In a safety study released last year, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that speeding is just as dangerous as drunk driving in terms of the number of lives lost to car accidents caused by each factor. Read on to learn just how dangerous speeding can be, and contact an experienced Washington personal injury lawyer if you have been hurt in a car accident in Vancouver or Portland.
NTSB urges Mandate to Limit the Speed of new Vehicles to the Posted Speed limit.
- Thread starter alarmguy
- Start date
- Status
2 bottles of beer in what, an hour? Two hours? 30 minutes?
There's reasonable and unreasonable. Two bottles of beer in an hour won't raise anybody's BAC to 0.08 unless they're like 90 pounds. However it could make a non-drinker like me tipsy enough to impair my driving or may not affect a regular drinker at all. Likewise, going 5mph over the limit with the flow of traffic isn't exactly dangerous but going 10+ over could be.
Speeding and driving while intoxicated is not an apples to apples comparison. Alcohol decreases human performance and cognition...speeding does not. I'm not saying that speeding can't and doesn't kill people, but please...it is nowhere near the same thing as driving impaired.
I have a welding hobby but it's expensive as heck. It's so much cheaper to go online and argue about oil filters.
Would I rather deal with a drunk driver going the speed limit or some sober yahoo doing 100 mph. It's situation dependent.
I would think that Eco-Weenie Monthly or the Safety Gestapo Gazette would be more up your alley than BITOG.
Here’s the sad part. The truth hurts. By the very definition, we are all average drivers.
But going over the speed limit is against the law just like drinking a bottle of vodka while you drive.
I could be going 97 mph in a 40 but the person who doesn’t see me and pulls out in front me is toast and so am I
Breaking the law and preventing people from breaking the law are two very much different things.
Your logic, that if there is a law, then the government can and should do everything in it's power to prevent people from breaking said law, can only lead to total dictatorship and full control of its people.
Good point but all this is, is not allowing vehicles to go faster then posted speed limits on public roads. There already are many restrictions using public roads, actually all public places not only roads but doesn’t transfer to private property.
I’m physically prevented from a lot of things on public property, this is just a vehicle made to travel public highways at the proper speed. I’m 100% sure self driving cars will be limited to posted speeds too
There is no reason to allow cars to exceed speed limits according to the NTSB. (Remember I’m only playing devils advocate)
Last edited:
I know you're playing devils advocate.
What physically prevents you from doing things on public properties? It is up to you whether you brake the law or not. You are not prevented from breaking the law.
What is the most severe punishment besides the death penalty? Taking personal freedom away. Put a person in confinement, take their ability to move freely, meet with other people, do what they wan to do etc.
That's the very reason for imprisonment, not just to punish, but also to prevent the person from further breaking the law.
Imprisonment is probably the best example of trading ones freedom for safety, at least in theory. You are fed, clothed, sheltered and protected from the dangers of the outside world, like driving. You don't need to commute to work, which is very dangerous, you don't need to work, which can also be dangerous for your health. Basically everything is provided for you to live. Why is it then considered a punishment?
The children want to have fun too. After 8 years in a government run institution most kids just want to go party, not be nannied by the government some more
The local homeless sometimes go spend the winter in jail, because they get food and a warm bed. All summer they sit around under bridges and smoke pot in their camps.
Driving on a public road is not a right. Regulations on the vehicles are in place, this is just another regulation on the manufacturer of the vehicle. You can break the law anyway you want, the manufacturer of the vehicle has to meet government regulations.
Other examples are seat belts, air bags, crash worthiness, headlights, tail lights, emission standards and I am sure dozens more I cant even think of!
If they so choose they could limit horsepower too or ban 6m 8 and 12 cylinder engines, they can even ban gasoline engines!This doesnt force anything on your personal freedom, nothing is being forced on you. It limits a product a manufacturer can sell to the public, nothing more.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
All of that stuff is bypassed regularly by the same folks I mentioned earlier in the thread. There's no enforcement at any level besides that of the manufacturer, who the government can extract large sums of money from for violation. This is while Kyle, when he isn't busy punching drywall, is blindly driving his Carolina Squatted bro-dozer with his HID's in reflector housings pointed at the moon.Driving on a public road is not a right. Regulations on the vehicles are in place, this is just another regulation on the manufacturer of the vehicle. You can break the law anyway you want, the manufacturer of the vehicle has to meet government regulations.
Other examples are seat belts, air bags, crash worthiness, headlights, tail lights, emission standards and I am sure dozens more I cant even think of!
One can't simply equate industry regulation, which is generally enforced, with end user restriction, which, unless the violation is flagrant or of a kind that garners a more severe response (like drunk driving), typically gets a pass.
Nobody drives the speed limit. In fact, cars that do are often impeding the flow of traffic. That's situation where abiding by the law actually, perversely, breaks another. My grandmother was instructed not to drive on a local highway because she wasn't comfortable driving the limit and instead drove 85, and this is a 4-lane divided highway.
What's the difference between alarmguy driving 78mph in a 70 or 90mph in the 70? Both are breaking the law, but the latter is liable to get him a ticket. So how's that for enforcement? You can't equate this to an auto manufacturer not properly abiding by the regulations. Look at VW Dieselgate for example, and the massive cost of that, which didn't directly harm anybody.
And that's the situation we have here in Canada where firearm ownership isn't a right, it's a privilege, like driving, and if you'd like to discuss how that's going, I'd be more than willing to engage on that subject. Cliff notes however is that these restrictions placed on a privilege, have indeed restricted the freedoms of hunters and indigenous peoples. The implications are wide-reaching and they can do this with impunity because it is not a fundamental right.
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
And the other 69% of deaths?
Well, I’m almost certain at some point in the next decade or two speed will be limited in the vehicle software on highways.
The cool thing is, I’m sure private entrepreneurship will allow those who wish to break the law a device to do so.
- Status
