Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Let the question speak for itself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: Speed Limits
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
I'm pretty sure a question so heavily loaded could never go faster than 20 mph anyway.
How many times and how many different ways are we going to make this same ****ty argument?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
I'm not making an argument. I am genuinely interested in your answer to this particular question.
Somehow I doubt that.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
There's no argument to be made here. I'm just genuinely interested in the results. I'm abstaining from this one. In all honesty, I haven't fully formed an opinion on this particular question.
Yeah, you’re probably right. If you really wanted to make an argument, you would have posted this in a debate forum.
...oh wait...
For the sake of argument, let's assume it's a given that reducing speed limits always makes the road safer (it doesn't.) In the US in 2019 there were 24,221 total people killed in car crashes.( https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx ) Let's bump it up, include all pedestrians, motorcyclists, and every other category listed here in the report. So 36,560. (Also around the number of people who died from the flu in the US 2018 to 2019. Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 influenza season | CDC )
That is still less than total US coronavirus deaths in five weeks in the US.
(Edited to correct)
That is still less than total US coronavirus deaths in five weeks in the US.
(Edited to correct)
Last edited:
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Uh, there haven't even been 40,000 COVID deaths in the US yet. Where are you getting this nonsense?
Also, of course driving 20 mph would reduce car accident deaths. That is obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry I read that wrong. I was reading cases not deaths. Still, doesn't change that we've beaten car accidents death totals for a year in less than five weeks.
I voted 'No'.
Being late to the party, I think this discussion gets back to are we being overcautious with restrictions because of the coronavirus and challenging the point that 'whatever we have to do is worth it if we save lives'.
I am also one that questions if we are being overly cautious and having a negative effect on the overall quality of life for society and the world as a whole. We can measure a death count from a virus but we can't as easily measure economic, business, jobs, social, mental health, deficit spending, children's educational losses, etcetera.
I understand flattening the curve but do we want it too flat at the cost of too much else?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
That article is talking about reducing speed limits from 70 to 50 mph which can be bad because drivers get less attentive.
Reducing all speed limits to 20 mph would definitely save lives. Even if accidents increase, they'd result in only minor injuries at worst.
It specifically is talking about severely reducing speeds from engineering recommendations, which your post qualifies as if the engineering recommendation is 30 or more.
And, as someone who works specifically with MVAs, you don't need to be going fast to get fatal injuries.
But this is besides the point that this is still an unsubtle ****ty false comparison attempt. Come back to me when car accidents become heavily contagious and threaten to overwhelm emergency healthcare systems.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Actually, to be clear I'm in favor of the covid lockdowns and am doing my part to stop the spread. I think that they should end soon but right now I agree they're necessary, so no argument there.
Back to the topic, 20 mph speed limits WOULD save lives. That's so obvious I'm not gonna even argue it anymore.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Was this asinine nonsense really supposed to serve as an analogy for deaths vs. economic cost of raising/lowering preventative measures against the pandemic?
Back to the topic, 20 mph speed limits WOULD save lives. That's so obvious I'm not gonna even argue it anymore.
Yeah, it's almost like it was completely pointless to post it...
The data shows the opposite of that, but go on I guess.Back to the topic, 20 mph speed limits WOULD save lives. That's so obvious I'm not gonna even argue it anymore.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. The government clearly doesn't want that. it would greatly affect revenue from traffic tickets, the insurance industry and so forth. They wouldn't make any money.
If there really was a genuine concern about reducing and minimizing accidents, there would be a mandate that all cars be governed like a lot of trucks are already to a predetermined speed limit.
It's a facade when they act like they actually care. The only thing they care about is their revenue and anything that associates with generating revenue.
exchemist
Veteran Member
An imbecile question, shedding no light on anything. You never give up with this ****, do you?