+171

# If speed limits changed from 65 to 80 (like we want it to), then everyone would go 95, then they would change it to 95, then we would go 110, then most cars would run out of gas fast and they would have to make more gas stations, wich would lead to them raising the price of gas higher (because we would need more), then we would all go bankrupt because of some stupid speed limit, amirite?

The voters have decided that weazil is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Too many "if...then..." 's to be a logical statement.

No Way +5
@thatguys Too many "if...then..." 's to be a logical statement.

Uhh... you're right about this being a logical fallacy, but it's not because of the, "Too many 'if...then...'s"

One, there is a huge logical jump from one to another and as you can see in the German/Italy autoban (which have no speed limits) and you don't see the effects you talk about (you do, but not because of the cause you talk about)

I drive about 100 mph everyday from work to home and home to class, I don't have that problem... my gas lasts about the same as when I drive 65.. which I normally do.

No Way +2
@KickAss Uhh... you're right about this being a logical fallacy, but it's not because of the, "Too many...

The concept of too many "if...then..."'s is the fact that too many jumps makes them untrue.

How is this different than what you just said?

No Way 0
@thatguys The concept of too many "if...then..."'s is the fact that too many jumps makes them untrue. How is this different...

Well, you can have a bunch of if thens and have logical steps (different from a logical LEAP)... like if I kill you, then I'll be arrested, if I get arrested then I'll be in jail. If I'm in jail, then I'll probably get raped. If I get raped, I'll probably commit suicide. If I commit suicide I'll probably be dead.

However if I said, if I kill you, then I'll probably turn into super maniac serial killer and destroy the whole world, it wouldn't be logical. Like people who say if you smoke weed, you'll end up in a van down by the river.. it's not how many you have, it's the content? Naa mean?

No Way +1
@KickAss Well, you can have a bunch of if thens and have logical steps (different from a logical LEAP)... like if I kill...

Well to me, even those small steps lead to an illogical statement because there were so many of them. Just because you kill doesn't mean you have to end up being raped.

But that's where seperate opinions are, so I'll leave it at that :)

No Way 0
@thatguys Well to me, even those small steps lead to an illogical statement because there were so many of them. Just because...

No one materializes from point a to point b... in order to get to your destination, you have to go through a journey....

No Way 0

On the contrary, it only takes a little more gas to accelerate to such a speed, but once your cruising there, your car has a much stronger inertia and requires less gas

You don't use up gas faster when you drive faster. The amount of gas you use doesn't depend on speed as much as distance traveled.

@GrammarGirl You don't use up gas faster when you drive faster. The amount of gas you use doesn't depend on speed as much as...

Actually fuel efficiency starts to drop when you reach speeds higher than 60 mph. And constantly braking and accelerating also drops fuel efficiency. That's why cruise control saves you gas, since you're not speeding up then slowing down constantly. So no, it doesn't only have to do with how far you've traveled.

@soberlikekesha Actually fuel efficiency starts to drop when you reach speeds higher than 60 mph. And constantly braking and...

Well, no, it doesn't ONLY depend on distance, but that's why driving on main roads with low speed limits and stop signs uses more gas.

No Way +2

They should keep the limit at 65 but only pull ppl over if they go over 80.

Also, inertia has to do with how far it goes, not how much energy you need to maintain speed. In fact, it takes more energy to maintain a high speed because air resistance increases as speed increases. a car at x mph has x inertia and requires y energy to maintain speed. a car at 2x mph has 2x inertia and still requires y energy to maintain speed.however, the car with x inertia travels only half the distance when the driving force is removed. Learn some physics concepts not just words before using them to prove a point.

@B10ckH34d They should keep the limit at 65 but only pull ppl over if they go over 80. Also, inertia has to do with how far...

That defeats the purpose of a speed LIMIT. Either increase the speed limit, or people have to drive below 65 or with the flow of traffic. You can't have both.

The first thing I thought of was what the accident fatality rate would look like...