A slightly more relevant example is speed limit. Speed limits are generally kinda low. It's that we allow a whole lot of cars on roads. Pretty much any relatively new will be fine at 75, but highways have to support 40 year old beaters with bald tires pulling a trailer. If we had regular drivers tests, we could probably loosen up more laws around driving - but there wouldn't be as many drivers who could qualify.

We all try to strike a pragmatic balance. :shrug:

I think another example is banning alcohol sales because it causes DUI.

drinking is an optional/recreational activity unlike driving.

My comment is an analogy to the lockdown: That we've locked down the populace because a few persons are a danger to some.

Huh?

Most people ignore the speed limit, per their individual judgment. Does limits aren't magical safe driving speeds for all vehicles and weather conditions.

In my experience, most people drive roughly 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. That suggests to me that the speed limit does in fact have a mitigating effect.

>most people drive roughly 5 miles per hour over the speed limit >speed limit does in fact have a mitigating effect.

You got the causality dangerously backwards. That's not how policy works.

"The speed limit is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile operating speed (being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic exceeds),", as per [1].

Specifically, speed limits are not set by carefully measuring & modeling conditions on the road by direct application of science; there's no finely tuned measuring aparatus nor advanced math model. Instead we rely on drivers judgement aggregated over time, conditions, and locations. Granted, there are certain notable exceptions: bridges & tunnels where speed limit is also informed by structural constraints, and also fuel consumption reduction policy in cases like the 1973 speed limit.

And yes there are natural parallels to civil disobedience; in some cases limits got raised or lowered upon public pressure.

--

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Maximum_speed_limi...

This is highly regionally dependent.

For instance, when I lived in Virginia, it was relatively rare to see someone going more than 5 mph over the limit on the interstate (75 in a 70). I’m Arkansas, it’s very common to see people going 15 over (85 in a 70).

In Virginia anything over 80mph is automatic reckless driving, it's a big deterrent. Only speeding ticket I ever got as a kid.

Also I don't know anything about Arkansas but we grow up in Virginia being completely afraid of State Troopers pulling us over for anything. I've never lived in a place with more general fear of STs.

Oh, I’m aware. The VSP and I didn’t get along :)

I think strawmaning each other won't lead to any useful discussion.

How does my example not apply to the lockdown?

Drunk driving is not contagious.

In addition, drunk driving is a relatively controlled problem. That is, a relatively small percentage of the population do it and law enforcement is able to police it with a reasonable degree of success. On the other hand, it we had an epidemic of drunk driving where say 20% of the people on the road were driving drunk then it very well may make sense for the government to barricade the roads until they got things under control.

You argue that allowing free commerce on the highways is okay with a relatively small percentage of the population being dangerous to others.

And yet you argue that allowing free commerce in America is not okay with a population that is dangerous to a relatively small percentage of the population.

Different amount of percentages. You're not killing 1% of your population and permanently disabling another 10% every year to support free commerce.

In three months we've permanently disabled 10% of the populace? Where did you read that?

I don't think you realize how common drunk driving in in rural areas. 20% of the people on the road after 6-7 pm could be drunk in certain areas.

Edit: Found this as a support source, while not 20% roughly 2x the rate in rural vs urban areas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30160320

that doesn't change the fact that you cant "catch" being drunk by being in the vicinity of someone who didn't know they were drunk.

You've not been to wild parties, I guess.