actually my argument is based more around 60 mph average speed because that's more or less the average speed on highways and people spend a decent amount of time driving on highways and the like. Also, the increased fatality rates were concerning a rise from 60 to 70mph.
Obviously if we're going from 15 to 20 the numbers change. But at the same time if people were on average driving around at 15mph on average car accidents wouldn't be such a big issue, instead of the leading cause of death among teenagers.
actually with lower speed limits you would gain more time by going 10mph faster. For example, if people were driving at 10mph on average, going 20mph would half their transit time. The point is that the speeding people commit usually doesn't earn them much more time, but disproportionately endanger themselves and those around them at higher speeds.
>actually with lower speed limits you would gain more time
Right, not sure why you have 'actually' there because that was my point. When you picked 60 vs. 70 you were picking the speeds most likely to favor not going faster.
>the speeding people commit usually doesn't earn them much more time, but disproportionately endanger themselves and those around them
It's the 'disproportionately' that's at argument. A tiny-per-person cost for a noble purpose seems like an obvious choice, but when you repeat the action a billion times over it gets more complicated.
Obviously if we're going from 15 to 20 the numbers change. But at the same time if people were on average driving around at 15mph on average car accidents wouldn't be such a big issue, instead of the leading cause of death among teenagers.
actually with lower speed limits you would gain more time by going 10mph faster. For example, if people were driving at 10mph on average, going 20mph would half their transit time. The point is that the speeding people commit usually doesn't earn them much more time, but disproportionately endanger themselves and those around them at higher speeds.