How about making it mandatory only for repeat speeding offenders (a legitimate use of government force to protect the innocent and a condition for the speeder to keep driving)--but otherwise provide incentives for voluntary participation?
I’d happily sign up to lower my insurance rate and keep my term drivers safer!
Speed is really a multiplier. A mistake as speed is more difficult to correct and the consequences are greater. The risk is increased because the two components of risk (probability and severity) are larger. Yet other things affect the likelihood of accidents and one of those factors is skill. I am British but living in the US. In our town there is a traffic circle which is a big talking point in local politics and on neighbourhood forums. In the UK these are called roundabouts and they are everywhere and the traffic flows through them quickly and mostly without incident. but not here. First there is a lack of awareness. People race up to the traffic circle and then stop rather than slowing down, observing the traffic and speed-matching. Road positioning in atrocious, which means that at a stop light there could be a line of traffic waiting to go right on red, stuck behind someone blocking it off. All that creates frustration, lane switching (without indication) and speeding between junctions beyond levels of competence. I could go on but it comes down to driving tuition and the test. For my practical test in this state, I had to drive around the block, do an emergency stop and reverse a few feet. No three-point turn, reversing around corners, parallel parking etc... which you have to get right to get a UK licence. Also (but this may change) most people in the UK drive manuals which gives the driver a better appreciation of what the car is doing and makes engine-braking available. Leaving aside other (let's call them privacy) concerns this measure would save lives but then so would learning to drive. Now, this is all very subjective, so you may ask if there is any evidence for European roads being safer despite being much faster in terms of flow. The numbers are easy to find but you might find this article quite interesting.
The individualism baked into these issues is super hard to overcome.
It’s why car culture is so sticky for people. I feel like something like speed governing is such an obvious solution to traffic fatalities but people’s instincts that they should be in charge of how fast they drive, where they drive, and how often they drive make it super emotional and almost a non-starter.
It feels like one of those decisions that just needs to be made in spite of how people feel about it, and then the results can act as the way to convince people it’s a good idea.
It is important to note that the system approved in the EU after years of fighting was significantly watered down to the point that it is almost meaningless. It was originally supposed to limit speed but the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) says "The most basic system allowed simply features an audible warning that starts a few moments after the vehicle exceeds the speed limit and continues to sound for a maximum of five seconds. ETSC says research shows audible warnings are annoying to drivers, and therefore more likely to be switched off. A system that is deactivated has no safety benefit."
How about making it mandatory only for repeat speeding offenders (a legitimate use of government force to protect the innocent and a condition for the speeder to keep driving)--but otherwise provide incentives for voluntary participation?
I’d happily sign up to lower my insurance rate and keep my term drivers safer!
I think this kind of thing is the way: a mixture of carrots & sticks depending on context.
Speed is really a multiplier. A mistake as speed is more difficult to correct and the consequences are greater. The risk is increased because the two components of risk (probability and severity) are larger. Yet other things affect the likelihood of accidents and one of those factors is skill. I am British but living in the US. In our town there is a traffic circle which is a big talking point in local politics and on neighbourhood forums. In the UK these are called roundabouts and they are everywhere and the traffic flows through them quickly and mostly without incident. but not here. First there is a lack of awareness. People race up to the traffic circle and then stop rather than slowing down, observing the traffic and speed-matching. Road positioning in atrocious, which means that at a stop light there could be a line of traffic waiting to go right on red, stuck behind someone blocking it off. All that creates frustration, lane switching (without indication) and speeding between junctions beyond levels of competence. I could go on but it comes down to driving tuition and the test. For my practical test in this state, I had to drive around the block, do an emergency stop and reverse a few feet. No three-point turn, reversing around corners, parallel parking etc... which you have to get right to get a UK licence. Also (but this may change) most people in the UK drive manuals which gives the driver a better appreciation of what the car is doing and makes engine-braking available. Leaving aside other (let's call them privacy) concerns this measure would save lives but then so would learning to drive. Now, this is all very subjective, so you may ask if there is any evidence for European roads being safer despite being much faster in terms of flow. The numbers are easy to find but you might find this article quite interesting.
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/road-deaths-us-eu/#:~:text=Most%20EU%20member%20states%20have,half%20of%20all%20U.S.%20states.
The individualism baked into these issues is super hard to overcome.
It’s why car culture is so sticky for people. I feel like something like speed governing is such an obvious solution to traffic fatalities but people’s instincts that they should be in charge of how fast they drive, where they drive, and how often they drive make it super emotional and almost a non-starter.
It feels like one of those decisions that just needs to be made in spite of how people feel about it, and then the results can act as the way to convince people it’s a good idea.
It is important to note that the system approved in the EU after years of fighting was significantly watered down to the point that it is almost meaningless. It was originally supposed to limit speed but the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) says "The most basic system allowed simply features an audible warning that starts a few moments after the vehicle exceeds the speed limit and continues to sound for a maximum of five seconds. ETSC says research shows audible warnings are annoying to drivers, and therefore more likely to be switched off. A system that is deactivated has no safety benefit."
Billions upon billions of driving trips monthly here in America with 1000 lost to speeding.
Ridiculous to further limit everyone's everything, when it is only ever selectively enforced.
There is Genocide afoot, Sherlock