Um, well the point is that we'd like to minimize unnecessary deaths, and raising the speed limit to 80 in many areas would probably result in an increase in unnecessary deaths. So we'd rather not do it.
That's the same reason we spend so much on aviation safety, on testing of prescription drugs before allowing them on the marketplace, etc. Death is indeed a part of life, as are many unpleasant things. We try to reduce those unpleasant things.
As far as speeding tickets... what state do you live in? That's a moving violation, meaning your insurance increases and you usually get some form of points on your license; get enough and your insurance will soon become either outrageously expensive or unavailable, or your license will be suspended.
If they're meaningless, then why are you so angry?
We’d like to minimize "unnecessary" deaths? I am not sure I understand. What do you deem necessary?
Anyone who ever died drowning had an unnecessary death. Swimming is a leisure activity that is certainly not a requirement in life. Anyone who ever died hang gliding or skydiving or bungee jumping or canoeing or boating or mountain climbing or on a failed roller coaster died an "unnecessary" death.
Anyone who is taking an airplane trip for pleasure is risking an "unnecessary" death.
I understand what you are saying about minimizing unnecessary death, but in reality, safety doesn't seem to be that big a concern. If our primary concern is avoiding unnecessary death, why are car makers allowed to sell cars with tires that handle significantly worse than others? For a few hundred extra bucks, all cars could come with top of the line tires that would improve handling and reduce the risk of accidents.
But, people don't feel like spending money, so instead of going for maximum safety, we allow some sort of minimum standard for tire performance. Where is the logic in this?
Then, on top of that, we allow cars that are inherently less safe than others to be on the road. There is a measurement of a car's performance capabilities called roadholding index. It is usually a fraction of 1 between .70 and .90, though some cars may be slightly worse or slightly better, some may even be a bit above 1.00. The point is, a car with a roadholding index of .90 is safer than a car with a roadholding index of .70.
Yet we allow the .70 cars. Why? I thought we were all about safety and avoiding unnecessary death. Why not require cars to have maximum accident avoidance? No, instead, we allow less safe cars on the road because "people like them" and "they look cool" or whatever lame reason people have for buying a less than safe vehicle.
In case it is not clear where I am going with this. I will summarize --
I think technological advancement allows us to safely drive at at speeds higher than the current speed limits. These are the same speed limits we have had for decades, and cars have undergone significant technological improvement in that time.
Yet rather than taking advantage of this, we stubbornly cling to the notion that faster speeds MUST mean more deaths, all the while ignoring some obvious and easy measures that would improve everyone's safety.
Furthermore, and I already made this point, but I'll make it again, Society usually tries to punish people who needlessly endanger the lives of others. Yet when it comes to speeding tickets, the punishments are often very weak.
This indicates to me that they know speeding isn't nearly as dangerous as they claim it to be, and that they are more interested in the money.
I wish I didn't have to repeat myself every few pages in this thread, but I guess I have to--
If speeding were REALLY dangerous, then they would enforce the speed limits in place to ensure that NO ONE would speed. It isn't hard. I am pretty sure a $3000 fine and 15 days in jail and a 60 day license suspension would stop people from speeding, right?
But do they do that? No. Why not? I thought we were all about safety? Oh, but wait. If they did that, no one would speed, and they lose out on millions of speeding tickets, which generate a lot of revenue for the state.
So, the state has a choice -- Stop speeding altogether but make no money off it, or allow a reasonable level of speeding and make money off of it.
They choose option B, yet claim to be all about safety. That is what really irritates me about the current system.
Also frustrating is that I try to respond to everyone’s points, but when I make a good point, people often just ignore it.
Why do people keep ignoring my statement about tailgating?
I’ll restate it – Tailgating is more dangerous than speeding. Few people deny this. Most people agree that driving at 80 MPH on a clear day on a dry road in light traffic is not dangerous. Yet tailgating is, by definition, always dangerous, because it means driving too close to another vehicle relative to the speed the vehicles are traveling. Yet you are ten or 20 times more likely to get a ticket for the first thing I said (80 MPH, dry road, etc.) than for tailgating. In fact, you are unlikely to ever get a ticket for tailgating, as I have been to traffic court dozens of times and never seen someone there for tailgating.
Why is that? Why would they ignore an obviously dangerous act (tailgating) while overzealously prosecuting a less dangerous act (speeding?) Probably because speeding is an open and shut case in court. They give the radar reading, assess a fine, game over, next case. They crank out 40 of these in one court session. Tailgating is a lot harder to prove and would likely bog down the courts.
So they’d rather prosecute people for something easy but less dangerous than something difficult but more dangerous.
Also, if fast driving is inherently dangerous, why do some highways have a 55 MPH limit, some 65 MPH, and some 75 MPH? I know that different roads have different capabilities for permitting automobile travel, but the differences are not that substantial. Presumably all states have access to the same facts, information, and laws of physics, yet some states deem a certain speed safe and others deem a higher speed safe. This makes me a bit skeptical about the entire process in general.
Regarding the tickets, I didn’t say they are meaningless. But the first offense or two for a person usually carries minimal or no punishment. Officers often give a warning, courts sometimes give Probation before judgment, insurance companies often give one freebie before increasing rates.
Do these seem like the actions likely to be undertaken when someone engages in a dangerous act that endangers lives? Why are people so unwilling to call obvious bullshit when they see it?
As for why I am angry, I think I have made that very clear. I dislike hypocrisy in our laws and government, I dislike misinformation and disinformation, I dislike bullshit and propaganda, and I am upset that when I drive at a reasonable speed I am constantly looking around to make sure I don’t get busted for doing something “dangerous” when really they just want money, especially as I watch so many actual dangerous things happening around me (tailgating, unsafe cars, unsafe tires, etc.)
Another point that I have made but people usually ignore is that of tractor trailers driving the speed limit. Trucks are allowed to drive the speed limit. This baffles me. Are we really to believe that an 18-wheeler weighing 20 tons has the same maneuverability and accident avoidance capabilities as a small car? How could any reasonable person believe this? Yet we allow these trucks to travel at the 65 MPH speed limit? Any accident a truck can avoid at 65 MPH, a car can certainly avoid at 80 MPH.
That we allow trucks to drive 65 MPH indicates clearly to me that the lawmakers are well aware that cars can safely travel 80 MPH or more. I get a bit bent out of shape when a truck sails by at 65 MPH but I get pulled over for going 80 MPH and receive some sort of lecture about safety.
??????????????
