If Speed Limits Are Abolished Then How Can Anyone Be Accused Of Driving Too Fast?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, but it's obviously too much for you if you see logical fallacies where there aren't any and especially after a direct quote. If you wanna act like a dope and some stupid kid can you go blog your daft smileys somewhere else?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
This kinda covers that and Germany certainly hasn't done away with speed limits overall as some advocate on here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Germany
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Who said anything about needing a nanny state? Not sure how you equate having speed limits with that exactly.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hardly, there's much more relaxed speed limits in places that have long open stretches of road such as Montana, Australia etc that makes sense. A lot of them are in unpopulated areas with no congestion of traffic. You support the abolishing of speed limits everywhere including heavily populated urban areas.
Yeah. That's what makes my doctorate so darn impressive.
He seems to have a real jones for my attention. Nothing new. And nothing much.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The article I linked to made sense on the point. But it would be a bad idea to abolish speed limits anywhere for the same reason the engineer noted.
EDIT: Shoot, didn't link, referenced. If I can find it again I'll post a link later.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
are you deflecting away from your dopey OP and thread title?
The highest speed limit in America is 85mph.
There is only one highway in the US that has that speed limit. The TX-130, which is 130.6 miles long.
Half of TX-130 is owned by the government, and the other half is privately owned. The entire road is a toll road. Guess which portion of it 85?
The longest straightest stretch of highway in the US is North Dakota highway 46. It's 123 miles long.
Guess what the speed limit is.
65mph.
So, a shorter, straighter stretch of highway is regulated slower than a longer, curvier stretch.
Granted, they're different types of highways.
But one is straight and the other is curved, yet the straight one has a speed limit 20mph lower than the other.
:idunno:
I don't live in Australia. I live in the USA.
:blabla:
I support more than that, but you continue to refuse to consider my whole argument, and instead make straw man arguments against half of it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it's his MO
that and emotion and abuse
and he doesn't even make a coherent straw man - witness the easily refuted OP
Here's how to solve this issue you think is a problem for my argument.
Build better roads capable of handling higher traffic speeds.
:think:
Oh wait, I already addressed this by limiting the government to two responsibilities, infrastructure, and criminal justice (both foreign and domestic), and cutting out all the rest of the unnecessary "nanny state" stuff.
:think:
So, really, there's three parts to my argument that solve your personal problems with getting rid of speed limits.
Get rid of speed limits, impose harsher punishments for damaging property, causing injury, and/or deadly negligence, and building better roads.
All very doable if the Government's only focus is infrastructure and criminal justice.
It's not doable with our current government.
Oh, and by the way, I finally figured out how many judges there would be for our nation (assuming 120,000,000 households).
15,734,534 judges. From the two up under the king, down to the the judges of ten households at the bottom of the tree.
Compare that with the measly 3294 judges we currently have here in America...
... It's no wonder our docket list is so long...
Hey, JR. I don't know your argument. I really only stopped in to answer a question AB asked.
That would certainly help, but if you're advocating for no speed limits you're making a mistake.
Again, haven't read your argument, but I can see it's about getting rid of speed limits and, again, I think that's a mistake. It's not a personal problem for me. Things that aren't happening and aren't likely to don't give rise to a particular angst or alarm in me.
Absent evidence that eliminating speed limits would make us safer there's no pragmatic argument for doing it.
Which I'd argue is another mistake, but everyone is entitled to their own idea of a perfect government so I'm not going to argue the point with you.
Right.
I'm not going into the justice system arguments again. I've set out the empirical argument for the efficacy of ours. Absent something new on the point we've been there and done that to death.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Speed limits aren't solely based on the length or straightness, curvature of the road. If both roads are of similar ilk then I'll grant you it's a bit odd that the curved one has a speed limit 20mph slower than the other but I'll wager there'll be reasoning behind it. Surplus of traffic perhaps.
And? I was simply using Australia to make a point.
:AMR:
I've seen the rest of your "argument" and consider it fundamentally lacking. Leaving speed up to driver discretion, especially in built up urban areas is simply a recipe for disaster. For example, consider a responsible driver who doesn't drive excessively fast, say five miles above the current restrictions in residential areas, say 25mph. A child runs into the road and he does everything in his power to avoid it, slams on the brakes, swerves but it's not enough and the child sustains mortal injuries. Had the car been travelling at the current limit then the impact would have wounded the child but not killed it. You can't charge the driver with speeding as there's no limit. You can't really charge him with reckless driving as he's hardly been racing through the streets in an irresponsible manner. It's simply a tragic, fatal accident that could have been avoided by having a limit in place so everyone knows the law and drive accordingly or risk breaking it and face the consequences. The driver could then be rightfully charged with travelling over the speed limit.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Says the guy who's just "answered" back twice with the usual spam and smiley's. Slow day today?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
but you really really really want to charge the driver with something, right?
.... on children running into the road
it's called parental responsibility
otherwise, why not lower the speed limit to 20 mph and the wounds the child will sustain will be lessened even further?
why not 10 mph?
how much damage are you willing to allow to the child?