What you’re advocating for is allowing entitled psychopaths to set the speed everyone is forced to go because you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person’s fault.
I’m obviously not saying anyone should be doing fucking 10 on the highway, I’m saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
If you’re argument requires everyone on the road to be a psychopath you might want to reconsider it.
You also haven’t been listening, perhaps you’re too busy ranting about “psychopaths” to pay attention: I’ve already said if someone is doing the speed limit and gets hit it is the fault the person speeding. However, I’d much rather not be in an accident at all than “be right” and not the person at fault.
I’m saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
that’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve been repeating “slower is safer” over and over and it was trivial to provide an example that made that argument absurd and untrue.
that statement is making a lot of assumptions. The primary one being that the speed limit is set accurately and appropriately. Again, if some politician decided “in the name of safety” to change the speed limit on the highway to 10 would you be arguing against increasing it because “nobody needs be doing more than the speed limit”? Would the people doing 20 on the highways now be psychopaths because the sign on the side of the road changed?
To 1, your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical. It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.
For 2, nearly all highways in the US are set for a speed limit that is both safe for that road and allows for reasonable efficiency of travel. Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.
It’s become clear that you have nothing meaningful to contribute here. Have a nice life, I’m out.
your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical.
This you?
you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person’s fault.
As for:
It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.
Your argument has never mentioned “reasonable speed”. You have been repeatedly saying “slower is safer” and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. “Reasonable speed” is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes “what is a reasonable speed?”
Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.
Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn’t magically make that number a “reasonable speed”. It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a “reasonable speed” for the road conditions in order to claim it’s now safer.
What you’re advocating for is allowing entitled psychopaths to set the speed everyone is forced to go because you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person’s fault.
I’m obviously not saying anyone should be doing fucking 10 on the highway, I’m saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
If you’re argument requires everyone on the road to be a psychopath you might want to reconsider it.
You also haven’t been listening, perhaps you’re too busy ranting about “psychopaths” to pay attention: I’ve already said if someone is doing the speed limit and gets hit it is the fault the person speeding. However, I’d much rather not be in an accident at all than “be right” and not the person at fault.
that’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve been repeating “slower is safer” over and over and it was trivial to provide an example that made that argument absurd and untrue.
that statement is making a lot of assumptions. The primary one being that the speed limit is set accurately and appropriately. Again, if some politician decided “in the name of safety” to change the speed limit on the highway to 10 would you be arguing against increasing it because “nobody needs be doing more than the speed limit”? Would the people doing 20 on the highways now be psychopaths because the sign on the side of the road changed?
To 1, your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical. It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.
For 2, nearly all highways in the US are set for a speed limit that is both safe for that road and allows for reasonable efficiency of travel. Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.
It’s become clear that you have nothing meaningful to contribute here. Have a nice life, I’m out.
This you?
As for:
Your argument has never mentioned “reasonable speed”. You have been repeatedly saying “slower is safer” and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. “Reasonable speed” is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes “what is a reasonable speed?”
Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn’t magically make that number a “reasonable speed”. It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a “reasonable speed” for the road conditions in order to claim it’s now safer.