throwaway9832

If you think the measure of driving rusk isn’t per km, then you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

And just repeating things doesn’t make them different, up to 7.5 tones, it is the same speed and that is plenty enough different weight for stopping distance.

But then again, it is a useless conversation because you have no idea what road safety is about as you seem to focus on absolute numbers and the best way to get absolute 0 is to close all roads and ban driving.

If you stick to 100, then every tom, dick, and harry will overtake you creating a lot of opportunity for mistakes.

Which part of Europe is anglo-sphere? And if you look at the UK, up to 7.5 tokens is basically standard signed posted limits.

And it is strictly "stopping distance" when it comes to speed, everything else is complete nonsense. The assertion about more cars than trucks is irrelevant. Driving risk is measured "per km" not some absolute numbers.

You sound like a typical idealogue who is completely disconnected from the reality of road engineering, statistics, and mechanics of vehicles that is typical of suburban mothers who think "speed bad" but then drive after drinks or text while driving. It is tedious.

I reply because "studies have show that claims of studies have show are often false".

There is absolutely zero chance any respectable study would support that focusing on maintaining exactly 110 km in a 110km is safer than allowing a 10% buffer (going 10km over) so you can focus on the road and spend more of your attention on spatial awareness than staring at the odometer.

Second, it is not about "who cares", it is about road design, a road that is up to standards of allowing a b-double doing 110km means a smaller car can safety do 140km or more. It is exactly one way or the other. It is either unsafe for B-Double to do 110km or a small modern car to do 140km. It is simple laws of physics.

You can't see my original comment, so opt to make some nonsense assumptions to feel good about yourself. By God,this place is a cesspit of arrogance.

You, just like the grandparent, confuse egregious 0% tolerance speed enforcement with speed limits. Speed limits dictates stopping distance and is a key factor in collision avoidance. No one is asking to abolish speed limits.

The problem is when passenger cars that require a fraction of stopping distance of a truck at given speed limit are fined for going 3-4 km over limit. Essentially, fined for driving at a speed where they can stop many meters before a truck going the sign posted limit. Revenue raising in the name of safety, down playing other factors like attention, driver training, road design, maintenance, and so on, but they don't bring as much money.

- There are more accidents per km on frozen roads, but less when adjusted for road conditions.

This is a bit like per capita, requires a certain level of abstract thinking that eludes most people.

When did Finland become English speaking? Or which part of Anglo-sphere wasn't clear?

The legislation in the Anglosphere countries? Are you slow?

Where in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, UK, Canada, or even most of US can you go 10 km/h over speed limit and not get fined?

For your other points.

1. Where? other than steep grades, differential speed is not a thing. 2. Where again? Which trucks? Majority of trucks can do highway speed just fine, despite their 3 to 10x stopping distance. 3. Fewer tracks where? Most of Australia and New Zealand runs on trucks. But even if they're rare, truck accidents over 60 are often fatal due to their weight and energy. 4. Professional drivers can't adjust the laws of physics. Stopping distance is stopping distance.

Every problem is solved. We should stop making anything. Specially CRUD apps, because how is that even programming? What does it solve that hasn't been solved?

This line of thinking is not productive. It is a mistake to see yourself as what you do, because then you're cornering yourself into defending it, no matter what.

Because the minute the topic is beyond deep tech, it is just a hive mind of trends and conformism. Most people outsource their rationality to laws and collective thinking. So I just use throwaways, I am not sorry that it does not give you the opportunity to get personal.

Yes, that is a pretty fair characterization. The reasons is because most accidents happens due to inattention and over confidence, hazardous roads makes people pay more attention. A distracted person is more dangerous than a drunkard on the road.

10 is plenty old enough to drive under supervision. We used to send people to war at 16.

The idea of stopping people from driving until 18 is infantilisation.

People drive more carefully on frozen roads.

And generally people who are not confident drivers avoid driving when the weather is not good.

Despite the revenue focused speed enforcement in anglosphere, most accidents happens due to inattention and skill issue.