Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu!steeg
From: steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Lawbreakers (was Radar Detectors (was Highway Driving Rules))
Message-ID: <89May17.145618edt.11073@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: 17 May 89 18:56:15 GMT
References: <9584@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <3217@looking.UUCP> <3225@looking.UUCP> <264@sickkids.UUCP> <1942@yunexus.UUCP>
Distribution: ont
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 97

>In article <264@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes:
>> Consider these three statements:
>>
>>   (1)  I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the
>>        simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly.
>>
>>   (2)  I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that
>>        it leaves me with more money to spend.
>>
>>   (3)  I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me
>>        to acquire more possessions at a lower cost.
>>
>>I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas
>>most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and
>>would be rather shocked by #3.  But what's the difference, really?
>>
>The difference is, in examples (2) and (3), by committing these offenses,
>you are deliberately preventing someone else from enjoying the benefits
>that could be made available to them had you NOT committed the offenses.

  I posted a reply yesterday to another person who seemed to
imply that whereas theft harms other people, speeding does not.
I answered that in speeding one raises the probability of accidents
for everyone (who is travelling on the same roads, same time, etc.).
Several people have written to me challenging that assumption, and
argueing something along the lines of "Germans drive fast but
don't crash as often."

Basically, I have been
reading all of the postings about the differences between European
(actually, everyone has been talking about *German* drivers -- most
other Eur nations have higher accident rates; this was in the NY Times
sometime last month) and North American drivers.  I agree with, and am not
surprised by, the proposed reasons for lower accident rates in Europe
(Germany): stricter licensing, more training on narrower, curvier
roads, more flexible and sensible enforcement, etc.  So, yes, I agree
with the following:

 1) For a given distribution of speeds for drivers, there are things
society can do to lower accident rates.  (The things West Germany has
done, for example).

 2) There are things about North American drivers, roads, and laws,
that make them "unsafe at any speed".

 3) There are particular morons on the road who are more dangerous at
55mph than good drivers are at 85mph.

 *But*, none of this logically implies that either

 a) Speed is irrelevant to accident rates, or

 b) Higher speeds don't increase the number or severity (in terms of
fatalities, say) of accidents.

  As for my documentation, I admit to having posted without firm
research into the issue.  It is not "emotional" factors which led me
to my statements, however.  (As a matter of fact, I am not only *not*
afraid to drive fast, I *love* to go fast, on land sea, or air!)

  My arguments were based on simple biophysical truths.  Basically, it
is a fact that, for a *given* level of skill, reflexes, good vision,
and training, a higher speed both decreases the amount of reaction
time available in certain dangerous situations (thereby increasing the
chance of accidents), *and* increases the momentum of one of the
moving objects in any collision (thereby increasing the chance of
serious injury or death).  The latter (higher fatalities per accident)
is even borne out by the "experiments" (on the Autobahn) so often and
lovingly cited by the "pro-speed" people.  And I've heard no
convincing counter-argument to my first point about higher risk of
accident due to decreased available reaction time.

  However, I was not claiming to be an expert on traffic statistics,
and did not intend to convey that impression.  I was actually more
interested in pointing out to the previous poster that the seeming
inability to even *conceive* of how speeding *might* have an adverse
effect on someone besides himself was dangerously naive, at best.

 One thing that really burns me up sometimes (and makes me post
irrationally quickly!) are the limousine libertarians who on the one
hand believe that certain *property* arrangements are based on
Revealed Truth and should be enforced at all costs, whereas if the
state dares to tell them not to drive their Porsche in a publicly
dangerous way then we must be moving towards some kind of Orwellian
dictatorship.  (But, I apologize if I have misconstrued the 
intentions behind some of the postings.)


        -- Evan


-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg