I need Oppo's help

"Logansteno: Bought a VW?" (logansteno) 08/18/2014 at 12:20 • Filed to: None

0

11

It's for a speech.

I need pros and cons of raising the national speed limits to 80MPH, with a minimum speed of 60.

Or, hey, maybe you guys only have cons. Either way.

Hellcat for your help.

Jayhawk Jake > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 08/18/2014 at 12:24

0

Pros: Less time to get from point A to B. Time is money. Money is good for commerce

Cons: Trucks probably can't actually do 80, so my pro is a moot point. Every 5 MPH increase ramps up the danger. Cars will generally burn more fuel to travel the speed limit, leading to more pollution and a greater demand for fuel, raising fuel prices, hurting commerce.

In conclusion: don't raise the speed limit, it's high enough already.

Your boy, BJR > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 08/18/2014 at 12:26

1

Show that picture. Play this.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 08/18/2014 at 12:27

1

I happen to be sitting in debate class right now. Check here , and other debate sites.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 08/18/2014 at 12:30

0

Oooh, helpful resource.

yamahog > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 08/18/2014 at 12:31

3

This should help: http://jalopnik.com/michigan-state…

Party-vi > Jayhawk Jake 08/18/2014 at 12:31

2

"Every 5mph increase ramps up the danger"

That is a [edit] incorrect. Every 5mph increase from the average speed of surrounding traffic increases danger. A handful of people doing 80mph in an 65mph zone is far more dangerous than everyone doing 80mph in an 80mph zone.

Jayhawk Jake > Party-vi 08/18/2014 at 12:47

0

Kind of. The force of impact is increased in a one car accident, braking distance, reaction time, etc are all increased as well.

Your correction plays well to my second point as well, if trailer trucks can't do it then traffic will be more varied.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 08/18/2014 at 12:52

0

A few states already have 80 and 85 mph speed limits. I actually drove no fater on those than I did on the 70mph speed limits we have in Michigan. A cop pulled over someone doing I think 45 when I and a semi truck were doing about 90 in the western part of north dakota.

Look up their crash statistics and see if they are higher/lower than anywhere else on a % basis (obviously they are less populated so raw numbers will be lower)

Party-vi > Jayhawk Jake 08/18/2014 at 13:10

0

Tractor trailers can exceed 80mph in most cases. There are always vehicles on the road that cannot travel at the speed limit. These are always going to present an issue.

Desu-San-Desu > Jayhawk Jake 08/18/2014 at 13:12

0

I'll throw out some pros:

People tend to generally drive at the speed they're going to drive. It's part of the human condition. Most of us drive at what we, subjectively, feel is a reasonable speed- regardless of it is actually is or not. Now, for some of us, 75 or 80 may feel reasonable. For others? 50 or 60 may be a more comfortable speed. The simple truth is, speed limits are generally not adhered to by many drivers, unless a police presence is detected. Look at the Autobahn- some people go into the triple digits, yes, but a surprising number of drivers hang out at what would be considered normal highway speeds.

I think this is because drivers generally just drive at a speed they feel comfortable at until provoked to do otherwise- whether by legal statutes or environmental conditions. Someone driving 80 in a 65 isn't driving 80 because it's a certain speed over 65- they're driving 80 because they feel like driving 80 regardless of the posted speed limit. These people disregard, whether intentionally or not, the speed limits anyway, so upping the speed limit will not affect their actions as much as the actions of those who do giving mental acknowledgment to speed limits and adjust accordingly.

And therein lies a major reason for collisions: difference in speed. If everyone is going around 80mph, then aside from environmental conditions altering suddenly, there's little impetus for a collision due to change of pace. But if someone is doing 80 and someone ahead of them is doing 55 because it's under the speed limit, then there's a speed differential that creates a finite window of opportunity for one person to slow down or the other to speed up in order to equalize flow rate. If that window of opportunity is not made sufficient use of, then a drastic change, whether by way of collision or avoidance, happens.

By raising the posted speed limit to match the maximum average of the typical faster driver while also raising to the minimum speed to maintain the total legal gap, you reduce the amount of total speed differentials by shrinking the total speed gap among the majority of drivers. The faster drivers continue on the speed they were going anyway, but now the slower drivers go faster as well, thus extending the window of opportunity that results in differences in speed by way of reducing the total difference in speed between the minimum and maximum.

It's all about flow. The simple fact is that as modern cars grow larger, more powerful, and more insulated against the outside world, the slower a given speed is going to feel. 60 now feels like 40 and 80 now feels like 60. This means people are going to go faster in order to feel like they're going the speed they're used to. Cars will drive faster on average, no matter what the signs on the side of the road say. Luckily, the technology of cars has progressed as well so that these higher speeds are now almost, if not just as, reasonable in regards to the capabilities of the car, than the lower average speeds of previous automotive generations.

Now, legally and financially, raising the speed limits could cause a deficit. Right now, massive amounts of income are generated for state offices like police forces by way of many, many traffic citations. These citations are generally fairly paltry sums, but are given in great quantity. The small financial punishment of them is not a complete deterrent, as it's usually not all that harmful to one's finances, thus leading to 'repeat customers' who are willing to just pay the fine and continue on their merry way, though temporarily somewhat more watchful of police. If the standard driving speed of a given individual is no longer considered illegal, then that person's speed ceases to be a potential income stream.

Or does it?

Instead of raising the speed limit and suffering income loss due to the fewer speed-related citations given, traffic authorities can instead adopt a 'quality over quantity approach as speed limits raise from "frugal" to "reasonable". At the point at which 80mph is considered a legally reasonable speed limit, anything above that automotically becomes "unreasonable" or, to use another phrase, "reckless". Instead of having a gradated system of 10mph over the speed limit equals X, while 15mph over equals Y, and 20 over equals, Z, just eliminate Y entirely and move Z down to the space previously occupied by Y while also extending the territory of the new Z-prime indefinitely forward. Driving 81-90mph remains a minor speeding citation, as normal, thus maintaining the 'repeat customers' that form the foundation of a punitive income stream, but anything 91mph or over becomes an instant reckless driving charge. You remove the middle portion of gradation, which was previously reserved for "above reasonable", since it is essentially now redundant.

This means that while the number of citations overall will decrease, the financial obligation of each ticket given is higher, leading to an equalization of income streams back to, or near, the previous norm. Not only are traffic citation rules simplified with fewer gray areas of interpretation, but the punitive aspect of speeding becomes more severe to each individual, thus conditioning drivers against driving above reasonable speeds for entirely selfish reasons. Don't want to lose your license or pay a $300 fine? Don't drive unreasonably fast. Therefore, the new 'reasonable' speed limits cease to be a 'reasonable suggested speed', as they are often interpreted now, and finally come to represent an actual 'limit'.

So not only does a higher speed limit equalize flow between lawful drivers and drivers who prioritize preference over legality, it also raises the potential punitive action for those driving beyond the limit in such a way that it's a proper deterrent and thus slows down the 'semi-lawful' maximum to better match the lawful majority in terms of flow rate.
What this does is reduce the total aggregate number of offenders, but give more severe punishment to what offenders do remain. This will not only maintain revenue with less time commitment from the police officers, but it will also be more effective in dissuading 'borderline' speeders from crossing the line from 'reasonable' (their driving speed 'comfort zone') into 'unreasonable', or 'reckless', territory.

Overall, the average commute time will drop, as will traffic jams that result from speed differentials. Also decreasing will be the number of speed-related traffic offenders, as well as the amount of time police spend in citing said offenders, thus allowing them more time to better patrol and protect against non-speed related issues. The downside? Well, some could say tire and fuel consumption, but then again, those worried about tire and fuel consumption can still drive closer to the 60mph minimum without violating any laws while still saving fuel and tire life.

Another benefit would be fewer collisions that come as a result of differences in speed. On the other hand, the collisions and accidents that do happen, whether due to driver error or vehicle/environmental variables, have the potential to be more severe when they do, in fact, happen. That is a complicated formula, though, as one would need to study whether the collisions were the result of action that would or would not have been prevented or, adversely, provoked by a different speed limit. Subjectively speaking, I opine that a collision that results from a driver driving too quickly for their own skills or the condition of their vehicle would have still driven the same way regardless of the speed limit, as it seems obvious that they didn't care enough in the first place to consider the potential consequences of their actions. But that's getting way too deeply into individual motorist psychology for it to be truly usable as a debatable point here.

In the end, I believe that, logically speaking, raising the speed limit and minimum poses more benefits than detriments.

Jayhawk Jake > Party-vi 08/18/2014 at 13:42

0

It becomes more of an issue the faster the speed limit becomes because the gap between the limit and the max speed of vehicles increases.