LogFAQs > #904944757

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The speed limit is not inherently reasonable as all cars vary.

And that variance is already taken into consideration in the design of the speed limit. In essence, the speed limit is the maximum speed you're supposed to be going under ideal circumstances. If there are other factors that would impact your ability to stop - bad road conditions, poor visibility, worn out brakes on your vehicle - you are supposed to drive slower than the speed limit. Hell, in theory cops can ticket you for dangerous driving even if you're going less than the speed limit if the conditions mean that travelling at the speed limit is unsafe (in practice, that particular law is seldom enforced, but it is on the books in most Western countries).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you want to take your "all parties are responsible" line to its logical conclusion, no car should be driven at a speed where a collision can bruise a pedestrian or scuff the car.

That, again, is the idea. A speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed where, if an obstacle were to appear on the road ahead, you would have sufficient time to stop without making contact with the obstacle.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Speed limits and penalties aren't helpful, reckless driving is what should be enforced.

The problem with "reckless driving" is that it's an entirely subjective charge, and that makes it widely open to interpretation, causing headaches on all sides. Drivers don't like it, because a cop having a bad day can accuse you of driving recklessly even though you weren't breaking any specific laws; similarly, cops don't like it because it's far easier to challenge in court, since it's relying primarily on the officer's own judgement. Hence why, in most nations I'm familiar with, reckless driving is only filed in the most extreme cases (e.g. driving >50km over the speed limit, instances where a collision occurred or the driver lost control of their vehicle, etc.) where there is almost no argument that the driver was being unsafe.

Speed limits are much nicer that way, because they are a quantitative metric that is easily verified. Saying, "you took that corner too fast, so I'm charging you with reckless driving" is a pretty flimsy argument; saying, "the speed limit's 50 and you were doing 70" is much clearer.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And to kill the responsibility line, you are responsible for your crashes even when you weren't at fault, you take responsibility by paying for crashes/insurance, it doesn't mandate you drive sensibly, only that you take responsibility for the results.

Yes, paying for crashes/insurance doesn't mandate that you drive sensibly; that's why we have laws, including speed limit laws.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!