Italicized portions in the quotes are my remarks; non-italicized portions in the quotes are by FJones.
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.
Fjones, you have stated your belief that, due to better equipment and roads, an increase in the speed limit will not result in what you think to be a significant increase in road fatalities, injuries, or damage resulting from accidents. But that's all you've stated. I don't see any studies on the matter being cited. You raised the autobahn, which I'll address below.
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.
You haven't. I have not seen any cites to any sources regarding, for example, rates of German auto insurance, fatality/accident rates on the autobahn, etc.
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.
I didn't say anything about eternity. Given current constraints on our budget, and the current needs of our infrastructure, I simply don't think it feasible to start spending sufficient funds to turn our roadways into autobahns.
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.
Please tell me i) what your predicted increase for accidents is, ii) what that prediction is based upon, and iii) why you think it is negligible.
And, incidentally, YES, driving at 65mph is certainly much more dangerous than sitting in a parked car. That doesn't mean we shouldn't drive 65mph sometimes. The QUESTION though is whether speeding is MORE DANGEROUS.
You repeatedly conflate that question (is speeding more dangerous) with a related but separate question (is the increased danger WORTH THE BENEFITS).
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?"
Then I take it: 1) WE AGREE that driving at 80mph is more dangerous than driving at 65 mph; 2) YOU CONTEND that the BENEFITS of raising the limit to 80mph ARE WORTH the additional accidents/injuries/deaths that will result. Is that fair?
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?”
Insurance companies aren't empowered to seize your license. They simply evaluate your risk, and offer you a rate. The point is that they view speeding as bringing with it risks that require them to raise your rate.
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.
By sudden I mean an unexpected and complete application of the brakes to decelerate the vehicle to a stop.
In one of the more dramatic instances a driver in heavy but moving traffic had a heart attack, resulting in his car side swiping the car in the next lane, and both of them going into the concrete foundation of an overpass. One remained on the shoulder of the road; the other settled on the road. As you might imagine, the deceleration time resulting from the application of a concrete foundation was somewhat less than that provided by safe braking.
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.
Is it relevant to the question of whether speeding in a passenger vehicle is dangerous, or to the question of whether the costs of speeding are worth the benefits? If so, how?
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.
It is relevant because we design speed limits not with the optimal behavior of other drivers in mind, but with the expected behavior of all drivers as a population. That means we must include drivers that will be reckless, drunk, inexperienced, etc. We must ask, among other things, given that x-percentage of drivers will be reckless, inexperienced, etc., what will the result of having everyone drive 20mph faster be?
To fly a multi-engine passenger plane in the US requires very extensive and expensive training, and we include many redundant safety checks. In this way we can change the expected behavior of all such pilots as a population---and even so, yes, there are still accidents due to pilot error, though these are increasingly rare in this class.
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.
Done.
