|
Part of the problem I have with this topic is that people are obviously talking their own book. They are arguing (rather vociferously, sometimes) for raised speed limits mainly because they want to drive faster themselves. Frankly, I don't care if no one ever travels above 80.
As for the speciousness or otherwise of "Speed Kills", it is clearly obvious that all things being equal, speed increases the risk of fatal crashes. Sure, you can off-set that risk with better cars and better roads and better driving skills, and might reasonably consider elevating the limit under those pre-conditions (just as the Germans have done recently and, let's face, as all countries have done over the past 100 years). Nonetheless, you won't persuade anyone that all these improvements combined with slower speed limits aren't even more safe. On a cost-benefit analysis, I'd rather have my tax-payer's dollars go to benefit more members of society than those few with high-performance vehicles. I'd happily just upgrade the roads with lowered speed limit signs (except for the Midland Hwy here, which is a death-trap even at 80).
As for the reductio ad absurdum that 0 is the safest speed, that is obviously true but would only hold water as a legitimate argument if the speed-risk relationship was linear. It isn't. There is an optimum speed, above which the risk of death increases exponentially. Of course, it is true that we willingly accept that some people are going to die. That is a given. What we are arguing about is what constitutes acceptable risk. Phrased like that, you can see that many people can legitimately hold quite different opinions. Perhaps the law merely reflects the societal mean of those opinions.
(Sorry if this all sounds unduly socialist or spoils your day. Feel free to tail-gate your objection to the back of the next slow-moving convoy. Otherwise I'll look forward to some lovely postcards from Baden-Baden...)
|