3 ms·

> There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with fa

> There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts. You should carefully reread your own post, its actually all opinion being confused for facts! It's very striking, since the original article not only supports its claims with data and cited sources, but specifically refutes the points your making. Did you just read the title and decide to refute it?

greatgib 4y ago
Hum what you write does not make sense. First I don't give you "opinion", but the fact of my personal experience driving there. I dare you to tell me what is not factual in what I said. To be noted that I did not formulate conclusion/opinion based on my observation. Second, I know that the article looks to be debunking with facts but if you read carefully you will see that a lot are biased or not really adequately justified. the costs from time lost with a limit of 130 km/h were more than offset by the economic benefits of preventing traffic accidents. Here for example, you compare apple and carrots. I don't doubt that a study somewhere tried to put an "economic value" to the time lost for a driver and to estimate an economic value of fatalities. But that is really shaddy. Another example, there are a comparison of accidents on speed limited highways vs non speed limited parts in Germany. But this is again comparing apple and carrots. Roads are not the same, it is not like we had 2 times the same slice of road and decided to have one with speed limit and the other one without to see which is the best one. As they are all in Germany, you can assume that the one that are speed limited already have a reason for that or they would be unlimited. Maybe the limit itself is a signal to drivers that the area is more dangerous and to be more cautious. And also, there is the possibility that as the drivers are free for unlimited speed on some parts of highways, they don't have frustration regarding that and then they are more serious in respecting speed limits where it is limited. But if all highways were limited, they would be a higher number of drivers driving dangerously slightly exceeding the mandatory speed limit, and that now could happen anywhere, even where there was already speed limits before. A last point is that there is not even a justification of why limiting to 130 and not 140 or 100. It is a totally arbitrary value.

greatgib 4y ago

Hum what you write does not make sense. First I don't give you "opinion", but the fact of my personal experience driving there. I dare you to tell me what is not factual in what I said. To be noted that I did not formulate conclusion/opinion based on my observation. Second, I know that the article looks to be debunking with facts but if you read carefully you will see that a lot are biased or not really adequately justified. the costs from time lost with a limit of 130 km/h were more than offset by the economic benefits of preventing traffic accidents. Here for example, you compare apple and carrots. I don't doubt that a study somewhere tried to put an "economic value" to the time lost for a driver and to estimate an economic value of fatalities. But that is really shaddy. Another example, there are a comparison of accidents on speed limited highways vs non speed limited parts in Germany. But this is again comparing apple and carrots. Roads are not the same, it is not like we had 2 times the same slice of road and decided to have one with speed limit and the other one without to see which is the best one. As they are all in Germany, you can assume that the one that are speed limited already have a reason for that or they would be unlimited. Maybe the limit itself is a signal to drivers that the area is more dangerous and to be more cautious. And also, there is the possibility that as the drivers are free for unlimited speed on some parts of highways, they don't have frustration regarding that and then they are more serious in respecting speed limits where it is limited. But if all highways were limited, they would be a higher number of drivers driving dangerously slightly exceeding the mandatory speed limit, and that now could happen anywhere, even where there was already speed limits before. A last point is that there is not even a justification of why limiting to 130 and not 140 or 100. It is a totally arbitrary value.