Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[Fjones]

Answer one simple question for me please. just ONE TIME, give me a satisfactory answer without doing any of the following

1) Stating opinion as fact
2) Resorting to a logical fallacy


Here is my question --

If speeding is so dangerous, why don't they levy a $1500 fine against anyone who speeds? Again, the powers that be are trying to tell us that speeding greatly increases the chances of injury and DEATH!

Which one makes more sense as a punishment for something that is likely to cause the death of an innocent person?

A) $150 dollar fine
B) $1500 fine.

I await the answer though I am not holding my breath.

(Tapping foot impatiently and checking watch every few seconds)

 

[AmorRoark]

^ You do realize that not all laws are created completely justly? The fact that speeding is dangerous doesn't necessarily equate to equally punishing fines/penalties. I'm sort of having a difficult time explaining this so work with me.

Do you know that people who kill others when they're driving under the influence never get convicted with murder no matter how reckless their intoxication is? Why is this? It's because people so commonly drink and drive that to make it the same level of killing of someone who, oh, I don't know, left their baby in the back of a truck for 2 days would clog up the system with so many people that it's unrealistic.

 

[alasdairm]

If speeding is so dangerous, why don't they levy a $1500 fine against anyone who speeds? Again, the powers that be are trying to tell us that speeding greatly increases the chances of injury and DEATH!

Which one makes more sense as a punishment for something that is likely to cause the death of an innocent person?

A) $150 dollar fine
B) $1500 fine.

I await the answer though I am not holding my breath.

it's been conventional wisdom in the death penalty discussion for years that the ultimate deterrent - death - isn't a deterrent at all.

death is significantly more burdensome than your $1500 fine yet people are still murdered in large numbers in the us every day.

i understand that, very generally speaking, it's not the extent of the penalty which has a deterrent effect but the likelihood of the offender being caught in the first place. given the huge number of drivers on the road and the (relatively) tiny number of leos policing same, the likelihood of getting caught speeding is low.

alasdair

 

[Fjones]

^ You do realize that not all laws are created completely justly? The fact that speeding is dangerous doesn't necessarily equate to equally punishing fines/penalties. I'm sort of having a difficult time explaining this so work with me.

Do you know that people who kill others when they're driving under the influence never get convicted with murder no matter how reckless their intoxication is? Why is this? It's because people so commonly drink and drive that to make it the same level of killing of someone who, oh, I don't know, left their baby in the back of a truck for 2 days would clog up the system with so many people that it's unrealistic.

Murder implies intent to kill.

We have a word for causing a death without intent to kill - manslaughter. I am not sure I understand the problem here.


Also, you say, "You do realize that not all laws are created completely justly?"

ummmmmmm... You realize I have been saying this the entire time right? You could argue that my entire philosophy in this thread is based on this central point.

I am unsure why you are pointing this out to ME, as though I am the one who doesn't understand this. I have been the one saying the speeding laws are unjust, and the people arguing with me are the ones defending the laws as just.


"The fact that speeding is dangerous doesn't necessarily equate to equally punishing fines/penalties."

Why not? Why don't they? Why shouldn't they? If the punishments WERE consistent with the (supposed) level of danger, the streets would be "safer," the courts would be less clogged, and everything would be sensible and logical.

What is stopping them from doing this? Nothing, therefore I am presenting a simple explanation for our very tame punishments for speeding, and that simple explanation is....

speeding is not actually as dangerous as they claim, in fact, it isn't anywhere near as dangerous as they claim.

Sometimes the most obvious explanation IS the actual explanation.

People have come up with all sorts of contrived and convoluted explanations for why the punishments are so weak for something supposedly so dangerous.

But when one has to strain so much to explain something, the explanation is probably wrong, not unlike the now-ludicrous early models to represent the universe with the earth at the center.

 

[AmorRoark]

I'm sorry fjones I cannot bring myself to read 90% of your really long posts. So that statement might have been a bit uninformed. That said

Murder implies intent to kill.

One of the ways you can establish intent is acting in a way that creates an extreme indifference to human life (basically extreme negligence). A lot of lawyers and people in general have argued that killing someone as a result of extreme intoxication can manifest this level of indifference and should be punished as murder. You might think I don't know what I'm talking about but I just finished my semester of Criminal Law in the fall. You don't have to have the typical manifestations of intent to be convicted of murder.

You asked why there wasn't a higher fine for speeding. I answered it. Most of society would freak out and call the fines too extreme. Thus, I guess if you're going to morph the countries' laws to fit the general societal expectations then yes, the fines are appropriate. However, many think that speeding isn't punished enough. I truly do not care either way on the matter anymore. I was simply trying to provide a rationale for this seemingly low fines for something a lot of people consider dangerous to human life.

 

[ThaiDie4]

"The fact that speeding is dangerous doesn't necessarily equate to equally punishing fines/penalties."

Why not? Why don't they? Why shouldn't they? If the punishments WERE consistent with the (supposed) level of danger, the streets would be "safer," the courts would be less clogged, and everything would be sensible and logical.

What is stopping them from doing this? Nothing, therefore I am presenting a simple explanation for our very tame punishments for speeding, and that simple explanation is....

speeding is not actually as dangerous as they claim, in fact, it isn't anywhere near as dangerous as they claim.

I actually think this is an excellent point. Although you know I am not 100% on the same page as you Fjones on the entire issue of speeding, I do agree with this.

If the fines for speeding were, let's say, $1500 as you used in your example, then a LOT less people would speed. If I asked myself "Ok, should I go 15 miles over the speed limit and get where I'm going faster, is it worth possibly paying $1500??" The answer would be NO.


Of course, SOME people would still take the risk, but not nearly as many people as do now. Increasing fine substantially would certainly decrease speeding... if safety is the overall goal, then that would be the practical solution. But, I guess it's more important to charge minimal fines and make money than to actually strictly enforce the law. Now, I believe speeding in certain situations and conditions IS actually dangerous, but the whole "Cops will give you tickets for your own safety!" is a bunch of BS in many cases.

I don't speed a lot, or excessively, but I do speed sometimes and that's because I know that if I get ticketed, I could afford the fine. It would suck, yes, but it wouldn't end my life. I've only gotten 2 tickets and I've been able to get them both off my record with driving improvement classes, which basically teach you nothing you don't already know. Not a very threatening punishment.


The first time I got a ticket I was going 15 over (40 in a 25). It was NOT a residential or school district, it was a busier road, and I was going with the flow of traffic. There was a car about 3 seconds in front of me going the same speed- in fact, when the cop pulled up behind me with his lights flashing, THAT SAME CAR PULLED OVER TOO- because they knew that they were speeding too!!! Yet the cop let them go, and gave ME the ticket. OBVIOUS case of just trying to make money off of me when I was doing absolutely nothing dangerous. Fortunently the ticket was taken off my record, like I said, but they still made money off me when I paid the fee for my DIP class.

Even after that, I still go 40 on that road. It's perfectly safe, and their penalities are weak. I just look out better for cops now

 

[Heuristic]

First, much of our interstate system consists of two lanes, expanding to three or more in more populated areas.

Second, the example can easily be expanded to three or four scenarios simply by adding additional vehicles.

Third, a "brake and avoid" maneuver would require you to have time to i) slow down sufficiently to allow the vehicle to your right to pass and ii) execute a turn while iii) not crashing into the vehicle in front of you. Depend on the rate of closure between you and the vehicle in front of you, this maneuver may not be possible; indeed, if you try it and impact the vehicle to your right, you will be liable for the resulting damage of that impact.

Fourth, fines for speeding are the result of a legislative process. They're not the outcome of a perfectly calibrated cost/benefit analysis. Voters likely would not be happy with $1500 fines for speeding 10 miles an hour over the limit, even though they would be very effective at deterring speeding.

Voters ARE perfectly happy with large fines for speeding well over the limit, including the possibility of a license suspension.

Now, a much better indication of how dangerous speeding is would be the increase to your insurance premiums for each speeding violation. As you know, these can be quite costly.

 

[Fjones]

I'm sorry fjones I cannot bring myself to read 90% of your really long posts. So that statement might have been a bit uninformed. That said



One of the ways you can establish intent is acting in a way that creates an extreme indifference to human life (basically extreme negligence). A lot of lawyers and people in general have argued that killing someone as a result of extreme intoxication can manifest this level of indifference and should be punished as murder. You might think I don't know what I'm talking about but I just finished my semester of Criminal Law in the fall. You don't have to have the typical manifestations of intent to be convicted of murder.

You asked why there wasn't a higher fine for speeding. I answered it. Most of society would freak out and call the fines too extreme. Thus, I guess if you're going to morph the countries' laws to fit the general societal expectations then yes, the fines are appropriate. However, many think that speeding isn't punished enough. I truly do not care either way on the matter anymore. I was simply trying to provide a rationale for this seemingly low fines for something a lot of people consider dangerous to human life.

I didn't mean to sound as though I was doubting your credentials. I knew your were in law school from one of the other threads.

I think the question of murder / manslaughter is an interesting one, possibly for another thread. I do not doubt you that a prosecutor COULD charge someone with murder for drunk driving, but I figure that in the cases where he doesn't, it is because he didn't think there was enough of a conscious decision to end a life.

If they do start charging people with murder for drunk driving deaths, I am not sure I would agree with that. Let the punishment fit the crime. There need to be a distinction between someone getting drunk and killing someone, and someone pulling a gun and shooting someone. Well, maybe not, I don't know. It's an interesting debate.

"most of society would freak out and call the higher fines too extreme? Why would anyone get a speeding ticket? At $1500 a pop I think people would obey the speed limit.

I think it is rather sad that society passes laws that are so readily disregarded.

Also, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but, did you really just make the following argument (paraphrasing) ---

"The rationale for the seemingly low fines for something a lot of people consider dangerous to human life is that people would be upset with higher fines" ????

I am sure I do not understand this one. reducing people's level of upset with fine amounts is more important than saving lives? 8)8)

I am not sure I know what to say to that. I guess people will say anything to avoid acknowledging that the government is full of shit.

 

[Fjones]

First, much of our interstate system consists of two lanes, expanding to three or more in more populated areas.

Second, the example can easily be expanded to three or four scenarios simply by adding additional vehicles.

Third, a "brake and avoid" maneuver would require you to have time to i) slow down sufficiently to allow the vehicle to your right to pass and ii) execute a turn while iii) not crashing into the vehicle in front of you. Depend on the rate of closure between you and the vehicle in front of you, this maneuver may not be possible; indeed, if you try it and impact the vehicle to your right, you will be liable for the resulting damage of that impact.

Fourth, fines for speeding are the result of a legislative process. They're not the outcome of a perfectly calibrated cost/benefit analysis. Voters likely would not be happy with $1500 fines for speeding 10 miles an hour over the limit, even though they would be very effective at deterring speeding.

Voters ARE perfectly happy with large fines for speeding well over the limit, including the possibility of a license suspension.

Now, a much better indication of how dangerous speeding is would be the increase to your insurance premiums for each speeding violation. As you know, these can be quite costly.

sigh.

Many cops give a warning if you have no violations. Many judges give you probation if you have no tickets. SOme insurance companies give you a freebie for your first ticket.

Many speeders can speed for months or years, driving thousands and thousands of miles without getting a speeding ticket. Upon getting the first ticket, the fines AND (possibly) increased insurance premiums are easily affordable.

Why would society make it so affordable to do somerthing that is supposedly so dangerous? Most people who speed probably do it because they can afford the penalties, as ThaiDie noted above.

The penalties really only become severe for stubborn people like myself. But for most people, the threat of punishment is so minimal, they don't care about getting caught once, maybe even twice.

If society wants to claim that something is dangerous enough to killl people, then the penalties should be strong enough to deter people from doing it even once.

 

[Fjones]

Third, a "brake and avoid" maneuver would require you to have time to i) slow down sufficiently to allow the vehicle to your right to pass and ii) execute a turn while iii) not crashing into the vehicle in front of you. Depend on the rate of closure between you and the vehicle in front of you, this maneuver may not be possible; indeed, if you try it and impact the vehicle to your right, you will be liable for the resulting damage of that impact.

This is true. Also, if a meteor falls from the Sky and lands in the road, people speeding might have an accident and get hurt.


How often does one of these scenarios (The ones you describe) actually happen?

How many lives would be lost if we increased certain speed limits to 80 MPH?

100 a year? If so, who cares? Sorry, I don't mean to sound callous, but, well, as I said, who cares? So many more things kill more than 100 people a year. And we accept it. We accept that with certain advancements come certain losses. millions of people worldwide have been killed in car accidents since they were invented. Do we regret inventing the automobile?

Oh, but wait, no additional people would die because of an increase to 80 MPH, because PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DRIVING 80 MPH. and those who think 65 MPH is a nice sped ti drive would still be driving 65, just like they are now. Nothing changes, they just collect fewer fines.

 

[RedLeader]

I just have to chime in any say that I cannot believe that this thread is still going. Good job, Fjones! Good job!

 

[Heuristic]

sigh.

Many cops give a warning if you have no violations. Many judges give you probation if you have no tickets. SOme insurance companies give you a freebie for your first ticket.

Many speeders can speed for months or years, driving thousands and thousands of miles without getting a speeding ticket. Upon getting the first ticket, the fines AND (possibly) increased insurance premiums are easily affordable.

Why would society make it so affordable to do somerthing that is supposedly so dangerous? Most people who speed probably do it because they can afford the penalties, as ThaiDie noted above.

The penalties really only become severe for stubborn people like myself. But for most people, the threat of punishment is so minimal, they don't care about getting caught once, maybe even twice.

If society wants to claim that something is dangerous enough to killl people, then the penalties should be strong enough to deter people from doing it even once.

Yes, tickets for most moving violations are affordable on the first strike. That doesn't mean moving violations aren't dangerous. Nor are fines necessarily an accurate indicator of the increase in danger, as I stated above.

You keep moving the question from 1) is speeding dangerous? (answer: yes, in that it increases the expected damage/injury resulting from an accident) to 2) is speeding SO dangerous, by which I guess you mean is speeding REALLY REALLY dangerous (answer: depends on circumstances, degree to which you're speeding, etc.).

Hell, FAA fines for safety violations can be "affordable" on a first strike too, depending on the severity of the violation.

 

[Heuristic]

This is true. Also, if a meteor falls from the Sky and lands in the road, people speeding might have an accident and get hurt.


How often does one of these scenarios (The ones you describe) actually happen?

How many lives would be lost if we increased certain speed limits to 80 MPH?

100 a year? If so, who cares? Sorry, I don't mean to sound callous, but, well, as I said, who cares? So many more things kill more than 100 people a year. And we accept it. We accept that with certain advancements come certain losses. millions of people worldwide have been killed in car accidents since they were invented. Do we regret inventing the automobile?

Oh, but wait, no additional people would die because of an increase to 80 MPH, because PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DRIVING 80 MPH. and those who think 65 MPH is a nice sped ti drive would still be driving 65, just like they are now. Nothing changes, they just collect fewer fines.

Most people don't drive 80 in a 60, which is why most people don't have large numbers of speeding tickets.

I have no idea how many additional people would die if we shifted the speeding limit upward by 20mph. Neither, apparently, do you. Suffice it to say then that you do not have a good argument at hand for increasing the speed limit.

 

[AmorRoark]

"most of society would freak out and call the higher fines too extreme? Why would anyone get a speeding ticket? At $1500 a pop I think people would obey the speed limit.

I think it is rather sad that society passes laws that are so readily disregarded.

Also, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but, did you really just make the following argument (paraphrasing) ---

"The rationale for the seemingly low fines for something a lot of people consider dangerous to human life is that people would be upset with higher fines" ???

Yes, this is what I'm saying. I'm not arguing it. I'm putting it out there as a thought. I don't care about this discussion. I find the "how hard should we punish people who kill other people due to their negligence" argument much more interesting.

 

[Fjones]

Most people don't drive 80 in a 60, which is why most people don't have large numbers of speeding tickets.

I have no idea how many additional people would die if we shifted the speeding limit upward by 20mph. Neither, apparently, do you. Suffice it to say then that you do not have a good argument at hand for increasing the speed limit.

Ok, see, here is the problem with your "logic" and "reasoning." You simply state things as so, without actually giving justication.
Also, where are you from? On the east coast, it is rare for people to be driving 65 in a 65.

 

[Fjones]

Most people don't drive 80 in a 60, which is why most people don't have large numbers of speeding tickets.

I have no idea how many additional people would die if we shifted the speeding limit upward by 20mph. Neither, apparently, do you. Suffice it to say then that you do not have a good argument at hand for increasing the speed limit.

have you read the thread at all?

I stated many tiems what effect I think raising the speed limits to 80 MPH will have. How can you say that I have "no idea?"

There is the autobahn in Europe, as an excellent example.


ANd please, spare me the crap about "Well, the autobahn is designed fof that and our highways aren't." You have made it clear you think 80 MPH is INHERENTLY dangerous, regardless of the road.

Let me ask you a question. What do the cars do on the autobahn ifthey need to stop suddenly?

Oh, wait, that's right, THAT RARELY HAPPENS. You are basing your argument on imaginary nonense.

 

[thujone]

there's been a lot of talk lately about upgrading the speed limit on highways in ontario. the underlying thesis is that people drive best at what speed they're comfortable driving at. on a 4 lane highway, 120-140 is generally accepted as that speed and i would concur. i don't think anyone could successfully argue for raising the speed limit in a residential area from 40 to 60 considering that would lengthen reaction time in case a quick stop were necessary. but what reason does anyone really have to slow down on a highway? short of a dipshit driver going 120 cutting someone off travelling 160 in the centre lane, there is no more chance for error to occur than driving at 100. in the end, the fault lies with negligent drivers who fuck someone traveling at a comfortable speed and then it becomes a case of 'speed doesn't kill, it's coming to a sudden stop that gets you'

 

[Heuristic]

have you read the thread at all?

Comments like that aren't helpful.

I stated many tiems what effect I think raising the speed limits to 80 MPH will have. How can you say that I have "no idea?"

There is the autobahn in Europe, as an excellent example.

The autobahn in Germany does have unrestricted portions, or portions with a recommended speed of somewhere around 80mph. I'm not sure why you think that would translate into no greater number of fatalities/serious injuries/serious damage accidents, though.

ANd please, spare me the crap about "Well, the autobahn is designed fof that and our highways aren't." You have made it clear you think 80 MPH is INHERENTLY dangerous, regardless of the road.

I have said that increases in speed result in an increased probability that, when an accident occurs, the resulting injury/damage will be greater.

It's possible, though I do not know, that Germany has instituted road-design, tire-requirements, driver training, and so forth, that mitigate an expected increase in fatalities and accident severity with increased speed. Given the demands on infrastructure dollars in the US as it is, though, I'm uncertain as to the wisdom of such a project here, simply to raise the speed limit 15mph in certain areas.

That said, holding the current road conditions, tire requirements, and driver-training requirements of the US constant, simple physics tell us that increasing speed limits will result in higher average speeds and, therefore, even if accidents do not increase, though I think they would, a greater cost per accident.

And, again, this is why insurance companies almost always raise your rates when you receive a speeding ticket.

Let me ask you a question. What do the cars do on the autobahn ifthey need to stop suddenly?

Oh, wait, that's right, THAT RARELY HAPPENS. You are basing your argument on imaginary nonense.

I've certainly had to come to sudden stops in the US, and I've ridden in various vehicles that have had to come to sudden stops.

The situation I gave, in which the right-lane is foreclosed as an escape route, and a slower car you are overtaking swerves into your lane, isn't imaginary nonsense at all. There is a reason why we require those who will be engaged in high-speed driving to undergo additional training.

Listen, we have a great deal of control when we drive. It's why I like it. I enjoy driving fast when I can. I also enjoy flying, though I've had to cut back my lessons lately. I'm not a risk-averse individual. But some things are beyond our control, and accidents happen even to the best drivers, pilots, etc.

 

[Heuristic]

in the end, the fault lies with negligent drivers who fuck someone traveling at a comfortable speed and then it becomes a case of 'speed doesn't kill, it's coming to a sudden stop that gets you'

Yes, but until human nature is fundamentally changed, neither negligent drivers nor fucking are going to disappear.

Edit: Although I have been told SSRIs have made progress on both fronts.

 

[Fjones]

Comments like that aren't helpful.

Perhaps not. But, you said something to the effect of, "You don't seem to have any idea what the results will be of raising the speed limit to 80 MPH," when in fact, I have addressed that exact scenario many times throughout this thread. Hence, my remark asking if you have read the thread at all.



The autobahn in Germany does have unrestricted portions, or portions with a recommended speed of somewhere around 80mph. I'm not sure why you think that would translate into no greater number of fatalities/serious injuries/serious damage accidents, though.

I believe I have been rather clear in addressing this point as well.


I have said that increases in speed result in an increased probability that, when an accident occurs, the resulting injury/damage will be greater.

It's possible, though I do not know, that Germany has instituted road-design, tire-requirements, driver training, and so forth, that mitigate an expected increase in fatalities and accident severity with increased speed. Given the demands on infrastructure dollars in the US as it is, though, I'm uncertain as to the wisdom of such a project here, simply to raise the speed limit 15mph in certain areas.

I disagree with your reasoning. I do not accept that we are stuck driving 65 MPH for all eternity in this country because we are not capable of implementing existing technology into our roads and cars.

That said, holding the current road conditions, tire requirements, and driver-training requirements of the US constant, simple physics tell us that increasing speed limits will result in higher average speeds and, therefore, even if accidents do not increase, though I think they would, a greater cost per accident.

By this logic, we should all remain in parked cars and never move them. We have gone around in circles with this point. My point, which I have made many times, is that the increase in accidents or injuries would be negligible, but the benefit would be great.

Again, we could save thousands and thousands of lives every year by just not allowing driving, period. Why don't we do that? I don't understand. Aren't we trying to save lives? Oh, wait, that's right, we weigh the costs (death and injury) against the benefits (transportation of people and goods) and determine that the costs are worth the benefits. And that is all I am doing. I am stating that the increased costs would be worth the increased benefits.

If you disagree with that assertion, so be it, but can't you disagree with it WITHOUT resorting to making obvious and meaningless statements such as "An accident at 80 MPH is more serious than an accident at 65 MPH?"

And, again, this is why insurance companies almost always raise your rates when you receive a speeding ticket.

Oh, this makes sense. “Hey guys, this person is a danger to society and is putting lives at risk. Should we A) cancel his policy so that he can no longer endanger his fellow citizens, or B) raise his rates so he can endanger more people but we make more money?”


I've certainly had to come to sudden stops in the US, and I've ridden in various vehicles that have had to come to sudden stops.

Could you elaborate on this? What is “sudden?” You are basically stating that at 80 MPH, there will be instances that require a driver to decelerate instantly from 80 MPH to 0 MPH. I am disputing this. Why would that happen? Can you give an actual example? Cars have brake lights. When a car has to slow down, they come on. The cars behind him then slow down. It’s not that complicated. Unless a car drives into a brick wall sitting in the middle of a highway, a car is going to have to decelerate over a course of several hundred feet. Even if an 80 MPH car slams on the brakes full power and comes to a stop in the minimum distance possible, it will still take several hundred feet (This is the basis of YOUR argument I believe, right?), so why would the car behind HIM need to come to an instant stop? He would simply need to apply his brakes and decelerate just like the car in front of him did.
There is no reason for him to rear-end the guy in front of him unless he isn’t paying attention or has a shitty car with lousy brakes.

However, a tractor trailer going 65 MPH will have zero chance of slowing down in time. Yet we allow tractor trailers to drive 65 MPH. NO ONE HAS YET GIVEN AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS ASININE POLICY. This is a point I have made that has been conveniently ignored for the duration of this thread.

The situation I gave, in which the right-lane is foreclosed as an escape route, and a slower car you are overtaking swerves into your lane, isn't imaginary nonsense at all. There is a reason why we require those who will be engaged in high-speed driving to undergo additional training.

I see. So if a car makes a dangerous and illegal lane change carelessly without checking his mirrors or his blind spot, there will be an accident? Probably, yes. Why is this relevant? Are cars generally in the habit of doing this? How often does this actually happen? And why would this be an accident attributable to speeding? Could you actually cite some statistics on how often a multi-car accident happens on multi-lane highways? I just don’t think they are all that common. Airplanes crash sometimes, but we still allow air travel.

Listen, we have a great deal of control when we drive. It's why I like it. I enjoy driving fast when I can. I also enjoy flying, though I've had to cut back my lessons lately. I'm not a risk-averse individual. But some things are beyond our control, and accidents happen even to the best drivers, pilots, etc

Yes, they do. What is your point? You are now arguing the same thing I am arguing, we just derive a different conclusion from it.

By the way heuristic, notice how I responded to each and every point in your post? I would appreciate it if you would at least try to do that. Instead, when I make a point you seem unable to address, you just ignore it, as though pretending it isn’t there counts as some sort of rebuttal.

My apologies for taking so long to reply. I have been busy.