Re: OT: Converting miles/km

 Ar an dara lá is fiche de mí Méan Fómhair, scríobh Hibou:

 > Le 21/09/2024 à 16:10, Aidan Kehoe a écrit :
 > >>> Hibou hat am 21.09.2024 um 09:20 geschrieben:
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Our recent hire cars have displayed the speed limit, as read from limit
 > >>>> signs via their cameras. It is often wrong, displaying a recent speed
 > >>>> limit, not the current one - unsurprisingly, since in France there are a
 > >>>> variety of signs that set the speed (a crossed-out place name, for
 > >>>> instance), the camera lens may be dirty, a lorry may mask a sign, and so
 > >>>> on.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Apparently, the crazy EU has made this flawed system the basis for
 > >>>> mandatory speed limiters (and the crazy UK has followed suit). If you
 > >>>> run into someone stuck at 30 kph on a 130 kph autoroute, that's probably
 > >>>> the reason.
 > >
 > > A mandatory warning is part of the law, but actual restriction is not,
 >
 > Do you have a source for that, a link?

https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/

“The European Union agreed in 2019 to make an overridable version of
[intelligent speed assistance], along with a number of other vehicle safety
measures, mandatory on new models of car sold in the EU from July 2022 and on
all new cars sold from July 2024.”

 > > so should you be in those occasional situations where breaking the speed
 > > limit is safer than following it, you can (usually, depending on your
 > > manufacturer) just keep the foot on the accelerator despite the alarm.
 >
 > I think such situations are routine, not occasional.
 >
 > >>>> "However, our experience of such systems suggests they can get it wrong.
 > >>>> In one instance, a car's traffic sign recognition system picked up a
 > >>>> 30mph sign on a turning off a dual carriage and dramatically slowed
 > >>>> down, despite the fact the car was actually travelling along the outside
 > >>>> lane" -
 > >>>> <https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/speed-limiters-what-they-mean-for-you/>
 > >>>>
 > >>>> God preserve us from government!
 > >
 > > Apart from things like seatbelt laws, high taxes on tobacco, enforced
 > > rules on food safety, regulation of medication? Or are you completely fine
 > > with easily avoidable death and major disability, shorter and
 > > worse-quality lives, mass poisonings, more mass poisonings? The middle
 > > option saves on taxes given if you die at 63 from lung cancer you won’t
 > > draw much in the way of state pension, so there is a financial but not
 > > humanitarian argument for it. There’s no argument for the rest.
 >
 > I think you've missed my point, which was that the system for determining
 > the speed limit is thoroughly unreliable, and not a suitable basis for
 > restrictors, or even alarms sounding in drivers' ears.

Ah, maybe I have. My 2019 Toyota Corolla has a system that reads the
speed-limit signs, displays the currently active speed limit, and changes the
usual black-numbers-on-a-white-background display to
white-numbers-on-a-red-background if I exceed that speed. It very occasionally
gets things wrong but is usually reliable, even on those parts of the island
afflicted by speed limits in MPH. So my reading of things is from my own
relevant experience rather than a journalist driving clicks.

 > Let's explore a bit. To what extent should the state - or in the EU's case
 > the superstate - constrain people in order to make them safe?

It depends on the size of the safety benefit vs the tightness of the
constraint, and reasonable people can differ on where to make that trade-off,
which is why e.g. different jurisdictions have different drink-driving
thresholds.

Something the EU definitely gets wrong is banning anabolic steroids given to
livestock raised for slaughter, something that has been standard in the US for
decades without demonstrated ill-effect.

 > A thought experiment. A parallel to inappropriate speed might be
 > inappropriate eating (I expect you know more about this than I).
 >
 > "In the long-term, eating junk food can lead to: type 2 diabetes /
 > heart-related problems (such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure
 > and cholesterol) / overweight and obesity / osteoporosis / certain cancers /
 > depression /eating disorders / These complications are all associated with a
 > diet high in sugar, salt, trans- and saturated fats and with a lack of
 > essential nutrients like fibre, vitamins and minerals" -
 > <https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/junk-food-and-your-health#complications>
 >
 > Now, suppose it were possible to make an electronic implant that monitored
 > blood constituents, could detect when someone was digesting junk food, and
 > give that person a stomach ache.
 >
 > Should the state force people to have that implant to save a proportion of
 > them from illness and premature death?

The state almost certainly shouldn’t be spending the money to implant this in
everyone, I’d rule it out for that reason. But on pure medical grounds, no,
people have a right to bodily autonomy, it is unethical to make such a thing
mandatory. If a life insurance company were to offer reduced premiums to people
willing to have such a sensor, that would be fine.

 > What if the implants' sensors were unreliable, and they often gave people
 > stomach aches even when they were eating healthily? Should the state still
 > make them mandatory?

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)