Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Global speed limit

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

It would take a hell of a time to get places.

And would be impossible to impliment.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:25:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

No way in hell I would be cool with either of those things.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

I would become a mechanic, and fix the car. OR there would be an incredibly high market for used cars.

Either way, 40MPH is TOO slow.
Tsar of DDO
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:57:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
While we're at it, let's make them out of something softer. Crashes should be more like bumper cars and less like hell on earth.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:05:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:57:56 PM, Maikuru wrote:
While we're at it, let's make them out of something softer. Crashes should be more like bumper cars and less like hell on earth.

Exactly. And then we can abolish highways and the world would be perfect
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:08:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

Note to self: Don't vote for 000ike to become world dictator.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:13:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 12:05:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:57:56 PM, Maikuru wrote:
While we're at it, let's make them out of something softer. Crashes should be more like bumper cars and less like hell on earth.

Exactly. And then we can abolish highways and the world would be perfect

Just legalize drugs and then we're cool.
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:14:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. My car would be banned.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:53:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

Well, 40 MPH is a horrendous idea, to be sure. Literally, all that would happen was that the cops filled up their coffers a bit by catching a small fraction of the people violating the ridiculous speed limit on the free way.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:58:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We should just outlaw anything that has corners, Everything should have rounded edges.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 12:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This reminds me of Charles Murray's analysis of the 55 mph speed limit in 'In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government.' The law saved 7,466 lives per year. Over one person's life (200,000 miles of driving), this worked out to decreasing the likelihood that you'd die in a car accident from .0005 to .0004. Assuming that this increase in safety is evenly distributed over 60 years of driving, this comes out to an expected increase in lifespan of 26.28 hours, while increasing the time spent driving by 800 hours. This seems like a bad tradeoff to me. I think the tradeoff from lowering the speed limit further to 40 mph would probably be similar.

But I think traffic accidents will be eliminated by self-driving cars http://en.wikipedia.org... long before anything like this proposal was ever enacted anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 2:32:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The system we already have kind of works better, in theory. If you had 40 mph limit on a small backroad, then it would be far too fast. On the highway, then it's too slow.

Considering that a) Nobody follows the speed limit as anything more than a psychological anchor (I live in Mass, most people are doing 10-15 mph above any given speed limit.) And, b) That the speed where risks really grow is around 70 mph, which is higher than any speed limit I've seen around here (65 the highest) and around the speed most people drive on the highway anyways. Then what you're proposing wouldn't do much to slow people down past, at the lowest, 50 or 55 mph, because people don't strictly follow speed limits in the first place, and it would be slower than necessary on the highway, because the risks don't become unmanageable until after around 70 mph.

The problem with driving, I've noticed, isn't the cars or speed limits, it's the drivers. They're all so stressed and angry that following the speed limits is the last thing on their mind. They generally all follow far to close to the car in front as well.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 7:23:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

People would violate it. Believe it or not, a lot of people know how to modify their cars, and a lot of people would pay them to do it to theirs. High Speed limits are not really an issue (I'm sure someone has posted something regarding the autobahns). What is needed is a more efficient means of transporting people. A faster commute to and from work will do wonders for national stress levels.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:37:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe this problem will become moot once oil starts to become less prevalent. We are in a very unique time in history, when we are rapidly using an energy bank-account which has been storing up for hundreds of millions of years for us. Sooner or later we will have a zero balance and all of a sudden energy won't be so limitless. At this point the rules will change.

I don't believe electric cars will supplant oil autos, because NYC had a fleet of electric vehicles in 1899 with the infrastructure to charge them and that never grew from there. Most people think we just haven't gotten "that far" in tech yet to make the electric autos, but 100-150 years of tech innovation in that area hasn't made it feasible yet and I don't see it coming.

As for hydro, air-powered, etc., I just don't see anything working. It all has problems. The main problem is energy. If you have the energy then ANY of these vehicles would be fine. Tech seems to progress in certain areas, but not in others. Genetics and computer science are two areas that we can't even predict a decade out because they are so rapidly advancing. But others do not seem to grow, and energy is one of them. Some say we will have fusion power plants by mid-century, but it seems to me like there is some natural limit as to how much energy you can safely derive from any particular method. More energy usually means more instability, radiation, pollution... It's because of the nature of energy itself. There's no free ride to producing and storing energy.

How we will solve these issues is to become smarter, as opposed to more powerful. Arranging communities so that travel is minimized is smarter than trying to find new ways to use energy inefficiently. And when you solve one problem, you often solve many others. By being smarter with our layouts, we not only save energy, save pollution, save production costs, etc., but we also make it safer by default. And there's a plethora of social benefits too. No more DUIs, more chances to socialize, no more road rage, less road construction/maintenance... I could write a book on all the benefits this general idea brings us.

I believe we will still use technology for long-range transport of certain key items but it will be kept to a minimum - as it should. You know what the most crafty technological transportation is? Animals. You can't hope to build a more efficient machine than a horse. It runs on fuel that grows freely, it builds and maintains itself, and it does not pollute. People really look down on me when I say this, for several reasons. First, it's not a technological solution. It doesn't fit their paradigm of companies and governments using "progress" to defeat the issue. It doesn't satisfy greed and pride, like shiny new autos with large, uselessly-powerful engines do. My Buick is 200 hp. For what? A horse only needs 1 hp to do practically the same job. We could have all the transportation we'd ever need, being too cheap to even pay for, yet we choose to break ourselves to buy these fancy machines that are almost always more an extension of our penises than anything actually vital to our survival. I'm sickened by the culture we have where guys (and girls) drive around revving their engines to get attention and judge each other based on what they drive. These things are so dangerous that your best bet to survive is to buy the biggest vehicle...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 2:59:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Speed limits are ineffective. Studies show that people drive around the same speed whether a limit is there or not.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:48:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 2:59:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Speed limits are ineffective. Studies show that people drive around the same speed whether a limit is there or not.

More police and heavier fines.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 5:33:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:48:29 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/10/2012 2:59:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Speed limits are ineffective. Studies show that people drive around the same speed whether a limit is there or not.

More police and heavier fines.

As the great philosophers, of the NWA said:
Tsar of DDO
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:20:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a interesting topic. I dont think it matters. People will go as fast as they want regardless of speed restrictions. The law is not the problem it is the people who are careless that is the problem.
TheAsylum
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:22:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason it's a bad idea is that road user's time is valuable. the benefits of the speed limit need to be quantified and weighed against the costs. For some, the extra time is not very valuable, but for, say, a high priced lawyer, it might be worth $500/hr. People commuting to work have time valued at about the value of their wages. For goods being delivered, it's no only the driver's salary, but the capital costs of having the goods tied up in transit.

The larger point is that the rule has the same effect as a tax. The net loss of costs minus benefits is money that is thrown away. The government destroys wealth through regulation. The costs are implicit, but they are significant.

Similar cost-benefit analysis applies to mass transit. Mass transit takes longer. Decades ago, someone figured that people taking mass transit in the US were valuing their time at about $6/hr.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:30:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 2:59:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Speed limits are ineffective. Studies show that people drive around the same speed whether a limit is there or not.

Sammy Hagar would agree...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 1:05:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:22:27 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason it's a bad idea is that road user's time is valuable. the benefits of the speed limit need to be quantified and weighed against the costs. For some, the extra time is not very valuable, but for, say, a high priced lawyer, it might be worth $500/hr. People commuting to work have time valued at about the value of their wages. For goods being delivered, it's no only the driver's salary, but the capital costs of having the goods tied up in transit.

The larger point is that the rule has the same effect as a tax. The net loss of costs minus benefits is money that is thrown away. The government destroys wealth through regulation. The costs are implicit, but they are significant.

Similar cost-benefit analysis applies to mass transit. Mass transit takes longer. Decades ago, someone figured that people taking mass transit in the US were valuing their time at about $6/hr.

I know that mass transit (subways, etc.) do generally take longer than say, commuting at a reasonable distance from a house in the suburbs, but for me -just me, here- I would prefer a subway or metro to a car any day of the week. The reason is because I can't stand other drivers on the road. When people tailgate, and then the tailgated person slows down, which causes traffic to congest in all lanes, it really raises my stress level in a way that few other things can. When I see people texting and driving it's even worse. In a metro system, anyone can text. They can sit or stand. They have no control of the speed or direction of the system. It is far less stressful (for me) than interstate travel. As absurd as that may be, road travel is perhaps the most stressful aspect of my life (which is not to say that I lead a charmed existence, only that I really don't ride/drive in cars well).

Your points about time and different valuations of it is completely valid, though.
Tsar of DDO
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 2:18:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 1:05:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:22:27 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason it's a bad idea is that road user's time is valuable. the benefits of the speed limit need to be quantified and weighed against the costs. For some, the extra time is not very valuable, but for, say, a high priced lawyer, it might be worth $500/hr. People commuting to work have time valued at about the value of their wages. For goods being delivered, it's no only the driver's salary, but the capital costs of having the goods tied up in transit.

The larger point is that the rule has the same effect as a tax. The net loss of costs minus benefits is money that is thrown away. The government destroys wealth through regulation. The costs are implicit, but they are significant.

Similar cost-benefit analysis applies to mass transit. Mass transit takes longer. Decades ago, someone figured that people taking mass transit in the US were valuing their time at about $6/hr.

I know that mass transit (subways, etc.) do generally take longer than say, commuting at a reasonable distance from a house in the suburbs, but for me -just me, here- I would prefer a subway or metro to a car any day of the week. The reason is because I can't stand other drivers on the road. When people tailgate, and then the tailgated person slows down, which causes traffic to congest in all lanes, it really raises my stress level in a way that few other things can. When I see people texting and driving it's even worse. In a metro system, anyone can text. They can sit or stand. They have no control of the speed or direction of the system. It is far less stressful (for me) than interstate travel. As absurd as that may be, road travel is perhaps the most stressful aspect of my life (which is not to say that I lead a charmed existence, only that I really don't ride/drive in cars well).

Your points about time and different valuations of it is completely valid, though.

Road rage isn't just about people screaming at the steering wheel, late for work. Driving is extremely stressful. It pollutes the mind just as much as it pollutes the atmosphere.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 12:57:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 5:33:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:48:29 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/10/2012 2:59:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Speed limits are ineffective. Studies show that people drive around the same speed whether a limit is there or not.

More police and heavier fines.

As the great philosophers, of the NWA said:




MC Ren?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/11/2012 12:57:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/10/2012 5:33:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:48:29 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/10/2012 2:59:10 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Speed limits are ineffective. Studies show that people drive around the same speed whether a limit is there or not.

More police and heavier fines.

As the great philosophers, of the NWA said:




MC Ren?

Yup.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 9:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

Been tried 55 sucked big time
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 10:11:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 9:22:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

Been tried 55 sucked big time
Angry_Bird
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2012 2:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:16:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Suppose a global speed limit of 40mph was introduced, and companies were no longer permitted to sell cars that could move any faster. Wouldn't this improve several aspects of modern life? Suppose that people eventually got used to it (afterall, it used to take a lot longer to travel short distances (by modern standards). It would reduce stress, it would decrease accidents, decrease fatalities....almost like slowing down life.

This is probably an obscenely horrendous idea, but I'm curious what you think would happen.

----------------0-o---

I live in the UK and we have no law here regarding speed limits. etc.
We are free to enjoy traveling as quick or as slow as we like at any age without a driving
Licence,insurance,tax MOT.
All these statues,and acts are optional to every free and independent individual
Because they are only enforceable with our consent