• ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Your argument for not having speed limits is that a portion of other drivers speed and this isn’t enforced? Not that it should be stricter, or the limit lowered?

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The argument is that safety is already naturally incentivized. People don’t want to be in crashes, so they naturally avoid.

      And an awake human brain, on site and paying attention and in control of the speed, is a better safety mechanism than a car that won’t go over a specific speed.

      • ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        People also overestimate their reflexes and abilities, and lower speeds result in fewer injuries and deaths. Sure, being awake is good, but so is going slower; why not both?

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      not a portion it is the majority of the drivers we are on the road with do not follow road rules including speeding

      when speed limits are lowered very small group of drivers that adhere to the speeds set suffer due to bumper humpers and road ragers

      not safer