The Instigator
23dan2324
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hillkill65
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Have a universal speed limit of 20 mph

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
hillkill65
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 52444
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

23dan2324

Pro

There would be a decrease in car crashes and it would eliminate all horn honking. The road would be much safer and people would get where they need to go
hillkill65

Con

To have a Universal speed limit of 20 MPH we would have to change many unnecessary things in our everyday lives just to accommodate for the time change. Lets say the closest Walmart to my location is 50 miles away, and only being and to drive 20 MPH would mean it would take over 2 hours to legally get there and over 2 hours to get back. Thats over 4 hours of the day gone and that is not including time to shop or possibly eat while out.. With that being said I conclude my opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
23dan2324

Pro

This is the price we will have to pay to save millions of deaths due to car crashes. You are obviously selfish due that you are willing to sacrifice millions of lives due to road rage, speeding and drag racing just to have a fun time shipping
hillkill65

Con

Do you have any sites to prove your assumption of these "millions of deaths" due to such activities. I agree that it would save countless lives, but I would argue that it could increase tickets, accidents, and possibly death.
In an article published by Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center they found that "Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average percentile that speed were posted in this study(45mph) provides a noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent." they also found that "After speed limits were altered at the experimental sites, less than one-half of the drivers complied with the new posed limits." and also "Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent."
With all that being said the facts show that the majority of the people will not follow the new speed limit. Wouldn't it be more dangerous for the person(s) who are following the actual speed limit to continue to follow the posted speed limit.
There is also a few studies which suggest that lower speed limits increase fuel consumption and pollution (i.e. http://road.cc..., http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
such pollution can cause over 32,000 deaths per year(as stated in Telegraph.co.uk article). another astounding fact is "official Government figures show a reduction in speed limits from 30 to 20pmh in urban areas will increase the amount carbon dioxide in the air by up to 18 per cent for petrol cars and 15 per cent for diesel cars." and that is just in urban areas imagine that on a global scale.

To sum up all of which I just explained Lowering the speed limit around the world to 20 mph universally would cause more bad than good. With the facts showing that there is an increase in accidents, increase in pollution(with the increase of deaths caused by pollution), and over half of the population would not abide by the new speed limit.

(http://www.ibiblio.org...)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
(http://road.cc...)
Debate Round No. 2
23dan2324

Pro

23dan2324 forfeited this round.
hillkill65

Con

hillkill65 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
23dan2324hillkill65Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments relied on his opinion that slower speed limits would be safer; Con was able to show that in the real world, this does not work. Pro's R2 consists of appeals to emotion and ad homniem arguments.
Vote Placed by Wycek 2 years ago
Wycek
23dan2324hillkill65Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't prove his arguments. Con uses sources and negates pro's points.