upvote
> sometimes, people must speed. They must break the law. Wife giving birth, rushing a wounded person to the ER, speeding to avoid a collision

I would argue that only the last one is a valid reason because it's the only one where it's clear that not speeding leads to direct worse consequences.

Speed limits don't exist just to annoy people. Speeding increases the risk of accident and especially the consequences of an accident.

I don't trust people to drive well in a stressful situation, so why would it be a good idea to let them increase the risk by speeding.

The worst part is that it's not even all that likely that the time saved by speeding ends up mattering.

reply
The “wife giving birth” exception for speeding is always so amusing to me.

In the U.S., the average distance from a hospital is 10 miles (in a rural area). Assuming 55 mph speed limits, that means most people are 11 minutes from a hospital. Realistically, “speeding” in this scenario probably means something like 80 mph, so you cut your travel time to 7.5 minutes.

In other words, you just significantly increased your chances of killing your about to be born kid, your wife, yourself, and innocent bystanders just to potentially arrive at a hospital 210 seconds sooner.

Edit: the rushing someone to an ER scenario is possibly more ridiculous, since you can’t teleport yourself, and if the 3.5 minutes in the above scenario would make a difference, then driving someone to the ER is a significantly worse option than starting first aid while waiting for EMTs to arrive.

reply
I live 1.6 miles from my county hospital.

If my wife is having a stroke, I can definitely pick her up, toss her in the car, and get to the ER faster than an ambulance can reach my house.

As I'm sure you know, every second counts when it comes to recovery from a stroke.

What kind of first aid do you give to someone having a stroke anyway?

reply
E(accident due to going faster) vs E(worse outcome due to waiting)

Your argument only makes sense if the only possible bad thing is a car accident -- to make my point clearer, would you take a 1% chance of losing 100$ to avoid a 50% chance of losing 10$?

Depends how much money you have, but it can be a perfectly rational decision.

reply
No, that's not the reason why people speed. True emergencies are a rounding error.

The real reason is that speed limits are generally lower than the safe speed of traffic, and enforcement begins at about 10mph over the stated limits.

People know they can get away with it.

If limits were raised 15% and strictly enforced, it would probably be better for society. Getting a ticket for a valid emergency would be easy to have reversed.

reply
The answer is not a governor but a speed camera, they have them all over in Brazil and they send you a ticket if you speed through them. Put an exception in the law for emergencies, provide an appeal process, and voila.
reply