Insurance or universal based health care?

[theotherguy]

Universal Health Care.

Why?

There are two types of goods, public and private.

Private goods are goods that can be bought and sold, and which the benefit of the good is excluded to the consumer's wants and needs.

Public goods are goods that can be used by multiple people without some of the consumers paying the cost. That is, they have positive externalities. Education, for instance, is a public good, because all of society gains some benefit of an educated workforce without directly paying the cost of education. Military protection is another public good, because protecting the nation from foreign threats has benefits for all people, even if those people aren't directly paying for military equipment and training.

Public goods must be funded by the government or at least heavily regulated by the government to offset positive externalities, and make sure that all people pay for the benefits they receive from such goods. Health care is a public good. A healthy workforce is much more beneficial to society as a whole, and a healthy citizenry has less chance of spreading disease across the nation.

Thus, to place all the costs on the consumer of health care does not take into account the obvious positive externalities that having a healthy workforce creates. The costs must be distributed among all receivers of the positive externalities, that is, all taxpayers.

Also, and quite importantly, having a capitalistic rather than socialistic health care system monopolizes the best health care to the wealthiest of people, rather than to the sickest of people. Is it really moral to provide a fundamental human right, that is, to health and happiness, to only those who can afford it? Is it really moral to provide the best treatments to richer people who might not need those treatments, but deny them to someone who needs them, but who cannot afford them?

It is the responsibility of the government to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens. It is also the responsibility of the government to ensure just treatment of individuals under the law, and make sure that these rights are allowed to all people equally. I believe that health care is a fundamental right which should not be bartered to the highest bidder. It must be provided by the government, and the government must ensure equitable treatment to all individuals.

 

[theotherguy]

Many drivers are idiots...and the quality of driving has sunk massively here in recent years, most probably because of the sudden obsession with speed enforcement above all else. It's not uncommon to hear some dimwit rear-end the guy in front and then claim he thought he was safe because he was driving at the speed limit!
Driver discretion is being removed in favor of obedience to simplistic rules that can never possibly account for the wide variety of conditions on the roads.
If you want to make the roads safer and get rid of idiocy, the best way is to train to a high standard and train in the vital driving skills - why are we not taught how to set an appropriate speed for the conditions, the nuances of overtaking, cornering, observation and planning instead of "don't exceed this limit, and don't stray too far below it either because then you'll fail for not making good progress".

This is the kind of stuff they teach in my advanced training (based on police rider training), but it should be taught to learners. Officially, they state that we must never exceed the speed limit but that's only because they're politically neutral. In reality, they teach how to ride at an incredibly fast pace without ever having an accident or inconveniencing other road users.
The problem with driver training is that it covers a set of very rudimentary skills and then we have inflexible, stupid rules like speed limits which aim unsuccessfully to minimize the effects of incompetence. There's a big flaw with this system, no?

No, its fools like you, (80 percent of all drivers on the roads), who believe that speed limits are pointless and who drive aggressively who create many of the traffic problems on the road.

If people all drove at the same, reasonable speed, and didn't attempt aggressive maneuvers unless it was absolutely necessary, there certainly wouldn't be as many accidents.

I fear the only way this will be solved is with the inevitable advent of robotic cars.

 

[Stigmata]

Universal Health Care.

Why?

There are two types of goods, public and private.

Private goods are goods that can be bought and sold, and which the benefit of the good is excluded to the consumer's wants and needs.

Public goods are goods that can be used by multiple people without some of the consumers paying the cost. That is, they have positive externalities. Education, for instance, is a public good, because all of society gains some benefit of an educated workforce without directly paying the cost of education. Military protection is another public good, because protecting the nation from foreign threats has benefits for all people, even if those people aren't directly paying for military equipment and training.

Public goods must be funded by the government or at least heavily regulated by the government to offset positive externalities, and make sure that all people pay for the benefits they receive from such goods. Health care is a public good. A healthy workforce is much more beneficial to society as a whole, and a healthy citizenry has less chance of spreading disease across the nation.

Thus, to place all the costs on the consumer of health care does not take into account the obvious positive externalities that having a healthy workforce creates. The costs must be distributed among all receivers of the positive externalities, that is, all taxpayers.

Also, and quite importantly, having a capitalistic rather than socialistic health care system monopolizes the best health care to the wealthiest of people, rather than to the sickest of people. Is it really moral to provide a fundamental human right, that is, to health and happiness, to only those who can afford it? Is it really moral to provide the best treatments to richer people who might not need those treatments, but deny them to someone who needs them, but who cannot afford them?

It is the responsibility of the government to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens. It is also the responsibility of the government to ensure just treatment of individuals under the law, and make sure that these rights are allowed to all people equally. I believe that health care is a fundamental right which should not be bartered to the highest bidder. It must be provided by the government, and the government must ensure equitable treatment to all individuals.

Said far more eloquently than I have the patience to write.

 

[repiV]

I think you have way too much confidence in yourself. I know we argue a lot but that doesn't mean I want you to go out there and get killed, which will happen to you soon enough if you keep that attitude up. You say it was a newbie mistake, from what I recall that was not too long ago, just a few months back, no? Don't ever overestimate your abilities, that could be a fatal mistake. I've known far too many people that have died on motorcycles, many of them thought they were hot shit too. So drive safe out there, if you don't who am I going to argue with about muslims and other bullshit? I know nemesis will still be here but he's not very interesting .

It was a few months ago, yeah. I've only been riding since March - but I've done about 20,000 miles so far, study and ride with others in order to develop my skills.
I know what you're saying though. Thanks.

I'd like to show you a video of my riding so you can make your own mind up, but I don't know how that would be practical.

 

[repiV]

No, its fools like you, (80 percent of all drivers on the roads), who believe that speed limits are pointless and who drive aggressively who create many of the traffic problems on the road.

What basis do you have for claiming that I'm either aggressive on the roads or that I'm a fool, like 80% of drivers on the roads?
And why would I accept the judgement of someone whose entire driver training probably consisted of driving around some cones without crashing and answering some questions on when to stop and go?

Here's an article written by a member of the advanced organisation I'm a member of...the principles contained within may save your life one day. Clicky

If people all drove at the same, reasonable speed, and didn't attempt aggressive maneuvers unless it was absolutely necessary, there certainly wouldn't be as many accidents.

Are you mad? There's few things scarier and more dangerous than all lanes of traffic moving at exactly the same speed. It leaves no escape routes.
The reality is, you're simply spouting common misconceptions which are not supported by the facts. German Autobahns are twice as safe as US highways, despite having people passing you at 140+mph being a common occurence and them being narrow, two-lane roads in most instances. UK motorways are twice as safe again as Autobahns, and supported by the safety record of other countries in fact demonstrates that speed limits do not correlate with safety. It's all about attitude and training.
When they removed daytime speed limits on highways in Montana, accidents plummeted - and they skyrocketed again when the speed limit was reintroduced. Go figure.

I fear the only way this will be solved is with the inevitable advent of robotic cars.

Oh yay. I'll go and do some starjumps to contain my excitement.

In the meantime, go and read SafeSpeed. Educate yourself.

 

[CptStern]

It was a classic newbie mistake that most people make at some time or another. I'm a far better rider now than I was then.

conditions were in your favour at that moment, it could have gone the opposite way and you could have been crushed by a lorry/slammed into a sidewalk, landed on your face etc etc ..no matter how skilled or prepared or confident or whatever none of that takes chance into account .. in any event regardless of your level of skill an accident at high speed substantially increases the likelihood of death ..doing 20km/hr you come around a corner and slam into a squirrel causing you to lose control of your bike throwing you off the bike ..at a high rate of speed that same accident is made much more deadly


back to healthcare, you have to ask yourself why there's such a big push against it ..I mean you cant read this story without thinking "what possible motive could be more important than the well being of children" there is no escaping the fact that they're scum trading in human misery for the sake of profit ..the proposed budget is chump change in comparison to the ongoing money sink that is iraq

Bush to Veto Expanded Children's Health Care Program

With no ceremony for television cameras, President Bush will veto a bill Wednesday expanding a popular health care program for children by $35 billion.

The move will set up a veto fight that Bush probably will win but will give Democrats a campaign issue for next year's elections. They will argue the veto shows Bush and his Republican allies are insensitive to low-income children who are uninsured through no fault of their own.

The Senate passed the bill with enough votes to override the veto, with 18 Republicans lining up with Democrats. But the House fell about two dozen votes shy of the number needed to override.

Bush argues the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is a step toward socialized medicine and would entice people with private coverage to switch to government-financed plans.

americans are so complacent, so partisan so brainwashed that they accept this without comment even though 45 million americans are without healthcare and those that do have coverage are sorely underattended ...this is the person that was voted twice by americans, you really have no one but yourselves to blame

 

[repiV]

conditions were in your favour at that moment, it could have gone the opposite way and you could have been crushed by a lorry/slammed into a sidewalk, landed on your face etc etc ..no matter how skilled or prepared or confident or whatever none of that takes chance into account ..

You're absolutely right. Coming off the high side of the bike usually results in serious injury from the falling/tumbling, I was lucky to be unhurt.

in any event regardless of your level of skill an accident at high speed substantially increases the likelihood of death ..doing 20km/hr you come around a corner and slam into a squirrel causing you to lose control of your bike throwing you off the bike ..at a high rate of speed that same accident is made much more deadly

True to an extent, but that doesn't mean that high speed makes an accident more likely.
Providing you're wearing the right gear, it's what you hit and how you fall that most determines your fate. A motorcycle helmet is actually only designed to protect against an impact equivalent to falling from head height onto the ground - if you headbutt a car you're not likely to survive no matter what speed you were travelling at.

back to healthcare, you have to ask yourself why there's such a big push against it ..I mean you cant read this story without thinking "what possible motive could be more important than the well being of children" there is no escaping the fact that they're scum trading in human misery for the sake of profit ..the proposed budget is chump change in comparison to the ongoing money sink that is iraq

americans are so complacent, so partisan so brainwashed that they accept this without comment even though 45 million americans are without healthcare and those that do have coverage are sorely underattended ...this is the person that was voted twice by americans, you really have no one but yourselves to blame

I have to agree with your thoughts on the children's healthcare.

 

[CptStern]

back to traffic ..was listening to an interview with a civil engineer who started a pilot program in ...god my memory sucks ..umm could have been belgium and he did mention a specific area in london ..anyways his project was to remove the majority of rules on the street, things like no sidewalk, no stop signs, no speed limits etc ..the thinking was that you make people so paranoid of hitting a pedestrian that they'll drive saftely ..I think short term that wont work but long term it has the potential to be disastrous


anyways here's the link to the show there'll probably be a transcript and you'll be able to listen to it at some point either today or tommorrow

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200710/20071003.html

 

[repiV]

back to traffic ..was listening to an interview with a civil engineer who started a pilot program in ...god my memory sucks ..umm could have been belgium and he did mention a specific area in london ..anyways his project was to remove the majority of rules on the street, things like no sidewalk, no stop signs, no speed limits etc ..the thinking was that you make people so paranoid of hitting a pedestrian that they'll drive saftely ..I think short term that wont work but long term it has the potential to be disastrous


anyways here's the link to the show there'll probably be a transcript and you'll be able to listen to it at some point either today or tommorrow

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200710/20071003.html

There's a Dutch civil engineer who implemented this idea across a whole town in Holland - probably the same guy. It was actually an amazing success, both from the perspective of reducing accidents and reducing congestion.
The problem is that with many of the features on modern roads, they encourage you to disengage brain. Like traffic lights for example - stop when it's red (also encourages people to accelerate through an amber light, too) and go when it's green. Inevitably this ends up with people blindly accelerating when the lights go green, which can cause accidents - and red light cameras can cause people to stop when it would have been safer to proceed (tailgater or heavy braking required for example).
Pedestrians particularly in central London are total lemmings - that's a problem that needs to be addressed. The worst is when they blindly step out between lanes of traffic into oncoming bikes. It's very difficult to prepare for as they can't be seen until the last moment, the best solution I've found is a race exhaust and first gear. Cyclists do it too - dive out from behind a bus into the "bikes only" lane without looking. ****ing stupid.
Perhaps a shared road space would, more crucially, encourage pedestrians to be more cautious.

 

[CptStern]

There's a Dutch civil engineer who implemented this idea across a whole town in Holland - probably the same guy. It was actually an amazing success, both from the perspective of reducing accidents and reducing congestion.

yup that's the guy ..see I told you my memory sucks ..and it was only a bit over an hour ago

The problem is that with many of the features on modern roads, they encourage you to disengage brain. Like traffic lights for example - stop when it's red (also encourages people to accelerate through an amber light, too) and go when it's green. Inevitably this ends up with people blindly accelerating when the lights go green, which can cause accidents - and red light cameras can cause people to stop when it would have been safer to proceed (tailgater or heavy braking required for example).
Pedestrians particularly in central London are total lemmings - that's a problem that needs to be addressed. The worst is when they blindly step out between lanes of traffic into oncoming bikes. It's very difficult to prepare for as they can't be seen until the last moment, the best solution I've found is a race exhaust and first gear. Cyclists do it too - dive out from behind a bus into the "bikes only" lane without looking. ****ing stupid.
Perhaps a shared road space would, more crucially, encourage pedestrians to be more cautious.

I find it's indifference and selfishness that leads to poor driving skills ...those that are underconfident grip their sterring wheels in a death grip whereas those who are confident enough to drive while talking on the phone or putting on makeup, or pulling their nosehairs distracts them from driving ..I cant begin to tell you the amount of times I've been behind a slow moving car on a single lane road while the driver is leisurely looking at homes, the countryside, the messages on his phone ect ..and they dont care that you're late or in a rush or just want to ****ing drive at the speed limit, nope they'll continue eating that apple while doing 10km under the speed limit straddling the shoulder because they're not paying attention ..it's really a surprise these types of drivers are not pulled from their vehicles and curb stomped on a more frequent basis

 

[repiV]

yup that's the guy ..see I told you my memory sucks ..and it was only a bit over an hour ago



I find it's indifference and selfishness that leads to poor driving skills ...those that are underconfident grip their sterring wheels in a death grip whereas those who are confident enough to drive while talking on the phone or putting on makeup, or pulling their nosehairs distracts them from driving ..I cant begin to tell you the amount of times I've been behind a slow moving car on a single lane road while the driver is leisurely looking at homes, the countryside, the messages on his phone ect ..and they dont care that you're late or in a rush or just want to ****ing drive at the speed limit, nope they'll continue eating that apple while doing 10km under the speed limit straddling the shoulder because they're not paying attention ..it's really a surprise these types of drivers are not pulled from their vehicles and curb stomped on a more frequent basis

Pretty much. The problem is that for most people, driving is just a means to an end. Training is not a valuable learning experience for them, simply a necessary evil in order for them to secure their license.
And once they have their license, they give no further thought to developing their skills or actually making an effort to drive properly. We have a chronic problem here with lane hoggers, especially in London and the surrounding areas - I'm not sure if you have the same setup over there, but here on a multi-lane road the inside lane is for driving in and the other lanes are for overtaking. All too often it can be impossible to make any progress because people sit in the overtaking lane for no reason at all. It's not uncommon to see the two overtaking lanes full of traffic and virtually nothing at all in the inside lane, it takes the absolute piss. I find myself squeezing between the cars at 70+mph out of sheer frustration, granted it's a pretty risky manoeuvre but there's nothing so infuriating as being held up indefinitely for no reason at all. ****ing idiots.
I have a friend who drives everywhere at exactly the speed limit, not one mph differential, can barely see over the steering wheel and gets confused by road signs. Took her four attempts to pass her test, too. That's what passes for "driving skills" these days - driving in a robotic, unconfident fashion paying more attention to your speedo than the road.

 

[The Monkey]

^ We don't have that problem here, thankfully, people tend to stay in the right lane unless they're passing-

The biggest problems are ****tards who thinks it's their right to behave any ****ing way in traffic. They're usually men in their 20s, who think they own the road. They are far more dangerous than any female or older drivers I've ever seen. I wonder why people only complains about older and female drivers and never about those who cause the majority of accidents: young men.

 

[repiV]

^ We don't have that problem here, thanksfully, people tend to stay in the right lane unless they're passing-

You're lucky. Check this out. :E

The biggest problems are ****tards who thinks it's their right to behave any ****ing way in traffic. They're usually men in their 20s, who think they own the road. They are far more dangerous than any female or older drivers I've ever seen.

I can't really think of any particular time when boy racers have caused me any trouble, but maybe that's because I don't hang around. Then again, I imagine that the threat they pose to motorcyclists is minimal anyway compared to the threat posed by inattentive and careless drivers. The lunatic is an obvious threat which can be easily avoided, given that they generally drive shitty 1.2 litre cars - inattentive and careless drivers can be hiding anywhere, and if they pull out on you and you don't avoid them, you're probably looking at a broken leg, minimum.
Possibly the most bizarre incident of shit driving I've ever seen was a couple of months back, coming home at 4 in the morning down a basically empty three-lane dual carriageway, doing about 80 in the inside lane when I see headlights emerging from a side road in the distance, so I move over to the middle lane. Car very slowly drifts out of the side road...and passes right over into the middle lane. So I move to the outside lane. Car continues to drift right into the outside lane, then pootles forwards at no more than 10mph. The noise of my bike would have been incredibly loud at those revs, only a drugged up granny could not know I was coming.
So I had to slam on the brakes. Pulled up next to him and asked him if he was ****ing blind and what the **** was he doing, he just laughed and joked about it. So I took off his wing mirror and went on my way.
Polish driver on Polish plates, no doubt unlicensed, uninsured and drunk. I probably should have called the police.

I wonder why people only complains about older and female drivers and never about those who cause the majority of accidents: young men.

Per mile, elderly drivers are actually the most dangerous. And I suffer at the hands of inattentive drivers much more often than I do at the hands of reckless ones.

 

[The Monkey]

You're lucky. Check this out. :E

You're lucky to have three lanes. In the pictures in that link you could always pass them in the innermost lane. The motorways in Sweden only have two lanes, so if someone is the the passing lane there is no way to legally pass them.

Per mile, elderly drivers are actually the most dangerous. And I suffer at the hands of inattentive drivers much more often than I do at the hands of reckless ones.

I don't know the statistics in Britain, but in Sweden 70-year olds are in fewer accidents per driven mile than 20-year olds.

 

[repiV]

You're lucky to have three lanes. In the pictures in that link you could always pass them in the innermost lane. The motorways in Sweden only have two lanes, so if someone is the the passing lane there is no way to legally pass them.

True, but that brings its own problems. It carries an element of added risk as people don't expect you to be passing them in the inside lane - and when you do come across a car in the inside lane, you're stuck there anyway.
I really wish they'd crack down more on middle lane morons - the economic consequences must be catastrophic - not to mention the danger they create for everyone else around them. A single person sitting in the wrong lane essentially reduces the capacity of the motorway by a third. It should be an endorsable offence to obstruct traffic by staying in the wrong lane needlessly. Sadly, it's technically legal, and many people don't even know how to drive on the motorway.

I don't know the statistics in Britain, but in Sweden 70-year olds are in fewer accidents per driven mile than 20-year olds.

Just a guess, but it probably has something to do with the traffic volume here. Our country is physically smaller than yours and we have ten times the population. Driving becomes more demanding on those faculties that diminish with age the more traffic there is on the roads...

This is the kind of traffic we have to contend with on a daily basis: Clicky

 

[No Limit]

It was a few months ago, yeah. I've only been riding since March - but I've done about 20,000 miles so far, study and ride with others in order to develop my skills.
I know what you're saying though. Thanks.

I'd like to show you a video of my riding so you can make your own mind up, but I don't know how that would be practical.

I'd like to see the videos just to see what you can do but its not going to change anything I am saying. I am not trying to dispute that you are good a rider, I'll take your word for it but you are completely missing my point about your overconfident attitude. I like to think of myself as a great web designer and programmer too. But I've had my share of **** ups. The worst that happens when I **** up is that I might lose a contract, when you **** up at that kind of speed you are going to be scraped off the asphalt by a puking fireman.

I am by no means saying ride like a grandma would, but when you go that fast and then run from the cops your potential for making that fatal mistake is through the roof, and when you are dead it wont matter who you think is to blame for it. I can pm you articles from my personal experiances of people that have lost their lives on a bike, not sure that I need to as I'm sure you are smart enough to know that happens all the time. I'll leave it at that since this is way off topic anyway.

 

[repiV]

I'd like to see the videos just to see what you can do but its not going to change anything I am saying. I am not trying to dispute that you are good a rider, I'll take your word for it but you are completely missing my point about your overconfident attitude. I like to think of myself as a great web designer and programmer too. But I've had my share of **** ups. The worst that happens when I **** up is that I might lose a contract, when you **** up at that kind of speed you are going to be scraped off the asphalt by a puking fireman.

The problem is that speed is entirely relative. As a number, it's meaningless. It's critical to understand that for a collision to occur (I'm not talking about loss of control accidents here, but they don't happen on long straight dry roads) requires that something unexpected happens and then someone runs out of room, thus crashing. Provided that you keep the correct distance from other vehicles and can take account of what other motorists may do, then any speed is safe. Focusing entirely on speed is completely misunderstanding the real factors in road safety.
I just came back from Devon this afternoon, I spent most of the 200 mile journey at 100-130mph (depending on my tolerance for the wind noise and buffeting at that particular moment) and I would have gone a lot faster than that if my bike didn't have a top speed of 145 and I had some decent hearing protection. It was a relaxed, low-risk ride - the traffic light, the road open and predictable. The only thing in danger was my poor ears...
On the contrary, on one of my favourite routes it would be suicide in most cases to go above 60 - there are hairpin bends so tight that I had the footpeg scraping on the ground at less than 30mph and still running wide, sweeping blind left handers that run immediately into tight right handers, and there are no warning signs to tell you about the particularly sharp corners. And if you come off, you'll fly straight into a stone wall. THAT's a dangerous ride, and lots of riders do die there. And if an accident did happen, I'd rather slide down an empty straight road at 130mph than hit a stone wall at 30.

It's not about being careless about the dangers, it's about recognising the real causes of danger. Numerical speed is not one of them.

I am by no means saying ride like a grandma would, but when you go that fast and then run from the cops your potential for making that fatal mistake is through the roof, and when you are dead it wont matter who you think is to blame for it. I can pm you articles from my personal experiances of people that have lost their lives on a bike, not sure that I need to as I'm sure you are smart enough to know that happens all the time. I'll leave it at that since this is way off topic anyway.

I went on a memorial ride just the other week. I know all too well.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

The problem is that speed is entirely relative. As a number, it's meaningless. It's critical to understand that for a collision to occur (I'm not talking about loss of control accidents here, but they don't happen on long straight dry roads) requires that something unexpected happens and then someone runs out of room, thus crashing.

I've just sort of been watching this conversation, but I have to chime in. For the most part, that's is entirely untrue.

The simple fact that accidents are caused by uxexpected occurances only means that as speed increases so does the risk of serious accident. All things equal, you're still going to have a hard time proving that you're equally safe at 130mph vs 65-70mph.

Be it loss of focus, which is far more important at 130mph, or any other strange occurance on the road...you'll have a far better chance of recovering and potentially regaining control at 65mph. Just look at reaction time alone...you, at 130mph, have far less time to react...therefore a worse chance of avoiding an accident. In that instance, you're "numerical" speed is working directly against you...putting you at a greater risk than someone driving slower.

It was a relaxed, low-risk ride - the traffic light, the road open and predictable.

It's never predictable. That's the arrogance.

 

[repiV]

I've just sort of been watching this conversation, but I have to chime in. For the most part, that's is entirely untrue.

The simple fact that accidents are caused by uxexpected occurances only means that as speed increases so does the risk of serious accident. All things equal, you're going to have a hard time proving that you're equally safe at 130mph vs 65-70mph.

Be it loss of focus, which is far more important at 130mph, or any other strange occurance on the road...you'll have a far better chance of recovering and potentially regaining control at 65mph. Just look at reaction time alone...you, at 130mph, have far less time to react...therefore a better chance of avoiding an accident. In that instance, you're "numerical" speed is working directly against you...putting you at a greater risk than someone driving slower.

Nonsense. Time to react has nothing to do with the speed you're travelling at, it's about the room you give yourself. If you're travelling twice as fast, you give yourself four times as much room. It's not rocket science.
Loss of focus isn't exactly a common affliction when you're sitting on a two-wheeled missile bearing the brunt of the cold air, knees tight to the tank to stop the bike being blown around by the wind and your legs from flapping around, your neck muscles being tested by the ferocious windblast and the utterly deafening roar of the wind all around you. In fact, it's a lot more likely to occur if you're dawdling along at 65mph for no good reason, thus making you much more likely to have an accident.

As to your query about proof, less than 5% of accidents occur in excess of the speed limit, yet 58% of vehicles routinely exceed the limit in 70mph zones.
The vast, vast majority of accidents, injuries and deaths occur in congested urban areas. London is the most dangerous traffic environment in the country and the average speed of traffic is something like 8mph. Riding in the city was a nerve-wracking experience for me for some time, and I had near misses every day for months. It's a whole different ballgame to a safe, controlled motorway.

It's never predictable. That's the arrogance.

A pretty ignorant comment. Prediction is by far the most important tool in a biker's survival kit.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Nonsense. Time to react has nothing to do with the speed you're travelling at, it's about the room you give yourself.

Two vehicles...one traveling at 65mph, one traveling at 130mph. They're at a point in which both are right next to each other. Deer walks into the road 100 ft in front of both...just stops. The time to react for both drivers is INSANELY different and the difference is simply the result of speed, nothing else. The person driving the vehicle going 130mph FACTUALLY has less time to react.

Loss of focus isn't exactly a common affliction

Never said it was. Just said it's far more critical at high speeds.

As to your query about proof, less than 5% of accidents occur in excess of the speed limit, yet 58% of vehicles routinely exceed the limit in 70mph zones.

The vast, vast majority of accidents, injuries and deaths occur in congested urban areas. London is the most dangerous traffic environment in the country and the average speed of traffic is something like 8mph. Riding in the city was a nerve-wracking experience for me for some time, and I had near misses every day for months. It's a whole different ballgame to a safe, controlled motorway.

Honestly, what kind of stat is that? Are you talking about congested areas where SPEED is a physical impossibility??? Of course most of the accidents aren't going to be the result of excessive speeding. YOU CAN'T. Further...the fact that more people are driving in these areas means that more accidents are going to occur anyway and since they can't really speed in congested areas, the accidents aren't likely to be related to speeding. This is not a statistic that would convince any logical person that traveling at 130mph is just as safe as 65-70mph.

A pretty ignorant comment. Prediction is by far the most important tool in a biker's survival kit.

Nice...you know that's fine. That's your problem. I don't pretend like I can predict what's going to happen when I drive.

 

[repiV]

Two vehicles...one traveling at 65mph, one traveling at 130mph. They're at a point in which both are right next to each other. Deer walks into the road 100 ft in front of both...just stops. The time to react for both drivers is INSANELY different and the difference is simply the result of speed, nothing else. The person driving the vehicle going 130mph FACTUALLY has less time to react.

And if the deer walked into the road 10 ft in front of both, then they'd both crash. Or if the guy doing 65mph was daydreaming for a couple of seconds, his time to react would actually be worse than the guy at 130 who was paying attention.
A deer walking into the road is both extremely unlikely and impossible to account for in any meaningful way, so why even bring it up? Driving more slowly isn't going to make you safe from deer. Hell, you could even miss deer that jump out after you've gone past by driving more quickly, so I think it's fair to say that it's utterly meaningless to discuss deer.

Never said it was. Just said it's far more critical at high speeds.

That's not even true. It entirely depends. Losing concentration for a couple of seconds in city traffic is far more dangerous than losing concentration for longer than thatat 150mph on a dead straight, empty road.
It's also much more likely to occur at lower speeds - if you're travelling at a speed below that which feels comfortable and appropriate, evidently you're much more likely to daydream. Which is quite obviously dangerous.

Honestly, what kind of stat is that? Are you talking about congested areas where SPEED is a physical impossibility??? Of course most of the accidents aren't going to be the result of speeding. YOU CAN'T. Further...the fact that more people are driving in these areas means that more accidents are going to occur anyway and since they can't really speed in congested areas, the accidents aren't likely to be related to speeding. This is not a statistic that would convince any logical person that traveling at 130mph is just as safe as 65-70mph.

If the fact that hardly any accidents occur at high speed and that motorways, with the highest vehicle speeds, are by far and away the safest roads, won't convince you that high speed is not dangerous, what on earth will?
How about the fact that Autobahns are twice as safe as US highways, despite them being low quality, narrow, two lane roads with speeds of 140mph a common sight and much higher traffic volume?
Clearly you are not "any logical person".
In any case, there are not more people driving in cities than on motorways. The whole motorway network surrounding London regularly grinds to a complete halt during peak time - and guess what? Lots more people have accidents and die on congested motorways than they do on motorways where the traffic is flowing at 70+mph.

Nice...you know that's fine. That's your problem. I don't pretend like I can predict what's going to happen when I drive.

It's not my problem, it's my solution. You don't have the skill to anticipate the actions of other road users, and that's actually rather worrying. If you rode a bike you'd be hospitalised in very short order.
If I couldn't sense when someone's likely to pull out on me, I'd have been seriously injured many times over.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

And if the deer walked into the road 10 ft in front of both, then they'd both crash. Or if the guy doing 65mph was daydreaming for a couple of seconds, his time to react would actually be worse than the guy at 130 who was paying attention.
A deer walking into the road is both extremely unlikely and impossible to account for in any meaningful way, so why even bring it up? Driving more slowly isn't going to make you safe from deer. Hell, you could even miss deer that jump out after you've gone past by driving more quickly, so I think it's fair to say that it's utterly meaningless to discuss deer.

Nice side-stepping the point altogether. What is so difficult to understand? Substitute deer for any other impedeing object. You're lacking a basic concept of physics in this scenario. No, you don't have as much time to stop and you don't have as much time to manuever. Hence, less safe. :rolling:

It's also much more likely to occur at lower speeds - if you're travelling at a speed below that which feels comfortable and appropriate, evidently you're much more likely to daydream. Which is quite obviously dangerous.

Link?

How about the fact that Autobahns are twice as safe as US highways, despite them being low quality, narrow, two lane roads with speeds of 140mph a common sight and much higher traffic volume?
Clearly you are not "any logical person".

And, how about severe restrictions on aggressive driving on Autobahns. You know exactly how much aggressive driving is monitored. Speeding has nothing to do with driving aggressively...which is a LARGE cause of accidents. And since you want to compare to the US, they are GOD-AWFUL with enforcement of aggressive driving. Also, I won't lie, people in the US drive like morons, regularly...but this has little to do with speeding and more with an abundance of overly-aggressive drivers. Further, I've seen the accidents on the Autobahns with people going 140mph and their chilling...far more so than anyone doing 65mph and getting in an accident. If you are less likely to walk away from the accident you are LESS SAFE at that speed.

The whole motorway network surrounding London regularly grinds to a complete halt during peak time - and guess what? Lots more people have accidents and die on congested motorways than they do on motorways where the traffic is flowing at 70+mph.

Again, you're citing congestion where excessive speeding is nearly impossible...where the vast majority of ALL accidents surely occur, and saying, see, traveling 130mph is just as safe as the 60mph their doing. It's a nonsensical correlation if they CANNOT SPEED. Since most of the population is concetrated in these areas, and you don't have the ABILITY to excessively speed there, the majority of all accidents in the UK could statistically NEVER be the result of speeding. Again, again, your point STILL does not support that driving 130mph is as safe as driving 65mph. This is a simple per capita statistic...it's not difficult to understand.

It's not my problem, it's my solution. You don't have the skill to anticipate the actions of other road users, and that's actually rather worrying. If you rode a bike you'd be hospitalised in very short order. If I couldn't sense when someone's likely to pull out on me, I'd have been seriously injured many times over.

Again, nice attitude. Your arrogance borders on insanity. Good luck to you.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

So, yeah, insurance based or universal healthcare?

 

[Solaris]

So, yeah, insurance based or universal healthcare?

You have anything to add to that debate? If so then please do, else allow the conversation to take its natural course.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You have anything to add to that debate? If so then please do, else allow the conversation to take its natural course.

Actually, yeah, I read various debates and have settled that Universal health care is the better option. Please feel free to talk about...whatever you guys are now

 

[repiV]

Nice side-stepping the point altogether. What is so difficult to understand? Substitute deer for any other impedeing object. You're lacking a basic concept of physics in this scenario. No, you don't have as much time to stop and you don't have as much time to manuever. Hence, less safe. :rolling:

No, you miss the point entirely. The very fact that you think a deer appearing on the road out of nowhere is comparable to any other driving situation indicates that the standard of your driving is criminally low.
If you have to perform an emergency stop, you have already made a serious error. I barely touch the brakes when I'm riding.

Link?

Why do you need a link to prove something that's entirely self-explanatory?
It's much easier to lose concentration when you're bored or performing a task that's far beneath your abilities.

And, how about severe restrictions on aggressive driving on Autobahns. You know exactly how much aggressive driving is monitored. Speeding has nothing to do with driving aggressively...which is a LARGE cause of accidents. And since you want to compare to the US, they are GOD-AWFUL with enforcement of aggressive driving. Also, I won't lie, people in the US drive like morons, regularly...but this has little to do with speeding and more with an abundance of overly-aggressive drivers.

Since when did aggressive driving have anything to do with the discussion? Your abrupt and inane change of subject clearly indicates that you can't find any basis for your claim that speed in itself is dangerous.
Ironically, if you were to peruse the stats instead of pulling numbers out of your arse, you would discover that by FAR the most common cause of accidents is inattention.
By the way, when they removed daytime speed limits from highways in Montana, the accident rate plummeted - and returned to its former level when the limit was reinstated.

Further, I've seen the accidents on the Autobahns with people going 140mph and their chilling...far more so than anyone doing 65mph and getting in an accident. If you are less likely to walk away from the accident you are LESS SAFE at that speed.

Bullshit. You assume there is going to BE an accident, a complete fallacy in itself.
By your logic, we should lower the speed limits to 30 everywhere, because "the consequences of the accidents would be less severe". While we're at it, why don't we just ban motor vehicles altogether - they're clearly far too dangerous.
Accidents don't "just happen", they occur because of poor driving.

Again, you're citing congestion where excessive speeding is nearly impossible...where the vast majority of ALL accidents surely occur, and saying, see, traveling 130mph is just as safe as the 60mph their doing.

What the hell are you talking about?
I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious to you - that the high speed traffic environments are the safest. So your crusade against speed is extremely misinformed.
Not to mention, enforcing artificially low speed limits increases congestion and bunching of traffic, harms good lane discipline and by extension creates frustrated drivers and aggressive manoeuvers. As we well know, these things all make the roads much more dangerous. Motorway pileups aren't caused by people travelling at 120mph, they're caused by idiots sitting two inches off the bumper of the guy in front and daydreaming.

It's a nonsensical correlation if they CANNOT SPEED. Since most of the population is concetrated in these areas, and you don't have the ABILITY to excessively speed there, the majority of all accidents in the UK could statistically NEVER be the result of speeding.

Um, actually very little of the country is comprised of urban areas. You can drive from one end of most cities to the other in a matter of minutes, the only sprawling masses of 30 and 40 zones are the big three cities - and comparatively few people drive in London anyway. It's just not worth it. Most traffic is motorway.
Besides which, it's entirely possible to speed in London. And people do, all the time. Speeding is a stupid term anyway - to exceed an arbitrary limit that some random person decided should apply to that stretch of road. Road Safety 4 Dummies.

Again, again, your point STILL does not support that driving 130mph is as safe as driving 65mph. This is a simple per capita statistic...it's not difficult to understand.

How on earth does the fact that congestion precludes people from exceeding the speed limit invalidate the point that congested roads have far higher accident and fatality statistics than non-congested roads where people are free to speed?
It abundantly reinforces the point, in fact - speed is not the killer factor.

Again, nice attitude. Your arrogance borders on insanity. Good luck to you.

No, yours does. What qualifies you to talk the amount of shit you do, anyway?
There's something alarmingly wrong with you and your driving if you completely dismiss the idea that you can predict the actions of others on the road. It's one of the most vital skills - or maybe it's a coincidence that some people are involved in lots of accidents that weren't their fault, and others never crash?
Now, evidently you don't know shit. I ride a bike - that alone gives me far more qualification than you to talk about staying safe on the roads, as you would well understand if you had ever ridden.
I ride my bike in London daily, aswell as clocking up hundreds of miles in the countryside on a regular basis. I ride in all weather conditions, including snow and ice, all year round and have put over 20,000 miles on my machine in the last six months. I'm also training for my advanced test.
So, what is it again that qualifies you to make such moronic statements and pass them off as fact?

 

[Lt. Drebin]

ARE YOU JUST AS SAFE DRIVING 130MPH VS 65MPH???????

You still just don't want to answer the question.

Your responses are two-fold...1) You can see the future and 2) Speeding accounts for a small number of accidents (which doesn't necessarily correlate with safety at ANY given speed over the limit)

Neither answer addresses how you're just as safe at 130mph and one makes you like a nut.

I've gone as far as to lay out a basic concept of physics to show you you're at a much higher risk at 130mph. But you seem incredibly focused on the deer...whatever.

Good luck to ya....I hope you stay safe on the road.

I'm done.

 

[repiV]

ARE YOU JUST AS SAFE DRIVING 130MPH VS 65MPH???????

You still just don't want to answer the question.

Your responses are two-fold...1) You can see the future and 2) Speeding accounts for a small number of accidents (which doesn't necessarily correlate with safety at ANY given speed over the limit)

Neither answer addresses how you're just as safe at 130mph and one makes you like a nut.

A nut? Look, chump, the technical term for someone who cannot predict the actions/reactions of others in a given situation is "autistic". Are you autistic?
If we didn't have some idea of what people were going to do next on the road, how the **** could you drive for even half a minute without crashing into somebody? You couldn't possibly - stop being a grade A moron.

I've gone as far as to lay out a basic concept of physics to show you you're at a much higher risk at 130mph. But you seem incredibly focused on the deer...whatever.

Good luck to ya....I hope you stay safe on the road.

I'm done.

It's got nothing to do with physics. As to your question you seem so hellbent on getting an answer to, it's utterly meaningless. Without context you can't declare any speed as safe or dangerous. If you're on a dead straight road with no traffic/hazards for miles then the safest speed is the speed you are most comfortable at, it's as simple as that. Other factors influence this ideal speed either up or down.

 

[No Limit]

A nut? Look, chump, the technical term for someone who cannot predict the actions/reactions of others in a given situation is "autistic". Are you autistic?
If we didn't have some idea of what people were going to do next on the road, how the **** could you drive for even half a minute without crashing into somebody? You couldn't possibly - stop being a grade A moron.

In this case I don't think you have a right to call anyone a moron. Lt. Drebin makes a very good and a very simple point, why you can't address this point directly is beyond me. If you are traveling 120MPH you are in more danger than you are when you are traveling 50MPH. It almost seems like you don't have a basic concept of what speed is in physics. At 120MPH you have more momentum and need a lot more time to stop than you would need if you were going 50MPH. At 120MPH you have a lot less time to react to something than if you were going 50MPH. If you make a mistake at 120MPH as opposed to 50MPH your chances of being killed multiply. This is basic common sense which you are arguing against because of your inflated ego and I hope that ego doesn't end up killing you one day.

 

[repiV]

In this case I don't think you have a right to call anyone a moron. Lt. Drebin makes a very good and a very simple point, why you can't address this point directly is beyond me. If you are traveling 120MPH you are in more danger than you are when you are traveling 50MPH. It almost seems like you don't have a basic concept of what speed is in physics. At 120MPH you have more momentum and need a lot more time to stop than you would need if you were going 50MPH. At 120MPH you have a lot less time to react to something than if you were going 50MPH. If you make a mistake at 120MPH as opposed to 50MPH your chances of being killed multiply. This is basic common sense which you are arguing against because of your inflated ego and I hope that ego doesn't end up killing you one day.

It's not a good point at all - your calculation is a total fallacy as time to react is derived from a combination of factors, mainly speed, distance, awareness and vehicle performance. Your so-called common sense comes from an oversimplified, misguided view of road safety which has been brainwashed into people by an obsession with speed limits.
Yes, you need a lot more time to stop from 120mph than from 50mph, and that's why you maintain a much greater following distance at 120mph than you would at 50mph - it's not exactly rocket science, is it?
Furthermore, everything else being equal, someone daydreaming at 50mph will have a longer time to react/stop than someone paying attention at 120mph.
His point is even worse - that you are more likely to be killed if you crash at 120mph than if you crash at 50mph, so you shouldn't drive at 120mph. WTF kind of logic is that? Remind me never to get on a plane again, must be unsafe as if it crashes I'll be dead no matter what.
On the subject of performance, the GSXR-1300 Hayabusa can go from 0-100 and back to 0 again in less than ten seconds. The majority of bikes, unlike cars, are designed to operate at the high levels of their performance and there is nothing inherently unsafe about using them at high speed. The brakes on my bike are designed to bring it to a stop quickly from 150mph - if you touch the lever slightly, the front forks will dive but the lever will not visibly move at all, they're that powerful.

 

[Dan]

The point that everyone is trying to make to you is that all else being equal, going faster is more dangerous. Your entire body is loaded with kinetic energy relative to the rest of the world which increases with the square of velocity. Your body can only dump that kinetic energy so fast. Try to stop too fast, like by hitting a tree, and your bones and internal organs will absorb a lot of that energy.

The only thing which makes you less safe at slow speeds is when you get below the speed of traffic and have to worry about other cars hitting you while passing.

 

[kirovman]

The point that everyone is trying to make to you is that all else being equal, going faster is more dangerous. Your entire body is loaded with kinetic energy relative to the rest of the world which increases with the square of velocity. Your body can only dump that kinetic energy so fast. Try to stop too fast, like by hitting a tree, and your bones and internal organs will absorb a lot of that energy.

The only thing which makes you less safe at slow speeds is when you get below the speed of traffic and have to worry about other cars hitting you while passing.

I'm surprised you have such faith in the laws of motion