@ SoggyShorts
To your points that government is not infallible and that you “can make that judgement” about the risks involved, I reply: While I appreciate your experience for yourself, I doubt the data set is large enough to extrapolate to everybody else.
To your comparison of your license agreement with your Blockbuster agreement, I reply: In what ways can the government adjust the driving situation so that driving over the speed limit by 10mph does not result in an increase in traffic fatalities and accidents? Blockbuster can adjust their business model to cover the need for greater inventory to cover people who break their agreements. The government cannot wave a magic wand to bring back from the dead.
To your argument that I am putting up a “slippery slope” argument I must clarify what a “slippery slope” argument is. It is an argument that says that if X happens it will naturally lead to Y. The results of driving over the speed limit do not lead to my stealing your car therefore it is not a “slippery slope” argument. What leads to my stealing your car is an attitude that it’s okay for me to do so as long as I can get away with it. The situations may, in your opinion, be far apart in the consequences, but they are both the result of the same attitude on the part of the law breaker. My question is not about a “slippery slope” but if the underlying attitude of the speeder and the car thief isn’t the same, and if you accept it in the case of speeding why you would reject in the case of car theft. You might argue that the resultant harm is greater in the theft, but upon what basis? I tell you science tells you something about how you should drive, but you reject science as a measure of what you should do. The thief sees his theft as a minor inconvenience since you have insurance. I assume that a life ending accident would be more significant. That the thieves stealing your car always results in a minor inconvenience may mean that the overall amount of harm is more, but the one death caused by speeding is, I think, a bit more valuable than all the minor inconveniences of a stolen car. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a parallel case.
To your point that the roads are “nearly empty” I say: “Nearly” is not empty. You did say you don’t switch lanes often. So, at the beginning of a trip, if come upon a person doing 70 (I’m assuming that’s the speed limit in the rural area) you will drive 20mph slower than your usual 90mph the entire 2 hour trip? You won’t pass but remain 7 car lengths back? If you are comfortable doing the speed limit why not just do it all the time and forget about increasing your risk of injury and accident?
And what of the increased danger to yourself? Is there no one in your life who would rather you return with a broken leg than in a body bag? Do you think they wish for you to increase your chance of serious injury by nearly 50% (24% per 10mph over the speed limit).? Ask them straight out. Say, “Do you mind me driving in such a way that I increase my chance of serious injury should I get in an accident by nearly 50%?” What do you think they will say? I suspect they won’t say, “It’s okay just don't get into an accident.”
To your point that your vehicle will not let you go over 90mph, I reply: See above. (LOL)
To your observation that you did not argue that you are driving as you are because you could “get away with it” I concur to some degree that you did not put that forth directly. However, economically it is a justified claim since for you the fine is worth the risk (as you have said). All that means is that you can afford the fine and thus “get away with” paying the fine instead of driving the limit. If the fine were higher, much, much higher, at some point you would not be able to afford it and either drive the speed limit or quit driving. Thus, “get away with it” does not mean you aren’t caught, but that if you are caught you simply choose to take the consequences as an alternative way to fulfill the “contract” of driving.
In addition, I ask: “What data would you believe if you don’t believe the measurements done over and over by many agencies both private and public around the world in every possible corner of it where it can be measured?
To your 10% argument in city driving I say:
I tend to agree with you that many city streets are at too low a speed. But so far the argument has been in response to the original post complaining of somebody driving "too slow" in the "fast lane." Thus, this argument is focused on highway driving.
To your “flow of traffic” argument I must point out that it’s a a red herring. Traffic speeds vary along almost every section of the highway, especially the more congested sections. My argument is one to get that traffic flowing so that there is a “flow of traffic.” Your perception that there is a flow rate is not supported by the statistics where the average difference between the faster cars and the slower is between 10 and 30mph. People do not drive the same speed as you, though those that do give you the sense that traffic is flowing along at your speed. It's an illusion.
Given that people drive at different speeds you wish to have everybody drive at YOUR speed, right? You have to get to that point logically because you reject the speed of the engineers who set the speed limit (see above where you reject the governments’ ability to set speeds you trust). Upon what basis should I, or anybody, accept your speed as the proper flow of traffic? You can’t appeal to an objective standard because you’ve rejected objective standards.
To your iteration of city speeds and how 10% changes them I reply:
See above. (LOL, again)
Finally, the following needs quoted for it is a new argument and new arguments should get better treatment.
Speed limits are still required as not everyone has the same experience, vehicle, or ability to reason. If it's raining or I'm not familiar with the road conditions, or if there is light to heavy traffic, or a myriad of other factors, I adjust my speed accordingly. Not everyone does this, so speed limits are needed. Cops can't know who is a good driver, and don't have the time to do vehicle inspections, so if I get a ticket I'm willing to pay.
Of all your arguments this seems the most interesting to me. I’m not sure of its’ accuracy, but it is an idea. The cops don’t know your experience or auto condition so they pull you over for speeding and you (I presume happily) pay the fine. But wait! You are on the road with less experienced drivers, right? With worse cars? Hmm…. How do you know the car in front of you now is an experienced driver? What if that young, inexperienced driver is behind you doing 100mph? What if they want to pass you? You will let them, no doubt. But in doing so aren’t you increasing the risk of their causing you an accident? 100mph is FAST! and an inexperienced driver shouldn’t be doing that. They should obey the speed limits because everybody knows those limits were for inexperienced drivers with bad cars, right? But they, like you, have determined they are experienced enough to drive 100mph, so why would you complain? In fact, they think just like you. They think they can get away with it and will be willing to pay the fine if they are caught. They think the speed limits aren’t for them. They think they are quite capable of driving 100mph. So when they lose control, slam into the side of your vehicle, shoving you off the road, you will lay in your hospital bed assured that they were doing exactly like you are doing, driving according to their own measure of the situation based upon their own experience with driving. And so, as you lay in that hospital bed, I’m quite certain you will not judge them too harshly, right?
If you do decide to judge them pretty harshly because they should have known, ask yourself how they should have known? Statistics about the dangers? You reject the statistics. Scientific findings about young drivers? You reject the measures of science. That they were willing to risk getting caught or getting into an accident? You accept the clearly greater chance of an accident and serious increase in bodily harm from greater speed. The only difference between them and you is that you argue their experience and the condition of their auto should tell them to drive slower. But you have no objective basis for doing so because you reject what science says. Why shouldn’t they therefore just reject your measure of the situation and drive however they feel comfortable?
In the end you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say your measure of the dangers of driving this way or that are more significant or should be obeyed over anybody else’s. You can’t reject clear measures and then claim others should have paid attention to those measures and driven accordingly.
In the end, the only answer that can given to the question of driving safely is to drive by the statistics and reduce the risk of accident and increased severity by driving the way that is posted. If everybody did that, instead of driving by their own judgments (i.e.feelings) all the traffic would be traveling at the same rate and in the same direction and therefore there would be NO RISK of an accident.
AJ
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
