Running Head Research Paper 1 Research Paper 4 Argument Mapp

Running Head Research Paper 1research Paper 4argument Mappingstu

The paper analyzes the statement “The U.S. should return to the 55-mph speed limit in order to conserve fuel and save lives.” It examines the supporting and opposing viewpoints regarding the need to reintroduce lower speed limits on US roads, including data-driven evidence about accident rates, fuel consumption, and safety implications (Kockelman & Ma, 2018). The discussion includes arguments that support reducing speed limits to enhance safety and environmental conservation, as well as counterarguments emphasizing the impact on travel time and economic activities.

The analysis explores how initial policies, such as setting a 55 mph speed limit, aimed to reduce gasoline consumption and accidents. However, subsequent research revealed that the savings in fuel were minimal, while the safety benefits were significant. Data from Washington highway safety systems demonstrated that increasing speed limits to 65 mph correlated with a three percent rise in crashes and a twenty-four percent increase in fatalities. Compliance levels with new speed limits dropped from 80% to 50%, indicating challenges in enforcement and adherence (Kockelman & Ma, 2018). The reduction in vehicles exceeding 10 mph over the limit from 15% to 3% indicates some adjustment by drivers, but overall safety concerns remained prominent.

The rationale for supporting lower speed limits includes arguments that slower speeds lead to fewer accidents, less severe injuries, and lower fuel consumption. Conversely, critics argue that increased speed limits reduce travel time and economic productivity, especially for professionals like doctors and engineers. The issue involves warrants such as the relationship between speed and crash severity, and backing from statistical evidence highlights the safety benefits of lower speed limits. Objections focus on the economic and time costs of slower travel, with rebuttals emphasizing safety and environmental sustainability.

The initial qualifier “certainly” in the claim that reducing speed limits helps conserve fuel and reduce accidents indicates a straightforward relationship. However, as evidence accumulates, the qualifier evolves into a more nuanced assessment, recognizing that the effects depend on enforcement, driver compliance, and regional contexts. The argument becomes complex, dynamic, and contested as stakeholders debate the relative importance of safety versus mobility and economic considerations.

Applying argument mapping procedures to evaluate the debate about whether the U.S. should further reduce speed limits reveals a web of contending positions. Supporters argue that lower speeds decrease accidents and save lives, citing empirical evidence and safety models (Kockelman & Ma, 2018). Opponents believe that increased speed limits facilitate economic activity and reduce congestion, citing studies that associate higher speeds with productivity gains. Warrants include principles of safety, efficiency, and economic benefit, with backing from statistical data and expert reports.

The plausibility of arguments varies depending on the criteria used—such as empirical support, logical coherence, and stakeholder values. The most plausible arguments are those emphasizing safety benefits, supported by statistical evidence demonstrating reduced accident severity and fatalities when speed limits are lowered. Rationale for this includes the well-established relationship between vehicle speed and crash severity, as supported by traffic safety research (Zhou et al., 2018).

In analyzing stakeholder influences, a stakeholder analysis identifies government agencies, transportation authorities, safety advocacy groups, motorists, and commercial drivers as key actors affected by or influencing speed limit policies. Generating a frequency distribution of ideas and objectives from these stakeholders reveals that safety concerns and environmental effects are prioritized by safety advocates and environmental groups, while economic considerations and travel efficiency are emphasized by commercial drivers and some policymakers.

The cumulative frequency distribution indicates that most stakeholders prioritize safety and environmental outcomes, with a significant minority emphasizing economic efficiency. The line graph of stakeholder ideas tends to plateau after approximately five to six stakeholders, suggesting a convergence of priorities around safety and environmental concerns. This pattern reflects a consensus that aligns with empirical evidence supporting lower speed limits to reduce crashes and fatalities, although economic arguments remain contested among other stakeholders.

References

• Kockelman, K., & Ma, J. (2018). Aggressive Driving and Speeding. In Safe Mobility: Challenges, Methodology and Solutions (pp. 37-55). Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Zhou, R., Yu, T., Ospina, R., & Jabari, S. (2018). The Relationship between Traffic Speed and Crash Severity: A Literature Review. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(5), 25-33.
• Peterson, D., & Teixeira, C. (2016). Impact of Traffic Safety Initiatives on Highway Fatalities. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 93, 1-8.
• Schroeder, B., & Bhat, C. (2019). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Speed Limit Laws: Evidence from State-Level Data. Journal of Transport & Health, 13, 208-217.
• Fagnant, D., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181.