4 ms·

How many auto fatalities are a result of people driving 150? Almost none, I'd wager. So then is my argument still ridiculous? Freedom has value. Just because w

How many auto fatalities are a result of people driving 150? Almost none, I'd wager. So then is my argument still ridiculous? Freedom has value. Just because we can force some people to do some things more safely in some cases doesn't mean we should always do it. Otherwise, we can just outlaw cars entirely and force everyone to only go places where rails take them at government-approved speeds.

georgebarnett 8y ago
Fortunately, somebody has actually studied this and has found that yes, speed does matter: "In Rheinland-Pfalz, a 130 km speed limit was also introduced on a 167km section of the A61 in 1991 and has been retained since then. This measure was combined with a ban on overtaking for heavy good vehicles. The impact of these two measures was a 30% reduction in fatal and severe injury accidents (comparing one year after and one year before their introduction – Rheinland-Pfalz Ministry of Transport)." https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf
- PostOnce 8y ago
  1] I'm not opposed to speed limits, I'm opposed to the car enforcing them even when there is an exceptional case it's unaware of. 2] You can drive super dangerous without driving super fast 3] Almost no one drives super fast 4] The same pdf also says the death rate is exactly the same on roads without speed limits as those with speed limits... but I assume we're going to ignore that part and other contradictory studies to drive your point home? i.e. 67% of roads have no permanent limit, 67% of deaths occur there... And then you'll say "yes but that doesn't take into account the traffic volume on those stretches of road" and I'll point to something else, and it'll get old, and you don't appear interested in considering other viewpoints anyway.

4 ms·

How many auto fatalities are a result of people driving 150? Almost none, I'd wager. So then is my argument still ridiculous? Freedom has value. Just because w

by PostOnce 8y ago

georgebarnett 8y ago
Fortunately, somebody has actually studied this and has found that yes, speed does matter: "In Rheinland-Pfalz, a 130 km speed limit was also introduced on a 167km section of the A61 in 1991 and has been retained since then. This measure was combined with a ban on overtaking for heavy good vehicles. The impact of these two measures was a 30% reduction in fatal and severe injury accidents (comparing one year after and one year before their introduction – Rheinland-Pfalz Ministry of Transport)." https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf
- PostOnce 8y ago
  1] I'm not opposed to speed limits, I'm opposed to the car enforcing them even when there is an exceptional case it's unaware of. 2] You can drive super dangerous without driving super fast 3] Almost no one drives super fast 4] The same pdf also says the death rate is exactly the same on roads without speed limits as those with speed limits... but I assume we're going to ignore that part and other contradictory studies to drive your point home? i.e. 67% of roads have no permanent limit, 67% of deaths occur there... And then you'll say "yes but that doesn't take into account the traffic volume on those stretches of road" and I'll point to something else, and it'll get old, and you don't appear interested in considering other viewpoints anyway.