Speed limits should be reduced
Do you think speed limits should be reduced?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Reducing speed reduces deaths
It is the logical conclusion that an unbiased person would take, that if drivers do not drive as fast, they will be more aware of their surroundings, be more in control of their car, and will have a shorter breaking distance. Not only will this reduce accidents, but it will reduce the impact of any accidents that may occur. Their is more force behind a faster car and so more crushing power - be that the crushing of the car in front or the crushing of a child's bones as they stepped onto the road.
This argument is based on Government adverts, and is no way backed by statistical evidence. It is in fact the very fast AND the very slow drivers that cause accidents. Those who drive in the 80th to 90 percentile are the safest drivers[[Brian Gregory, The Times Online, April 2009]]. This shows that instead of attacking that safe percentile, the slow and the extremely fast should be penalised. Harsher enforcement of very fast drivers, and slow drivers should also be apprehended. Therefore, instead of reducing the speed limit to below that safe percentile, why not ensure those who are very fast and very slow keep to the current speed limits. Spending limited resources in this area will see a greater degree of road safety.
<< This is saying that people obey the speed limit, which they do not.
Increase in motorcyclists
There has been a significant increase in motorcyclists in recent times and the credit crunch has meant that whilst car registrations dropped 8.8% motorcyclists only dropped 1.5%[[Erin Baker, Telegraph, November 2008]]. Given the increase in numbers expected after the economic downturn, motorbikes should be catered for on our roads. Cars driving fast are less likely to see a motorcyclist pull out and will be less likely to perform the emergency break efficiently. The increase in motorcyclists has to promote change in the way we use our roads. Given that motorbikes are the more efficient and environmentally friendly mode of travel, we should promote people to learn to drive a motorbike rather than cars. Such promotion will not succeed if the roads are unsafe for motorcyclists.
You can not transport large things on motorcycles, nor can you ride them comfortable in the snow or rain. Motorcycles are very weather dependent vehicles that allow little to no carry on items. They also only allow a small amount of people to ride them as compared to a honda civic which means the transportation of 4 people in a civic is better for the economy as compared to multiple motor cycles. Regardless, a lot of motorcycles i see on the highway swerve in and out of traffic, drive between lanes when the traffic is stopped and drive faster than any car i've personally seen on the highway. Motorcycle accident probably occur more often due to the careless, wreckless acts of the person driving his motorcycle and not so much the cars around them.
High tax on cars is not value for money if you have to drive at a snail's pace
It is unbelievable that tax keeps rising on cars when the actions that you can take with your car are being reduced. If such action of the government continues people will stop driving and the government will lower their own income via such taxes. The oil industry that is so powerful will me made so weak through lack of consumers that we will have yet another credit crunch on our hands. People pay to drive so they can get from A to B in a relatively short space of time, reducing speed limits and raising taxes are not compatible.
The government reducing people from driving would actually hurt the government in more ways than 1. First would be the taxes from gas, the next is the taxes from cars. Then theres all the taxes people pay (in some states) on parts and extras and all these after-market additions to their cars. This would also cause more and more unemployment as people lose modes of transportation, limiting their ability to get jobs which lowers the amount of money lining in the governments pocket from income taxes. Why would the government raise taxes to reduce the amount of money they make?
Fuel tax exists to reduce car use rather than to make money. It has the same effect as lower speed limits, so the two approaches are compatible
Government detracting from lack of money to spend on roads
The blame is always with the public and never with the public authorities. The public should lower their speed, the public should be the scapegoat for road accidents. but this is simply not the case. If the Government were to spend more money on the condition of our roads and more money on providing underpasses for pedestrians then road safety would not be such a big issue. A parish council in Essex were even considering deliberately leaving pothole unfilled in order to make people reduce their speed[[BBC, BBC News, April 2009]]! This is not a safety measure, this is a way of saving money for the Government Minister's luxury pads.
Not so sound like a complete careless person, because i do sympathize for you and your family for the loss, but honestly, if you live so close to a highway, why would you let a 2 year old go play in the streets? (knowing that cars don't slow down). I'd also like to state that all highways I have seen always have a stop sign or set of lights when you just get off the highway, and prior to these stop signals (around the entry of the exit) theres a sign that says "Ramp 30 MPH" or whatever speed is deemed best.
And another thing is that you said it yourself, these people were speeding. Reducing the speed limit isn't going to stop speeding from happening. It'll just exist even more.
why i think that the speed limits should be reduced, becuase yeah, i've lost a loved one..even tho i did not know him. he was my uncle, and he was two. he crossed the street without his mom [my grandma] and they live on a road, where your just getting off the high way. so there isnt a sign saying to slow down your speed now is there?
yes i may live in Michigan, and this happened in Ohio. but big deal. he was my uncle that i never got to meet.
my mom never go to meet, neither did one on my aunts. so maybe if the speed limits were just a little reduced. maybe people like my grandma wouldnt have to loose a love one. Mostly Her Own Child.
Negative impact on the environment
The natural consequence of lower speed limits is longer journey times. Longer journey times means more time spent in the car to cover the same distance. This will increase the output of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere for every single journey. The plight of modern times is supposed to be the reduction, not the increase of carbon emissions. The optimum driving speed is between 50 and 60mph[[W.H. West, FuelEconomy, 2001]], this is the most efficient driving speed to save petrol and reduce noxious emissions. There are more miles per litre of petrol when driving at this speed and so the Government should not seek to reduce the speed below this level.
Speed restrictions cause accidents.
As discussed above, reduction in speed equal longer journey times. Longer journey times will make drivers more susceptible to being tired during their journey. Drivers will find it boring travelling at mundane speed levels and so their level of attention will drop and they could potentially slip into a slumber at the wheel. This will increase accidents. Another problem is that accidents are often caused by people slowing down in order not to be caught speeding. Such fluctuating levels of speed is dangers and unpredictable, not only for pedestrians but also for other drivers. Lowering the speed limit will thus not serve any purpose than to create more potential accidents.
Government have illegitimate reasons behind lowering the speed limit
The Government Road Safety department are indirectly funded by the undertakings that manufacture speed cameras and other speed reducing instruments[[Brian Gregory, The Times Online, April 2009]]. To continue to receive the funds of that undertaking, the Government has a vested interest in lowering speed limits so that local councils will buy the speed enforcement products. Ergo, whilst the Government are sending out propaganda regarding deaths caused by speeding, their real motivation is the financial incentive.
Blame the pedestrians.
60% of pedestrian road accidents are the fault of the pedestrian themselves[[Brian Gregory, Times Online, April 2009]]. If this is the case surely the answer to solving the problems is to educate pedestrians on how to safely cross a road and not to reduce the speed of innocent drivers. Children should be taught in school and by their parents about the Green Cross Code and they should not be allowed to cross roads if they do not have the maturity to follow these codes.
^ True statement.
What do you think?