31st August 2004, 12:58 PM
Yeesh Darunia, do you LIKE endangering OTHER PEOPLE, AGAIN?
As I said before, honestly I don't mind if you were the ONLY one your speeding could affect. HOWEVER, your speeding could endanger ME, and YES it IS a viable threat! Car deaths are FAR more frequent than any other method of death you could care to imagine, and just getting one's CAR totalled is STILL enough for me to agree with government regulated speed laws.
YEESH Darunia, the government OWNS the roads! Make a privatly owned highway system, and by all means, do whatever you want with it!
If you REALLY think they made speed laws as some sort of control of people, get a grip on reality. HOW does limiting people to "only" 65~75 MPH controlling us in ANY way, excepting of course ridiculously circuitous and elaborate plans that end in the president being made a cyborg or something. The only explanation that makes ANY sort of sense is that the speed laws were made to PROTECT us, and that's it! Now, they didn't just think "maybe reducing speed will protect", they have EVIDENCE!
Ever heard of something called "reaction speed"? Humans have a limit on how fast they can react to stuff. This limit is unchangeble. No matter how many kung-fu films you watch with people magically dashing around leaving after images, it doesn't change the fact that humans have an internal UNCHANGEBLE reaction speed limit. One can tweak themselves to REACH that limit, or even change themselves to see earlier and earlier signs of somethign happening so the limit isn't as much of an obstacle, but it's still there! http://www.skytran.net/09Safety/03sfty.htm
Next is something I don't even need to source. STuff on the road happens fast, FAST! That is, things can change in the time it takes to simply look at one of the mirrors. It's why cell phones really shouldn't be used when driving, wait for a stop to dial or just don't worry about it. There is often a VERY small lead time of changing events to notice meaning there's no way to train yourself to exceed reaction time but by only a small amount.
Conclusion? Faster you go, harder it is to react to things. It only stands to reason that at a certain speed, reaction to events become completely and totally impossible, TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That is, no amount of driving skill will allow you to react in time, EVER. How many of these events normally occur? Well, drive around town. How many times has someone cut into your lane without signalling, or accidently nearly merged into YOU, or ran a light, or any other number of things. The average by most people I talk to says this happens at least once every two drives.
This means that if you REMOVE speed limits, and people drive as fast as they possibly can, once every two drives, an incident will occur they CANNOT react to. Maybe it wouldn't have resulted in an accident. Some of the events I hear about are ones that very well did not need to be avoided. However, you should be able to easily see that you could run into a pretty nasty accident EVENTUALLY without speed limits. This is pure probability. I have not done the math, but I'd say that while less than 50%, it is still higher than the other chances most people are NOT willing to take in their day to day lives.
This is NOT an issue of "letting the government tell us what to do". You've read the debates, you know we often disagree with government regulations on a lot of stuff, but this is just plain stupid to argue against!
Here's a tip. If you want to make it on time, LEAVE EARLIER! Generally, people who speed are very likely just too irreponsible to simply give themselves adiquate time to get to a place. Enough lead time, and correct me if my logic is somehow flawed here (seriously, I dare ya to), and you WILL get there on time. That's the only reason I can ever think of to speed anyway, and with such a simple and SAFE solution, why bother fighting for higher speed limits? One other thing. If you are thinking "Idiot, some of us have to go from one place to another and don't HAVE enough lead time!", well, if your reason for being at the other place is sound, just EXPLAIN that to the other person. They may not be understanding, but you can happily be in the right, unless... A:, that scheduling conflict was YOUR FAULT, or B:, you didn't even bother calling ahead to tell them there was no way, by ahead I mean the sECOND you had whatever event would cause the conflict scheduled, you shoudl have been able to figure out it would happen then. Oh, if you just got contacted RIGHT AFTER the first event, screw them, it's their fault for alerting you then, it's not your fault for obeying speed limits.
Honestly, can you give ONE good reason for them NOT establishing speed limits? Seriously, I'm asking. Your assertion that we "should have the right to risk our own lives" was defeated by my pointing out you are endagering OTHER people's lives (and I HOPE you agree that doing THAT is wrong, despite what action movies might say), and by also pointing out that it's a FACT you would be endangering their lives, not merely speculation. Your assertion it's "just more government control" is completley unestablished conspiracy theory vs a much more likely explanation that they actually DO care about our safety on the roads, and also it doesn't actually limit our freedom in any way except telling us how to behave on government property.
Honestly, am I wrong here? Is there a flaw in my thinking?
As I said before, honestly I don't mind if you were the ONLY one your speeding could affect. HOWEVER, your speeding could endanger ME, and YES it IS a viable threat! Car deaths are FAR more frequent than any other method of death you could care to imagine, and just getting one's CAR totalled is STILL enough for me to agree with government regulated speed laws.
YEESH Darunia, the government OWNS the roads! Make a privatly owned highway system, and by all means, do whatever you want with it!
If you REALLY think they made speed laws as some sort of control of people, get a grip on reality. HOW does limiting people to "only" 65~75 MPH controlling us in ANY way, excepting of course ridiculously circuitous and elaborate plans that end in the president being made a cyborg or something. The only explanation that makes ANY sort of sense is that the speed laws were made to PROTECT us, and that's it! Now, they didn't just think "maybe reducing speed will protect", they have EVIDENCE!
Ever heard of something called "reaction speed"? Humans have a limit on how fast they can react to stuff. This limit is unchangeble. No matter how many kung-fu films you watch with people magically dashing around leaving after images, it doesn't change the fact that humans have an internal UNCHANGEBLE reaction speed limit. One can tweak themselves to REACH that limit, or even change themselves to see earlier and earlier signs of somethign happening so the limit isn't as much of an obstacle, but it's still there! http://www.skytran.net/09Safety/03sfty.htm
Next is something I don't even need to source. STuff on the road happens fast, FAST! That is, things can change in the time it takes to simply look at one of the mirrors. It's why cell phones really shouldn't be used when driving, wait for a stop to dial or just don't worry about it. There is often a VERY small lead time of changing events to notice meaning there's no way to train yourself to exceed reaction time but by only a small amount.
Conclusion? Faster you go, harder it is to react to things. It only stands to reason that at a certain speed, reaction to events become completely and totally impossible, TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That is, no amount of driving skill will allow you to react in time, EVER. How many of these events normally occur? Well, drive around town. How many times has someone cut into your lane without signalling, or accidently nearly merged into YOU, or ran a light, or any other number of things. The average by most people I talk to says this happens at least once every two drives.
This means that if you REMOVE speed limits, and people drive as fast as they possibly can, once every two drives, an incident will occur they CANNOT react to. Maybe it wouldn't have resulted in an accident. Some of the events I hear about are ones that very well did not need to be avoided. However, you should be able to easily see that you could run into a pretty nasty accident EVENTUALLY without speed limits. This is pure probability. I have not done the math, but I'd say that while less than 50%, it is still higher than the other chances most people are NOT willing to take in their day to day lives.
This is NOT an issue of "letting the government tell us what to do". You've read the debates, you know we often disagree with government regulations on a lot of stuff, but this is just plain stupid to argue against!
Here's a tip. If you want to make it on time, LEAVE EARLIER! Generally, people who speed are very likely just too irreponsible to simply give themselves adiquate time to get to a place. Enough lead time, and correct me if my logic is somehow flawed here (seriously, I dare ya to), and you WILL get there on time. That's the only reason I can ever think of to speed anyway, and with such a simple and SAFE solution, why bother fighting for higher speed limits? One other thing. If you are thinking "Idiot, some of us have to go from one place to another and don't HAVE enough lead time!", well, if your reason for being at the other place is sound, just EXPLAIN that to the other person. They may not be understanding, but you can happily be in the right, unless... A:, that scheduling conflict was YOUR FAULT, or B:, you didn't even bother calling ahead to tell them there was no way, by ahead I mean the sECOND you had whatever event would cause the conflict scheduled, you shoudl have been able to figure out it would happen then. Oh, if you just got contacted RIGHT AFTER the first event, screw them, it's their fault for alerting you then, it's not your fault for obeying speed limits.
Honestly, can you give ONE good reason for them NOT establishing speed limits? Seriously, I'm asking. Your assertion that we "should have the right to risk our own lives" was defeated by my pointing out you are endagering OTHER people's lives (and I HOPE you agree that doing THAT is wrong, despite what action movies might say), and by also pointing out that it's a FACT you would be endangering their lives, not merely speculation. Your assertion it's "just more government control" is completley unestablished conspiracy theory vs a much more likely explanation that they actually DO care about our safety on the roads, and also it doesn't actually limit our freedom in any way except telling us how to behave on government property.
Honestly, am I wrong here? Is there a flaw in my thinking?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)