasn't, then why would he refuse to say so?

garciasn 5mo ago
> If he hasn't, then why would he refuse to say so? Because he doesn't need to nor should he respond to a blogger? We continually point out that no one should ever talk to the police, the same absolutely goes for the media, particularly when you're a civil servant.

rationalist 5mo ago

When I go faster than usual, I always slow down around other traffic. So if the law accounted for that, that would be nice. It seems silly to be pulled over if you're the only one on the road. However I can understand that slower speeds can reduce catastrophic results if a tire blows. I suppose it's akin to wearing seatbelts: As long as you're driving reasonably around other traffic and only speeding when you're by yourself, then the law primarily is there to protect the one person. Edit: is there something wrong with my comment?

kordlessagain 5mo ago
I would say you are rationalizing as is the parent of your reply, whose own reply is now invisible as it's been dv into oblivion. Statistically if you speed the chances of a mishap increase. It's just a fact of observation. You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you, and HN has judged you accordingly.
- rationalist 5mo ago
  First, thank you for replying to my edit. > You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you I reread my comment, and I don't see that at all. The only thing I said about me is that sometimes I drive faster than usual, which is not even an admission of exceeding the speed limit. Most of the time I set my cruise control to the speed limit, and it is surprising how many people I pass that way.
addled 5mo ago
Does the person have children? If so then the law benefits more than just the driver, even if they are the only one on the road. We already have a precedent of compelling parents to pay child-support. I don’t know if I’m really advocating for a nanny state, but last month I went to the funeral of a friend that was driving without a seatbelt and was alone on the road. Now his pregnant wife has to raise their child alone. I guess what I’m trying to say is: Wear a seatbelt. You may not have any concern for your own safety, but there’s probably somebody who does.
- rationalist 5mo ago
  I agree with wearing seatbelts. I always wear mine. In fact, I hate the feeling of not wearing it. I like to be positioned securely in one spot when driving. However, should it be illegal for someone with no dependants?
  - nemomarx 5mo ago
    At a certain narrow point, what's the use of carving out a particular class of people from a general "use seatbelts in cars" law? I suppose logically though someone with no dependents who signed some sort of waiver could be allowed, but it complicates enforcement measures quite a lot either way.

ceejayoz 5mo ago

> Among the questions he would not answer was: “While driving the RAM 1500, have you been involved in a collision with a car, pedestrian or cyclist?” (We can’t independently find that out because license plates are not in the city database of crashes for some reason.)

noja 5mo ago

Nobody knows. He was driving too fast to get his plate.

OutOfHere 5mo ago

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.

iso1631 5mo ago
> 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 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago

condensedcrab 5mo ago

It's not so much whether someone has hit anyone - speeding laws exist for a good reason to protect other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. There's a good reason that school zones are 25 mph for survivability in the case of a car hitting a pedestrian (especially for small children). There's certainly issues with speeding laws and enforcement, but at the end of the day the US is so car-centric that removing someone's license for dangerous driving can severely impact their ability to get to work, etc.

ImJasonH 5mo ago

Reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU

tverbeure 5mo ago

Would you apply the same reason to drunk driving? If not, why?

nslsm 5mo ago
…yes? My point is if someone can break the law 547 times and no one is affected then the law is stupid.
- tverbeure 5mo ago
  Your point is wrong. The offender may be an exceptionally alert driver who doesn't get into an accident, unlike the average person (and statistics show that higher speed results in a higher accident rate.) You also ignore the claim made by the article that it is not known how many accidents are made by the offender, because the license plate data isn't available. Or the fact that the offender is a cop and we all know how they tend to be treated differently by other cops. Maybe you want to system where the speed limit is variable and based on some driving aptitude test. What could possibly go wrong with that.