Right to endanger?

[sunnankar]

lol my mistake on the airplane speed limits then, should have checked that out first, my point still stands though, I think I'll go and research airplane accidents and cars and see how they compare because if I'm right I think we'll see a lot less airplane crashes than car crashes just because airplanes have far more space between them then cars ever will.

Do you know what Vne is? Go ahead and breach it, I dare you.

The problem with speed limits is that the State is involved in roads and driving at all. It should all be completely privatized. It would save about 40,000 lives per year in the United States alone. This massive human sacrifice is a great tragedy of having the State.

[hazek]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

You don't want to make me think you're threatening the safety of my well-being or the well-being of my family with your actions cause things would get pretty ugly if you did and didn't stop upon my warning, no matter how you did it.

Also you assume the road would have no owners and therefor no one making rules and enforcing those rules which I never conceded making your OP a fallacy of begging the question.

[nimda]

what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs

We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license.

if i drank coffee i'd spit it out about now

You mean peole with computer programmed cars can have their CAR tested to get a license?

which state(s)

Nevada, California

[Anon136]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

[FirstAscent]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

Do you not see how disgusting this is?

[myrkul]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

This is far too rational a sysrem for use by government, especially when local ones get so much revenue from speeding tickets. It's in their interest to keep those arbitrary numbers on the signs.

It might get used on a private road system, though, since it requires far less expenditure to enforce than a speed iimit.

[FirstAscent]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

The thing is you can sufficiently disincentivize these sorts of behavior with out controlling the specific behavior. i.e. if you speed and get in no accident than you are not reprimanded but if you do happen to get into a collision and you were being much more careless and driving much faster than the other car that the liability will be on you. This will both incentivize people to drive at a reasonable speed while simultaneously pretecting the rights of the individual who has technically caused no harm.

Similarly if a person drives drunk and collides with no one than there is no need to punish him so long as the law stipulates that should a drunk person kill another person while driving that he will be charged with first degree murder instead of manslaughter. This way the drunks right to drive while intoxicated can be preserved while by-standards are simultaneously afforded a measure of protection against drunk drivers (since such a legal system makes it in the interest of people to not drive while intoxicated).

This is far too rational a sysrem for use by government, especially when local ones get so much revenue from speeding tickets. It's in their interest to keep those arbitrary numbers on the signs.

It might get used on a private road system, though, since it requires far less expenditure to enforce than a speed iimit.

As predicted, you don't see how disgusting it is either.

[nimda]

Drivers with alcohol in their blood are seven times more
likely to cause a fatal crash; legally drunk drivers pose a risk 13 times
greater than sober drivers. The externality per mile driven by a drunk
driver is at least 30 cents.
Source: pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittPorterHowDangerousAre2001.pdf

In 2011, alcohol-related deaths were 33% of the total traffic deaths, nearly the same as in 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2009, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico made it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or higher. Of the 10,839 people who died in an alcohol-related crash, 7,281 (67 percent) had drivers with BACs above the legal limit.
Source: http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Regardless of myrkul's anecdotal grandfather, driving drunk does in fact increase the risk of a collision.

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

[myrkul]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

What this boils down to is a question of whether or not it is morally to force someone not to increase another's risk.

You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?

[nimda]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

If the subject matter were lighter, I'd be chuckling.

What this boils down to is a question of whether or not it is morally to force someone not to increase another's risk.

Perhaps it qualifies as defense. I'd argue that it's moral to force someone to not push any of the buttons we mentioned earlier.

You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?

As was said by someone earlier, there must be a line. Just about anything I do increases your risk by some amount, especially if we live near each other. Pressing the button is immoral, building a house is moral, pressing one button out of 3 is immoral, driving on the same road as you is moral, driving drunk is...?

Because driving drunk is a preventable cause of other people's deaths, and the risk to other people is rather high, I believe it's immoral. Driving drunk is not an essential part of your livelihood, while driving sober may well be.

[myrkul]

You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?

As was said by someone earlier, there must be a line. Just about anything I do increases your risk by some amount, especially if we live near each other. Pressing the button is immoral, building a house is moral, pressing one button out of 3 is immoral, driving on the same road as you is moral, driving drunk is...?

Because driving drunk is a preventable cause of other people's deaths, and the risk to other people is rather high, I believe it's immoral. Driving drunk is not an essential part of your livelihood, while driving sober may well be.

Driving drunk is a preventable increased risk of killing someone, just as is you driving at all. As you point out, just about anything you do increases my risk. If it is morally right to reduce my risk from you by force, then I can do so whether you are driving drunk, or simply driving near me. Pressing the button that might kill someone is not morally the same as driving drunk, or driving at all, because you are not increasing the risk that someone will die, you are introducing that risk. If you don't push any button, there is a 0% chance they will die. A person driving alone on an empty road still has some risk of accident and death.

[FirstAscent]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

[myrkul]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Of course it's a bad thing that the person the drunk hit ended up dead. I just don't see why punishing the victim's survivors by forcing them to pay for the drunk's (and so many other drunk's) room and board is a valid option. Especially when so many of those other drunks did not harm anyone.

You're imposing an unnecessary social cost, you who are so concerned with externalities. Now that's irony.

[FirstAscent]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

[myrkul]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

I don't expect such a stunted mind as yours to understand reality. Just go back to your Japanese Sci-Fi, and let the rest of us do the big thinking.

[BitBlitz]

I see myrkul is against speeding tickets. Because, if nobody gets hurt, no harm done, right? I should have the right to go as fast as I want, so long as nobody gets hurt, right?

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

If the gun doesn't go off, no harm done. But if it does, then it's too late. Punishing me now won't bring you back to life. Therefore, there should be some deterrent against performing the aforementioned Russian Roulette scenario. Perhaps it's even morally wrong to endanger someone's life?

Simply put; In many cases you can own things that can endanger others (cars, guns (for now), swords, etc), but that does not give you the right to use them in a way that endangers others.  In my state, the laws clearly allow anyone to counter a real threat against someone's life, including a 3rd party, with deadly force to stop it.  None of that waiting for the bad guy to shoot you first, crap.

Back to speeding... Near and dear to me, because 1) I instruct types of high performance driving and have seen how badly people can f-up when faced with handling a car beyond its limits, and 2) I live where Janet Napolitano's legacy includes shoehorning 78 speed cameras into the state budget as revenue generating tools.  Thank goodness the latter was repealed, but speeding enforcement was a hot topic for a few years, here.

Speed limits include a lot of factors.  The one that is usually absent from forum discussions are how drivers react to situations that they need to stop, slow, or change direction suddenly.  The US, like many countries, does not require drivers to prove they can handle cars with any slip angle on the tires.  In almost every situation I've seen a driver on the road start to slide tires, they wind up losing control.  I lost track of how many cars I've seen stuffed into highway guardrails because the driver grabbed the brakes as soon as the tires started to slide.  Speed limits are kept artificially low to avoid putting drivers in situations where they need to control a car at/beyond the limit.  I admire countries like Finland where getting a license requires driving your car beyond the limits on slippery surfaces while maintaining control.  (Probably why so many top race car drivers come from Finland.)  I'd say that any complaints about low speed limits should be directed towards either the average drivers, or the lack of training required for them to get a license.

[TheButterZone]

FirstAscent still using the Newspeak dictionary, I see (in quotes).

[FirstAscent]

When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.

Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit.

Which only weakens your point. Do you not think it's bad thing that who the drunk hit ended up dead?

It hardly weakens my argument. The drunk, by virtue of surviving the accident, can pay restitution. Of course, if he didn't, it could have been taken from his estate, but that's neither really here nor there.

Sometimes you say things that are just mind boggling. This wins the 'sick post of the year' award.

I don't expect such a stunted mind as yours to understand reality. Just go back to your Japanese Sci-Fi, and let the rest of us do the big thinking.

You're rather uncultured, and dare I say, stunted, by virtue of both your black and white and callous view on life, and your misconception of movie genres. It's Japanese melodrama (or Hong Kong or Taiwanese) for the most part - movies that have been voted the greatest films ever made - as in:

1. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
15. Late Spring (Ozu)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai)
50. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
59. Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
84. A Brighter Summer Day (Yang)
93. Yi Yi (Yang)

The funniest thing of all - your attitude has you deliberately missing some of the most powerful, poignant and most revered films ever made. And I warned you - if you mention films negatively, you're going to get lectured on your own ignorance on the subject.

[Richy_T]

What is crazy is that drunk driving does increase risk for everyone and that there are laws about it yet those who cause drunk driving accidents are typically repeat offenders either because punishments are too low or they simply drive illegally. Government is simply not in a good position to administer access to the roads. They can't simply consider safety and efficiency but there are many other competing considerations and some hurdles based on (quite sound) legal restrictions on what government can actually do (those drunk-driving road blocks are a travesty

The driving test here in Tennessee is a joke also.

[myrkul]

I'd say that any complaints about low speed limits should be directed towards either the average drivers, or the lack of training required for them to get a license.

This goes back to the question libertarians and anarchists always end up asking: Is it better to know your limits, and stay within them, or to allow an external authority to set limits for you?

For instance, I know I would probably not be able to get a license in Finland, at least not at my current level of skill. With enough practice, I could probably do it.

Speed limits encourage reliance on external authority, in addition to garnering revenue for the locality they're in. They encourage "average drivers," rather than skilled ones who know their limits.