> Many speed limits are set lower than they need to be.
...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system that the US, at least, aspires to.
> need to be
...oh, and vehicle inefficiency increases superlinearly with speed[1]. Until the majority of the vehicles on the road are electric, lower speed limits help fight climate change. Speed limits don't "need to be" anything, and picking lower limits when there's a good reason is good.
> On many roads, including freeways, the average speed of traffic is higher than the speed limit.
Because drivers follow this flawed line of thought en masse - which doesn't excuse it.
> Driving the speed limit on these freeways is dangerous.
I guess we need more enforcement, then. Plus, I've never encountered a dangerous situation while driving in the right lane. I suspect that there's an implicit "...in the left lane" on your claim.
> Driving the exact speed limit on many roads as shown by your speedometer means you are actually driving quite slow.
Citation needed for the claim that you're "driving quite slow". I've never seen a speedometer that was off by more than 4 MPH (measured as the difference between that and GPS), and a difference of 4 MPH when you're going 55 is not "quite slow".
> Repecting the speed limit as a strict rule is dangerous.
It's called a "limit" for a reason, and the only reason it's non-trivially dangerous is because of other drivers significantly breaking the speed limit, too.
This has inspired me to contact my local state's transportation department and request that they step up enforcement of speed limits.
Actually not accepting the given speed limit is a form of voting against said speed limit (especially when done en masse). Yes, it is not formal, but it is voting nonetheless. If the system was really democratic and not tyrannical then it would take it into account and would not resort to more control and punishment.
I guess I’ve always viewed it from the standpoint of, at what speed are crashes rarer and most survivable (do those even coincide?) I think a lot of people really overestimate the difference highway speed makes in their overall transit time. If everyone going 55 led to far fewer fatalities, better fuel economy, and less delays because of accidents, I’d imagine we’d do it already.
that is, btw, the history of why we have a 55 speed limit. In 1973 there was a gas crisis, so in 1974 President Nixon drafted the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), ostensibly to conserve gasoline.
> I guess I’ve always viewed it from the standpoint of, at what speed are crashes rarer and most survivable
They're most rare at 0 mph. In fact, they're so rare to be impossible.
Once you've accepted non-zero speeds (including walking), you've also accepted some level of risk. We're just arguing about what level of risk is acceptable.
The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are. The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation.
People seem to have a distorted view on what freedom means.
If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit. Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them. History is filled with people who "knew better" for the populace.
We have the technology to measure in realtime what the mass consensus for things like speed limits are. This type of voting is implicit, automated, and accurately captures the will of the people without friction. Right now, this technology has been hijacked by creepy advertising vermin to sell us things we don't need. I think that a time is coming soon when it is reclaimed and put to proper use.
> The users of the roads -- drivers -- are the ones who should decide what the speed limits are.
Correct, and there's a way to do that: by contacting your local transportation department and/or representatives.
> The current system is a type of tyranny because the users are subject to rules without input nor representation.
I don't know where you live, but in the US we have these things called "elections" where you can vote for who you want and the policies that they implement, and after the election they'll usually even listen to their constituents if they're contact on large enough scales. There's no tyranny.
> If the majority of users say the speed limit is 80mph, then that is the just speed limit.
You're intentionally conflating terms. The "speed limit" by definition is something that the state sets - it cannot be set by drivers.
> Localities which decide -- for what ever reason -- that they know better have the seeds of tyranny inside them.
This is absolutely crazy. One of the primary functions of a democratic government is to determine and then implement consensus, such as how fast cars should travel on roads. The speed limits around my area literally reflect my preferences. Taking the public's desire and implementing it is the exact opposite of tyranny.
Maybe you should come to the US, where we actually have elections and you can email your governor if you don't like the speed limit - it sounds like you live in a non-democratic country. In the meantime, you've inspired me to contact my governor and ask them to step up speed limit enforcement.
You are incorrect. "Voting", by definition, involves a formal set of rules designed to best measure the preferences of voters. "Not accepting the speed limit" is illegal, dangerous, kills the environment, and does not have any sort of formal rules or any sort of mechanism for measuring consensus. It's extremely undemocratic.
> ...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system that the US, at least, aspires to.
You've presented a false dichotomy here. Advocating for a change of the law while respecting the law, and breaking the law silently are not the only option.
You can also break the law while advocating for its change. This is called civil disobedience and is a very American thing, going back to at least Thoreau.
If you've never encountered a dangerous situation in the right lane, you don't drive very often or very far or both.
Electric vehicles are not actually better than gas for continuous use, they're better in the city when the traffic is stop and go.
Losing minutes (and hours) of your life for a minor improvement on the climate seems odd. Spending that energy on reducing corporate offenders (like shipping with bunker oil) would be more effective in achieving closer the maximum 20% reduction. Lobbying for better public transportation is better than slowing everyone down. (though it's unfortunate how often those lobbying want to replace instead of augment cars.)
If the majority of drivers feel the limits are too low, and the limits stay low, can you argue democracy is working? It's more likely you favor the status quo and know that contacting a politician is rather unlikely to get it changed.
Electric cars are more efficient in general, the relative efficiency is what I am comparing. Keep in mind, that the best path is to drive your current car until it's irreparable before buying any new car electric or not.
Have you actually contacted a state government and seen a response that aligned with what you consider to be moral? I believe this may be a fairy tale that politicians tell their children, corporations tell their politicians, and the rest of us tell ourselves to feel like we matter.
My understanding of basic physics tells me it's good for my health to match the flow of traffic, regardless of the signage. I haven't found that government makes similar decisions surrounding my health, or yours.
Ymmv.
> Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.
Of course. There is such a thing as a minimum speed for efficient traffic flow. Nothing's more frustrating than being forced to drive slowly. It actually causes road rage.
What about being forced to drive? Every time I find myself in a car in the USA I consider it a failure of local government to provide an actual good means for me to get where I'm going. In other countries I can go somewhere while relaxing and reading a book.
The speed limit conversation seems a distraction. Why drive at all? It's annoying.
I hate dealing with the other humans on the road and the stupid things they do. I hate the constant uncertainty, not being able to assume anything because people don't even signal turns properly. I hate the roads, poorly maintained, full of speed bumps, full of potholes, full of people walking around without a care in the world. I hate having to maintain my car.
I hate being forced to drive. I only do it because I hate other forms of transport even more.
> the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain
I have done this. It resulted in the gov asking me to prove it. I ran a study and responded that something like 80% of drivers (I don't have numbers with me any more) go above the posted 25 mph speed limit.
The results? Nothing. The gov said thanks for the data and ignored it.
To this day, that stretch of road continues to see daily speeding tickets given. It is not a speed limit for safety, but for revenue generation.
> ...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system
No, this would take more hours than there are in a decade.
...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system that the US, at least, aspires to.
> need to be
...oh, and vehicle inefficiency increases superlinearly with speed[1]. Until the majority of the vehicles on the road are electric, lower speed limits help fight climate change. Speed limits don't "need to be" anything, and picking lower limits when there's a good reason is good.
> On many roads, including freeways, the average speed of traffic is higher than the speed limit.
Because drivers follow this flawed line of thought en masse - which doesn't excuse it.
> Driving the speed limit on these freeways is dangerous.
I guess we need more enforcement, then. Plus, I've never encountered a dangerous situation while driving in the right lane. I suspect that there's an implicit "...in the left lane" on your claim.
> Driving the exact speed limit on many roads as shown by your speedometer means you are actually driving quite slow.
Citation needed for the claim that you're "driving quite slow". I've never seen a speedometer that was off by more than 4 MPH (measured as the difference between that and GPS), and a difference of 4 MPH when you're going 55 is not "quite slow".
> Repecting the speed limit as a strict rule is dangerous.
It's called a "limit" for a reason, and the only reason it's non-trivially dangerous is because of other drivers significantly breaking the speed limit, too.
This has inspired me to contact my local state's transportation department and request that they step up enforcement of speed limits.
[1] https://www.mpgforspeed.com/