Myth #2: counter example: the only five times I was in a car riding over 250km/h were taxis from an airport to another when lufthansa f'd up something and put me on a plane in the next airport. They didn't want to pay for a hotel stay, and I really wanted home. Turns out the taxi drivers got their orders 'as fast as possible' and I had no idea a car could go that fast. I looked at my watch, and closed my eyes praying, and there we were. Every time. With time to spare.

To be fair it happened to me in Belgium several times too and it wasn't as legal and it looked far more dangerous (people not expecting a 250km/h rocket on the left lane...).

> which part of the fatalities happened > 130kmph?

Usually (not always) you realize that something bad is going to happen so you are going to brake. Let's assume there is an obstacle in front of you that is 150m away. After a reaction time of 1 second, and with continuous braking over 100m you are able to get from 180kmh to 100kmh at time of impact, but if you had started from the generally suggested 130kmh, you would have stopped 40m before the target (assuming -8.83m/s^2 braking acceleration).

> I've never met someone who is like: oh if I cannot drive 200kmph I'll be late to my meeting. That's not why people drive fast. They do because it's fun!

There’s nothing fun about going 200+ in a straight line. It’s more fun to drive fast on a bendy country road. The thing is, most people have no clue how to handle a car. People drive fast on the Autobahn because of the ego and because it is allowed.

Maybe it's not fun FOR YOU.

not sure the data you want for #5 is available anywhere or even tracked, since you would have to consider the speeds of all participants involved. I would argue that the given statistics might give an even stronger case because the speed-limited sections usually already have a higher probability of accidents (hence the limit), so being above that already says something.

But having written that, I have no drivers license and no real opinion either way. ofc I'm slightly leaning towards general speed limits (less externalities for me to pay) but overall I'm indifferent.

Is there a calculation as to how many hours would be lost spent on the road because of a speed limit? Like I don't know, say every day people spend a million hours driving on the highway, and a speed limit would bump it to 1.2 million hours (no idea, just made up numbers)?

Emissions are not taxed anywhere close to the cost of damage they cause. Electric cars still pollute (tires and brake pads).

In general cars and car infrastructure is very heavily subsidized and the least we should expect for it is drivers not engaging in wasteful and dangerous behaviors.

Hey look it’s the brake pad myth again!

I’m kind of tired of debunking it, so let’s try putting the onus of proof on the person claiming EVs burn brake pads at any rate even remotely comparable to gas cars. Is there anything out there that says that?

(My Nissan Leaf’s service manual says otherwise)

It might be a lesser rate but they still burn them (and the tires). I am not claiming EVs cause more of it. I am claiming is a problem and reckless driving only magnifies it.

They… really don’t. My Leaf has the original brake pads after 70k miles, with virtually no wear.

I have to deliberately use them every few months to scrub the oxidation layer off. That’s how infrequently an EV uses brakes.

Tires, yes. Brakes, no.

On #1 you seem to be acce-ting the “myth”?

As to #2, “fun” is possibly the real reason people want it, it that’s just not a very convincing argument. There are also many people who want a speed limit because they experience a different emotion, namely fear.

As to #3, I don’t know what your argument is? People might pay for gas, but the cost is nowhere near enough to cover the externalities.

#5: that data just isn’t available, I guess?