Critique Analysis of Auto Liberation
Sara Abbasi
American University of Sharjah
Critique of Auto Liberation
Brent Knutson presents a position paper addressing the issue of national speed limits in the United States. This has been an issue of discussion for ages and people have usually taken different sides depending on personal or public evaluation of different factors. For Knutson, he argues that there should be no speed limits in the United States and he uses different claims to back up his justification. First, he claims that high speeds do not lead to mayhem as claimed by insurance companies and other governmental bodies. He actually puts it clear that high speeds lead to fewer accidents unlike low speeds. He then continues to say that high driving speeds are fun. This aspect forms the basis of his paper title “Auto Liberation” and he suggests that United States citizens needs to be liberated from the slavery of speed limit. He adds to this by his own experience while driving German autobahns which travel at very high speeds and yet register very minimal accidents’ cases. Knutson also claims that most of the reports which backup the need to set speed limits in the United States are usually doctored to give the wrong impression. However, he fails to give enough proof to most of his claims and only uses a single case and data to support his analysis. Hence, this essay internalizes the analysis of Knutson against his choice of words and the development of his paper which shows that most of his claims are not true.
United States drivers are unskilled, incompetent, and less courteous on roads. As part of his paper, Knutson compares Germany and United States so closely in bid to legalize high speeds in the latter. However, there is contradiction in his argument which shows that his arguments are not well supported. He begins by saying that German drivers are well trained, skilled, competent and courteous (Knutson, 2). This shows that the roads in Germany are safe because drivers follow the traffic rules and regulations that are set by the country’s laws. Their driving etiquette is what guarantees safety in roads even as they navigate via different routes at high speeds. In the sixth paragraph of his position paper, he introduces a severe contradiction that deals a blow to part of his argument. He concedes that the United States drivers are incapable of driving safely and they usually portray carelessness when behind the wheel (Knutson, 6). He continues to nail it by blaming the incompetency on driver education programs as well as general indifference. He also says that Americans have gained their high standards among the worst drivers across the world. While he has been arguing that Americans should be liberated, he gives reasons why Americans should not be allowed to drive at high speeds. There is a clear difference that comes up between Germany and America. Germans are skilled and careful on the roads, on the other hand, Americans are unskilled and careless on the roads. Actually, he uses a 1994 Csaba Csere saying that “Americans usually choose their lanes so randomly, much of the way cows inexplicably pick a patch of grass on which to graze.” This comes so strongly to show that Americans should indeed not be granted the rights to drive at high speeds unlike the Germans. Hence, Knutson has dealt himself a blow here by contradicting his argument and conceding to the very opposition. Additionally, the issue of American speed limits is not about liberation but remedy. There won’t be any liberation for there is no proof of skill and mindfulness while driving.
Reports in America evidencing unsafe roads when vehicles are travelling in high speeds. Knutson has made it clear that most reports if not all, have reflected the same status about the American roads. However, he goes to term this has a fallacy which has been perpetrated by the country’s auto insurance industry as well as the car-fearing legislators (Knutson, 9). His argument and claim about this point has very shallow backup and lacks substantial evidence. United States operates under a system where all reports are verified before being adopted. The fact that reports from almost every department shows that high speeds lead to fatalities, it is an enough proof that high speeds are undesirable. Additionally, Knutson drags the issue of insurance companies into his argument which is in itself a clear contradiction of his arguments. The fact is that insurance companies do not thrive under a state of road anarchy. Actually, insurance companies thrive under safe roads. When a car suffers an accident, it is up to an insurance company to reimburse the owner. If the number of cases being reported are many, how will these insurance companies manage such reimbursements? It is impractical to claim that insurance companies would support something that negatively affects them. Also, the claim that speed limits is an infringement of personal freedom appears baseless. Knutson uses his own experience in Germany to show how driving at high speeds is pleasurable and enjoyable. He however ignores the roles and responsibilities of a government. The government has a mandate to protect its people and make sure they are safe. Hence, the government would not grant rights to freedom that actually introduces road insecurity in the name of freedom. Also, a personal experience cannot be used as the sole basis of advocating for auto liberation when the facts are not properly presented. Hence, Knutson argument about unauthentic reports appears to be a fallacy in itself.
It is clear that the argument of Knutson is not well supported. He does not give enough evidence that is quite convincing on the need to remove the speed limits in the United States. Also, his argument about this contemporary issue is quite contradictory in the way in which he presents it. He argues that Germany has legalized high speeds because the drivers are skillful, competent and courteous. He then goes ahead to put it clear that American drivers are the opposite of the German ones. Hence, it becomes clear that speed limits are really necessary in the United States. He has also said that American drivers have earned their place as the worst drivers across the globe. Asking for auto liberation for such a group of people does not sound convincing at all. Knutson has also claimed that the reports which are released by insurance companies and other governmental bodies are based on fallacies. However, it is well known that all reports that are passed by the government usually undergo intense analysis and assessment before they are passed and adopted. Therefore it becomes unclear how all the reports that are usually passed and built on fallacy. It is also clear from the above argument that insurance companies do not thrive on road anarchy, they actually desire safer roads. If a car has been insured and it gets involved in an accident, the insurance companies are supposed to cover the losses. Hence, no insurance company would perpetrate road impunity. Hence, it is recommended that driving education programs should be improved in the United States. The laws should be made tighter on how drivers should behave on the roads in order to instill carefulness in them. Finally, the laws and regulations on speed limits should remain intact as they help much in curbing road accidents and anarchy thereof.
References
Knutson, B. (1997). Auto Liberation. Composition , 1-5.