Fingers said:
To me, that would be like saying it's okay for anyone to discharge a handgun anytime they want and it's only a crime if you actually hit someone.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you do a thing, and that thing harms nobody, there is NO reason to use force against you, or threaten you with force, to make you stop.
Fingers said:
Let's face it, reckless endangerment is real and people die from it all the time.
Nobody has ever died from "endangerment". They die from loosing control of their vehicle (such as being forced off the road), from impacts (suchs as being T-Boned). Those things HARM PEOPLE and the person who caused it (through negligence, willful intent or accident) is responsible for the harm caused to other persons and property. But nobody who avoided those things has ever been killed by someone breaking some arbitrarily set number posted on some sign somewhere.
Fingers said:
When the probability of injuring someone is high, that behavior needs to be curtailed to prevent the inevitable consequences.
I vehemently disagree. In your world, it's acceptable to use force, threats of force and theft to victimize people who cause no harm to other people. It is not acceptable in mine.
When the probability of someone being injured is high (but nobody is injured) people with concerns need to evaluate if those risks are high enough. Moving a ton of metal at 55 miles per hour is "dangerous" in comparison to living in a straight jacket in a padded room. Living life is about taking risks you deem acceptable. If you don't like those risks, don't take them. Driving is no exception. Taking people's liberty to minimize what you perceive as risks is unethical.
Fingers said:
At 60 mph they know how long it will take that car to arrive.
Is this because they've committed the distance/time tables to memory based on 60 mph or because they look at the environment around them and made an educated and informed decision? If it's the first, holy hell! Police and ambulances break the speed limit to respond to emergencies and magically, the flow of traffic copes with this. This indicates the universe does NOT unravel when the arbitrary speed limit is exceeded. This indicates it's that whole "evaluate and decided" thing working.
And if they can evaluate at 60 miles per hour, they can evaluate at 85 too!
Personal experience talking here - when drivers aren't monitoring signs and lights, they driver safer. I wrote about an experience in Gaithersburd MD (outside of DC, so not a rural area here) when the entire city's power was out. If you're interested, the article is
http://monochromementality.com/index.php/blog/show/That-which-we-learn-from-storms.html
ABC News, 20/20 and John Stossel also backup the claim that less restrictions on driver's making decisions means safer driving.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/07/16/tear_down_the_stop_signs!
Fingers said:
It's a fact. Speeding greatly increases the chances of a collision.
Most evidence points that severe deviation from the flow of traffic, not going faster than the speed limit, increases your chance of accidents. According to the National Motorist's Association, driving 10 mph UNDER the flow of traffic increases your chance of being in an accident 600%. Slower is not always safer.
Fingers said:
How many times have you heard 'they just came out of nowhere'?
Argumentum ad populum. You may have heard people say that but when was the last time someone ACTUALLY materialized randomly doing excessive speeds and caused injury? I'd wager to bet "Never".
"Out of nowhere" actually means "I wasn't aware of that driver's existance". This isn't an underhanded "people need to pay attention" because there really are vision obstructions and the like, but this is an issue of horribly constructed roads (thanks to no competition in the arena of roadway safety) not people going faster than some arbitrarily set number.
Finger's Signature said:
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
You do understand that Lysander Spooner was an anarchist like myself, and that quote was used to say exactly why I'm arguing here - a crime requires a victim.