something that makes the world better instead of being a necessary evil.
It's only a necessary evil because, to throw words back in people's faces, people refuse to live in a civilized society and not do things which endanger other people's lives such as speeding, talking on their cell phones while speeding, stiff-arming the steering wheel while speeding and talking on their cell phones, robbing, raping, and murdering people, to name just a few things.
You're making the assumption that speeding, by itself, is actually dangerous, and not simply a revenue generator for the municipality. This article itself seems to support the second assertion, rather than the first.
I gave my local MPP (provincial representative, as driving laws are provincial in Canada) the following thought exercise:
Assuming all the rest is followed 100% perfectly, take away any single law or requirement of the Highway Traffic Act, and what happens?
Take away the requirement to stop and yield to oncoming traffic for left turns? Lots of accidents.
Take away the requirement to stay in the right hand lane on a two lane road? Lots of accidents.
Take away the requirement to check your blind spot before changing lanes? Lots of accidents.
Take away the requirement to be sober and attentive while driving? Lots of accidents.
Take away the requirement to stick below an arbitrary speed limit? No accidents.
Again, assuming that all other sections of the HTA (or whatever your local law is called) are followed properly, when you remove speed limits, the only thing that happens is that people get where they're going faster.
Speed limits are one of two things:
- revenue generators for municipalities.
- band-aid solutions to having idiot drivers who shouldn't be operating a car in the first place from killing (more) people on the roads.
Probably actually a combination of both. The problem of car accidents isn't speeding. Speeding can NOT cause an accident by itself. It REQUIRES something else stupid to have been done, making the speed, at most, a catalyst. Reduce the speed, and you'll reduce, not eliminate, accidents. Remove the "something else stupid" and you'll eliminate accidents, regardless of speed.
Look at all these "Locality's worst driver" shows that are on TV around the world. Now ask yourself this question: How did any of the subjects of these shows EVER PASS A DRIVER'S TEST in the first place? They're completely and totally incompetent, yet they passed through a driving exam just fine, as all of them have licences.
The problem, from the government's point of view, with getting these drivers off the road permanently, is simply money.
Bad drivers pay more in fuel tax, due to poor driving habits that use more fuel, they pay more tax on insurance premiums, due to paying more than good drivers for insurance, they pay tax on autobody repairs when they hit something, they pay pay pay all sorts of stuff that good drivers don't.
If 50% of the drivers on the road were eliminated because they couldn't pass a more stringent driving test, the government would probably lose 70% of their revenue from automobile-based taxes. They're not willing to do this, so they pay lip service to road safety, by increasing enforcement, reducing speed limits, raising fines, etc.etc.bullshit,etc.
Here's another example: You can have an at fault accident that kills someone every year, and keep your driver's licence. As long as you can pay the insurance premiums, you can drive. Skip paying a $35 parking ticket, and what happens when you try to renew your licence? You can't.
What's really important to them? Road safety? I think not.
