> Yeah, next time you exceed the speed limit, just ask the police officer for permission to double the fun...
This is a rather weak analogy - I don't know where you live, but where I live driving the speed limit is not the norm and ironically driving against the common speed of traffic is more dangerous. i.e. You are safer exceeding the speed limit if that is with the flow of traffic than you are driving the speed limit when the flow is faster.
> No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350. Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime? What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?
To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative.
> Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.
I think the challenge here is to quantify the 'risk' in full, which has to include where the power would come from as an alternative. The present situation is that the capacity is mostly replaced with natural gas, a net CO2 emission loss.
"To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative."
This is usually not the case in Europe. If someone doesn't belong on the road, they normally don't pass the exam, but:
* some countries have problems with bribes, I've heard of some egregious cases.
* some countries have a reckless driving culture, for instance traffic in Italy is quite crazy, they don't seem to care at all about the rules.
Sometimes the road does allow one to go faster, but speed limits are enforced through fines and I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over the speed limit.
I'm not familiar with EU laws on this but I highly doubt it. You don't define speed limits assuming a capable driver in an M3, you define them for a questionable driver in a Renault Clio.
> I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over the speed limit
It's also a significant penalty in the US, this has no impact on the reality of the speeds that exist in reality, nor the safety.
It really depends. In Sweden speed limits are low and nobody respect them. In France they are higher and slightly more respected. In the mountains /hills they are actually way too high and nearly unreachable. Most roads are technically still limited to 80/90km/h but doing more than 70 requires some serious sport driving style.
In Poland the speed limits are certainly more like "minimum required" signs and only very recently a law was introduced that you lose your licence for going 2x the speed limit....but only in towns. Outside of them you can be going as fast as you like and you can't get a ticket higher than 1000PLN(€250). I think at least bribes are either less common now or completely gone, I haven't heard of anyone successfully bribing their way out of a ticket for years now but my dad used to say that he would always get out of them by leaving a 50pln note in the documents.
But yes, in my experience if you happen to be driving at the speed limit(or god forbid - below!) You will have people driving 50cm behind you and overtaking dangerously while beeping.
I've never felt unsafe by driving the speed limit where others want to go faster in my life, except perhaps by narcissists losing their mind about having to wait a moment to pass.
This is a rather weak analogy - I don't know where you live, but where I live driving the speed limit is not the norm and ironically driving against the common speed of traffic is more dangerous. i.e. You are safer exceeding the speed limit if that is with the flow of traffic than you are driving the speed limit when the flow is faster.
> No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350. Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime? What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?
To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative.
> Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.
I think the challenge here is to quantify the 'risk' in full, which has to include where the power would come from as an alternative. The present situation is that the capacity is mostly replaced with natural gas, a net CO2 emission loss.