The pro-speed limit argument falls apart as soon as someone says "but accidents are more deadly at 90mph" or "your reaction time is less adequate at 90mph." The problem is that while the statement is true, it's also true any lower limit, anything >0.
> The pro-speed limit argument falls apart as soon as someone says "but accidents are more deadly at 90mph" or "your reaction time is less adequate at 90mph." The problem is that while the statement is true, it's also true any lower limit, anything >0.
1. There is more than one argument for speed limits.
2. Just because it is true at any lower limit does not invalidate the statement. This just means that there needs be a balance between efficiency (higher speeds) and risk of collision (lower speeds). This is regulated, abet subjectively, through speed limits.
3. I doubt that it is true at 'any' lower limit. My guess would be that it is bounded. An accident when you are driving at 5mph is not much less deadly than an accident at 10mph. The chances that you are not the cause of the accident is much higher at lower limits.
one could also argue that the less time you spend thinking about cops, speeding tickets, and slamming on the breaks; the more time you can actually spend driving well.
