…yes? My point is if someone can break the law 547 times and no one is affected then the law is stupid.

> If he hasn't, then why would he refuse to say so?

Because he doesn't need to nor should he respond to a blogger? We continually point out that no one should ever talk to the police, the same absolutely goes for the media, particularly when you're a civil servant.

> the driver has enough expertise to know what his personal limit ought to be

It is actually somewhat amusing that you worded this as "ought to be" rather than "is". Because one of the big problems with most drivers is they have an overly inflated idea of how competent they are at driving (I am not so churlish as to exclude myself from the category). And our system does nothing to bring drivers' beliefs about their capabilities in line with their actual capabilities--drivers are tested generally once on their competence [1], and that pass result then gets to hold for several decades, physical or mental decline notwithstanding.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets

Most residential streets are not safe to travel at 25 mph, let alone 35 mph. There's a line of parked cars in the shoulders, children playing in the driveways, sidewalks, and street? Yeah, if you're traveling 35 mph, you've got no hope of stopping in time (recall that stopping distance goes to the square of speed).

> Moreover, I think that all pedestrian collisions, no matter how small, must be investigated thoroughly, with a hard action taken to minimize such an incident.

We already know how to minimize collisions. The top 3 actions to take are a) reduce speed limits, b) redesign roads to be narrower to make drivers less comfortable traveling at speed, and c) ban right turns on red.

> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.

Why? It's not like wildlife like bears, moose, or deer that wander onto the roads wear such gear, and a "mature highly-attentive driver" should be equally aware of such dangers.

[1] And to be honest, even that is somewhat generous a statement.

What you are describing is a legislation of the attitude of the average careless driver in the United States. I should be able to drive however I want until or unless I kill someone, the car should be the thing that keeps me from killing people, and anyone who doesn't use the roadway like me should be responsible for preventing me from killing them.

> On one hand, speeding alone when done by a mature highly-attentive driver isn't really dangerous no matter the limit, because the driver has enough expertise to know what his personal limit ought to be. The residual risk is more from immature drivers, the mistakes of other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.

The problem is the vast majority of drivers overestimate their skills and underestimate the risks. Many people are also emotional drivers and will drive faster when angry or stressed. A great combo.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets, with heavy mandated use of automated collision avoidance systems.

So what are you going to do about all the millions of existing cars out there without collision avoidance systems?

Given all this, the easiest solution is for people to drive the speed limit, especially in urban areas with pedestrians and bicyclists.

If you really want to gas it, go to a racetrack or buy a motorcycle and donate your brain.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets, with heavy mandated use of automated collision avoidance system.

Why does it need to be so contrived when there's empirical evidence from many other countries in the world about measures which do make traffic safer for everyone involved? Why can't the USA look at that and implement what has worked? It doesn't even need to do the heavy lifting, it's been done, just improve measures which have already saved countless lives in other countries...

Or don't and keep killing 30-50k people every year in traffic.

I live near a middle school in the suburbs and it may come as a surprise but kids are frequently crossing a busy street using a regular, unprotected crosswalk.

> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.

The leading cause of death for car occupants is head injuries, I assume you believe that all car occupants must wear a helmet.

All cars needless to say need to be bright orange

Any infringement should have the car crushed.

Is your underlying assumption that cars should be have the highest priority as a method of transportation, everywhere? Do you live in a rural area or something?

> School zones and other low-speed zones are a complete moneygrubbing racket because we already use schoolbuses which have protections.

What does this even mean? Does every kid ride a bus where you are? Do your school buses have seat belts and crumple zones?

Does the person have children? If so then the law benefits more than just the driver, even if they are the only one on the road.

We already have a precedent of compelling parents to pay child-support.

I don’t know if I’m really advocating for a nanny state, but last month I went to the funeral of a friend that was driving without a seatbelt and was alone on the road. Now his pregnant wife has to raise their child alone.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: Wear a seatbelt.

You may not have any concern for your own safety, but there’s probably somebody who does.

I would say you are rationalizing as is the parent of your reply, whose own reply is now invisible as it's been dv into oblivion.

Statistically if you speed the chances of a mishap increase. It's just a fact of observation. You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you, and HN has judged you accordingly.