Talk:Speed limits

Can we have some examples of people arguing this? I mean, if they are, we should definitely have an article refuting them, but who exactly is saying this? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that the term has a total of seven Google hits, I'm not sure you'll find many examples. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Some denialists?"

I think on this site we've a possible candidate: http://www.carbibles.com/speeding_facts.html ^{— Unsigned, by: Carlo / talk / contribs} Carlo Landzaat (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a really poor example. Seriously, I'm a cyclist and have a big down on the car drivers who regularly try to kill me bu this guy isn't one of them. The article on speed is well writen and thought out and uses evidence from the British government run Transport Research Laboritory. You may disagree with his conclusions but he's not pedling woo. Placeholder (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Really?

This is poorly written, potentially commits post hoc ergo propter hoc, and is likely to be an isolated article with few links to or from it. ^talk 11:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I know but first try

This is my first try to work on an article, so I'm still learning, and a lesser article would be more appropriate for it, I think. If you think it's poorly written, then please give me advice, I would welcome it, tnx. ^{— Unsigned, by: Carlo / talk / contribs} Carlo Landzaat (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Speed denialism" vs opposition to speed limits

I think there should be something in the article pointing out that not all opponents of speed limits deny or confuse the studies about the risks of speeding. Some simply acknowledge but ignore them, which is a very different category from denialism. Some even acknowledge them openly, but hold other things (abstract notions like "free roads for free citizens" or stuff like that) to be more important. And some simply say "I don't care I want to speed". That may still be bad, but is not denialism.

Also "speed denialism" sounds a bit funny since nobody is denying the existence of velocity... Maybe "Speeding Risks Denialism"? Octo8 (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

also the current title can be mistaken for an article about amphetamines. How about just "speed limits"? Sophie^Wilder 12:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is something really needed either. Arguments about speed limits center around surveillance and the use of stealth to catch offenders, and that reasonable speeds are generally set by the mean of your fellow drivers. Often strict observance of speed limits makes you the stone in the middle of the stream, and is more dangerous than keeping up with the traffic. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

how do I change a title?^{— Unsigned, by: Carlo / talk / contribs} --Carlo Landzaat (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, its poorly written and although libertarians oppose speed limits for stupid reasons, that blurb could be included elsewhere. This doesn't deserve it's own article. --NerdyWizard (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Move to general article about "Road safety"?

It can serve as a dumping ground for issues such as speeding cameras, mandatory bike helmet laws, some of the loonier libertarian views on road safety, etc. On the other hand, that's very borderline to the Mission (PBUT) and the quality of the current article suggests that the quality of the moved one would be similar.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do we put the obnoxious arseholes who says "I pay my taxes so I can park where I like" etc? Sophie^Wilder 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted

Deleted per RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Speed limits. Sophie^Wilder 12:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)