mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) (05/16/89)
In article <3217@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > it's worth remembering that amongst > the worst kind of laws are the laws that everybody breaks. [ ... ] > Who comes to a full stop, for example? Nobody. Brad, don't you think that this sort of disingenuousness, when recognized, will tend to make people take your arguments less seriously? If you had noted that many drivers ignore some traffic laws, you'd be right on target. If you'd asserted that *most* drivers ignore some traffic laws, I suspect that you'd probably still be correct. But the claim that *all* drivers do so is patently ludicrous. I know several people who follow the law to the letter, including full stops at stop signs and adherence to speed limits. They claim to, at least, and always have whenever I've ridden with them. Generalizations are usually wrong. When you try to make them all-inclusive, they're guaranteed to be wrong. In article <9584@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: > there must be > something wrong with a law if most people don't adhere to it. Perhaps. But then why isn't the law changed? Actually, the question that interests me more is the following. Consider these three statements: (1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly. (2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that it leaves me with more money to spend. (3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me to acquire more possessions at a lower cost. I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really? I've known a number of people who have expressed (if not verbally, at least by their actions) the attitude that "Everyone should obey all the laws, all the time; except me, and I get to ignore the ones that I think are silly." By and large (here we go with silly generalizations again!) I've found this attitude to be far more prevalent among Americans than Canadians. But it's clear that there are loads of counterexamples to the generalization. Finally, ... In article <3225@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > In this case, all they are goading you into doing is hitting the breaks. > Hardly a crime! God, I hope not! Isn't hitting breaks what you do when you want getty to reissue the login banner at a different baud rate? I do it all the time! Mark Bartelt UUCP: {utzoo,decvax}!sickkids!mark Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto BITNET: mark@sickkids.utoronto 416/598-6442 INTERNET: mark@sickkids.toronto.edu
zougas@me.utoronto.ca ("Athanasios(Tom) Zougas") (05/17/89)
In article <264@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: >In article <3217@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > ............. >In article <9584@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: > >> there must be >> something wrong with a law if most people don't adhere to it. > >Perhaps. But then why isn't the law changed? Actually, the question that >interests me more is the following. Consider these three statements: > > (1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the > simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly. > > (2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that > it leaves me with more money to spend. > > (3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me > to acquire more possessions at a lower cost. > >I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas >most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and >would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really? The difference is: (3) You are taking away PROPERTY from its rightful owner without their permission. (2) You are taking away MONEY from the government. (1) What are you taking away from whom in this case? My point is that all illegal activities DO NOT fall under the same category. I think it would be more interesting to discuss why the traffic laws are what they are and not to say: "Well, the laws the law and we have to obey it." -- This is my signature: tom zougas
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/17/89)
In article <264@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes:
[hypothetical discussion]
(1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the
simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly.
(2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that
it leaves me with more money to spend.
(3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me
to acquire more possessions at a lower cost.
I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas
most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and
would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really?
I think the difference is that the consequences of (2) and (3) are
directly measurable (you know you are harming the country or a store,
and it is easy to tell by how much [$$$]), whereas the negative
consequences of (1) are not so easily determined -- speeding to get
somewhere faster may make a heck of a difference if you spend many
hours on the road and you may never endanger ANYONE at all if you know
what you are doing. On the other hand, you may injure someone more
seriously (including yourself) if you actually hit a car.
The big diff, then, is that consequences of (2) and (3) are
deterministically measurable, and (1) has only probabilistically
measurable returns.
--
Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadasteeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") (05/17/89)
In article <89May16.132807edt.18882@me.utoronto.ca> zougas@hammer.me.UUCP (Athanasios(Tom) Zougas) writes: >> >>Perhaps. But then why isn't the law changed? Actually, the question that >>interests me more is the following. Consider these three statements: >> >> (1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the >> simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly. >> >> (2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that >> it leaves me with more money to spend. >> >> (3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me >> to acquire more possessions at a lower cost. >> >>I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas >>most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and >>would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really? > >The difference is: > > (3) You are taking away PROPERTY from its rightful owner > without their permission. > (2) You are taking away MONEY from the government. > (1) What are you taking away from whom in this case? > Clearly, you are taking away (some of) the probability that other drivers and passengers will complete their trip safely. Sure, it's a tiny increment of increased total risk, but the increased probability of accidents, and the increased probabilities of fatalities/injuries per accident, do add up. I'm not saying that I don't also speed sometimes, or that current laws shouldn't be improved. But, we want some kind of cost-benefit analysis, and let's not forget that there *are* costs -- to everyone -- associated with higher speeds. Speeding is *not* a purely individual activity whose effects are limited to the lawbreaker; and even if the *physical* effects of your speeding were limited to yourself, we, the society, are still affected if we have to pick up your medical costs. Speeding infringes on others' rights, just as does theft. You may be saying that the current (im-)balance of individual liberty versus collective safety is arbitrary, a cultural artifact; true, but the same can be said for our current view of private property. >My point is that all illegal activities DO NOT fall under the same category. >I think it would be more interesting to discuss why the traffic laws are >what they are and not to say: "Well, the laws the law and we have to obey >it." I agree, but let's not limit ourselves to traffic laws. And let's try to be more broad in our interpretation of "effects" and "rights". > >-- >This is my signature: > > tom zougas > And this is mine: Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) Dept of Computer Science steeg@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet) University of Toronto, steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg -- Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) Dept of Computer Science steeg@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet) University of Toronto, steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (05/17/89)
In article <264@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: > Consider these three statements: > > (1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the > simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly. > > (2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that > it leaves me with more money to spend. > > (3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me > to acquire more possessions at a lower cost. > >I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas >most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and >would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really? > The difference is, in examples (2) and (3), by committing these offenses, you are deliberately preventing someone else from enjoying the benefits that could be made available to them had you NOT committed the offenses. In example (1), If "I" chose to exceed the posted limit, AND 'slower' drivers stayed in the right-hand lane (where they BELONG), I would not be preventing them from proceeding at their own pace. It is easy for people who prefer different rates of speed to get along provided they know their place. This sounds callous, elitist, etc(ist!), however, it's true. I'm not shouting GET OUT OF MY WAY, I'm just saying that my speeding does not (or, should not) detract from your choice not to, and likewise consideration should be given. ...Not even considering the fact that any/all of these three offenses could be committed for completely different reasons. -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"
zougas@me.utoronto.ca ("Athanasios(Tom) Zougas") (05/17/89)
In article <89May16.162634edt.11070@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes: > ......... >of cost-benefit analysis, and let's not forget that there >*are* costs -- to everyone -- associated with higher speeds. >Speeding is *not* a purely individual activity whose effects Do we have to associate speeding with poor driving? I tend to believe that it is the drivers who are NOT ALERT on the road that are causing most of the accidents. Why else would we get up to ten car pile-ups on the 401 when the average speed is 80 kph? I have to agree with a provious poster who said that driving tests should be more stringent and retesting should also be done so that we can show drivers (myself included :-) ) that driving is a big responsibility. > >> >>-- >>This is my signature: >> >> tom zougas >> > > And this is mine: > >Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) >Dept of Computer Science steeg@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet) >University of Toronto, steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) >Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg > Just my comment on all the interesting :-) signatures one reads. -- This is my signature: tom zougas
schuck@client1.DRETOR.UUCP (Mary Margaret Schuck) (05/17/89)
In article <1942@yunexus.UUCP> landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) writes: >The difference is, in examples (2) and (3), by committing these offenses, >you are deliberately preventing someone else from enjoying the benefits >that could be made available to them had you NOT committed the offenses. > > In example (1), If "I" chose to exceed the posted limit, AND >'slower' drivers stayed in the right-hand lane (where they BELONG), I would >not be preventing them from proceeding at their own pace. That's not true. You have just classified all drivers into two classes; law-breaking speeders like yourself and "slower" drivers (presumably the law-abiding non-speeders). Did it not occur to you that not all non-speeders drive at the limit? There are a number of vehicles that legitimately do not drive at the full 100 km/h permitted, such as trucks on grades, people in older cars etc. There are also a large number of people who are uncomfortable with the full speed limit and for reasons known best to themselves choose not to drive at it. They are legally permitted this option. By insisting that all non-speeders stay in the right-hand lane "where they BELONG" you have denied law-abiding drivers going at the limit the right to move at the rate they choose (since they will be stuck behind the slower vehicles that are always present). And we all know what your reaction will be if you find a vehicle doing a mere 100 in "your" lane. Don't you think that there is something a little warped in reasoning that denies the right of normal drivers to stay within the law so that *you* can break it without being inconvenienced? Mary Margaret.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/17/89)
In article <264@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: >> there must be >> something wrong with a law if most people don't adhere to it. > >Perhaps. But then why isn't the law changed? ... Typically because either (a) the legislators (or their leaders) disagree with the majority's wishes and ignore them, or (b) they are terrified of vocal pressure groups who oppose changes. Often both. Item (a) is not *necessarily* a bad thing -- representative democracy is a different form of government from pure democracy, not just a way of implementing the latter -- but often turns out that way. -- Subversion, n: a superset | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of a subset. --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) (05/18/89)
The people who are against raising the speed limits back to their pre-OPEC oil crisis levels are really not being very fair to the rest of us, by making subjective arguments as to the METHOD that society is required to use in saving fuel and/or lives. Clearly saving fuel and lives is A Good Thing, and no-one is trying to argue the case that we should squander fuel and kill people. However, the issue that the anti-speed lobby chooses not to address is the following. Given that society decides to reduce the amount of fuel consumed by motor vehicles by some factor X, or to reduce the deaths attributable to motor vehicle accidents by Y, is it really the case that reducing the speed limits was/is the most effect way to do this? Advancing technology, changing consumer tastes, and government pressure tactics (c.f. the CAFE requirements in the U.S.) have saved a lot more fuel than just forcing everyone to drive their 5000 lb. 7 litre V8 powered gas guzzlers at lower speeds on the highway. So what's wrong with society choosing to save its fuel by driving quickly in aerodynamic 16 valve 4 cylinder Chevy/Honda/BMW/insert-your-favourite-modern-car-here, instead of continuing to drive slowly in big clumsy gas guzzlers? Similarly, one can save some lives and reduce injuries and property damage via inconveniencing society by enforcing slow[er] highway travel. However, for a *given* level of interference/inconvenience, could we not chose to impose it via strict enforcement of our seat belt laws, or drunk driving laws? ...Or by making it more difficult to get [and maintain] a license in the first place? It seems to me that "nailing speeders" is the easy way out, since it makes our elected representatives look good (i.e., they're clearly against waste and death, the money from fines is always welcome...) and it's technologically easy to catch the speeders without inconveniencing the non-speeders (i.e., you don't need random spot checks to stop people and make them submit to a lie detector test to see if they were speeding, the way you must stop random people and give them a breath test to catch drunk drivers -- too bad we can't just pass a law saying that all cars must be equipped with a flashing purple light on the roof, that can be easily spotted from an airplane, when operated by a drunk driver). It seems pretty clear that most "anti-speed" people are not uniformly anti-speed in the general case, or else we'd have cries of horror that commercial airplanes travel at almost *ten times* the speed limit on 401. But that's OK, because we have strict controls on pilot training, aircraft airworthiness, etc., right? So what's the problem with considering the idea of improving the corresponding "quality controls" on the highway so that for the same (or lower) loss rate we get to drive a little faster??? Mart L. Molle Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto (416)978-4928
steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") (05/18/89)
>In article <264@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: >> Consider these three statements: >> >> (1) I frequently drive 10 or 20 mph over the speed limit, for the >> simple reason that it gets me where I'm going more quickly. >> >> (2) I often cheat on my income taxes, for the simple reason that >> it leaves me with more money to spend. >> >> (3) I like to shoplift, for the simple reason that it permits me >> to acquire more possessions at a lower cost. >> >>I suspect that many people would find nothing remarkable about #1, whereas >>most people would find #2 ethically questionable, at the very least, and >>would be rather shocked by #3. But what's the difference, really? >> >The difference is, in examples (2) and (3), by committing these offenses, >you are deliberately preventing someone else from enjoying the benefits >that could be made available to them had you NOT committed the offenses. I posted a reply yesterday to another person who seemed to imply that whereas theft harms other people, speeding does not. I answered that in speeding one raises the probability of accidents for everyone (who is travelling on the same roads, same time, etc.). Several people have written to me challenging that assumption, and argueing something along the lines of "Germans drive fast but don't crash as often." Basically, I have been reading all of the postings about the differences between European (actually, everyone has been talking about *German* drivers -- most other Eur nations have higher accident rates; this was in the NY Times sometime last month) and North American drivers. I agree with, and am not surprised by, the proposed reasons for lower accident rates in Europe (Germany): stricter licensing, more training on narrower, curvier roads, more flexible and sensible enforcement, etc. So, yes, I agree with the following: 1) For a given distribution of speeds for drivers, there are things society can do to lower accident rates. (The things West Germany has done, for example). 2) There are things about North American drivers, roads, and laws, that make them "unsafe at any speed". 3) There are particular morons on the road who are more dangerous at 55mph than good drivers are at 85mph. *But*, none of this logically implies that either a) Speed is irrelevant to accident rates, or b) Higher speeds don't increase the number or severity (in terms of fatalities, say) of accidents. As for my documentation, I admit to having posted without firm research into the issue. It is not "emotional" factors which led me to my statements, however. (As a matter of fact, I am not only *not* afraid to drive fast, I *love* to go fast, on land sea, or air!) My arguments were based on simple biophysical truths. Basically, it is a fact that, for a *given* level of skill, reflexes, good vision, and training, a higher speed both decreases the amount of reaction time available in certain dangerous situations (thereby increasing the chance of accidents), *and* increases the momentum of one of the moving objects in any collision (thereby increasing the chance of serious injury or death). The latter (higher fatalities per accident) is even borne out by the "experiments" (on the Autobahn) so often and lovingly cited by the "pro-speed" people. And I've heard no convincing counter-argument to my first point about higher risk of accident due to decreased available reaction time. However, I was not claiming to be an expert on traffic statistics, and did not intend to convey that impression. I was actually more interested in pointing out to the previous poster that the seeming inability to even *conceive* of how speeding *might* have an adverse effect on someone besides himself was dangerously naive, at best. One thing that really burns me up sometimes (and makes me post irrationally quickly!) are the limousine libertarians who on the one hand believe that certain *property* arrangements are based on Revealed Truth and should be enforced at all costs, whereas if the state dares to tell them not to drive their Porsche in a publicly dangerous way then we must be moving towards some kind of Orwellian dictatorship. (But, I apologize if I have misconstrued the intentions behind some of the postings.) -- Evan -- Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-7321 steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) Dept of Computer Science steeg@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet) University of Toronto, steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400) Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (05/18/89)
In article <1737@client1.DRETOR.UUCP> schuck@client1.dciem.dnd.ca (Mary Margaret Schuck) writes: > By insisting that all non-speeders stay in the right-hand lane >"where they BELONG" you have denied law-abiding drivers going at the limit >the right to move at the rate they choose Not true. By making the effort to stay in the right lanes, you will allow those who wish to travel at a faster rate to do so. If 'they' (which could (but not neccesarily _does_) include myself) stay in the left lane and prevent other people from travelling at their preferred rate, then they part of the problem, not the solution. I am neither applauding those who exceed the posted limit, nor am I condemming those who travel under it. I understand completely that road conditions and personal preferences dictate the 'preferred' rate. I myself am comfortable at 100kph (It used to be 'resigned to', since my old car's stop speed was 100!), and when I travel at this rate, I stay in the right lane, out of the way. When I come up to a slower driver, I pass them, and get back into the right lane. _However_, if I am travelling 110, and someone infront of me is going 100, I would like to pass. If the car in front of me is being matched by another car, I am unable to do that. (If the matching car is physically unable to prevent the speed matching, then OK, these things happen. But, this is, in my opinion, the only tolerable excuse). >And we all know what your reaction will be if you find a vehicle doing a >mere 100 in "your" lane. By the context of your message, I don't think you do. If the average rate in "My" lane was 120, and there was nothing _phsycally_ preventing this person from leaving "My" lane, I would be annoyed I'd prefer it if you would all tell us what I am think, I do SO hate guessing. My entire argument stems from (what I consider to be) a very simple rule of thumb. The _posted_ rate is not the issue (which does _not_ imply that I advocate accessive deviance from the posted limits). If you are in a lane where you are doing less that the average rate, move over to the right. If you have to pass someone, then move to the left, pass as quickly as is safe, then return. If people cared what was behind them, then it wouldn't be a problem. -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (05/18/89)
In article <89May17.145618edt.11073@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes: > ... I was ... >interested in pointing out to the previous poster that the seeming >inability to even *conceive* of how speeding *might* have an adverse >effect on someone besides himself was dangerously naive, at best. Your point is well taken, Evan. I should have clarified some things. I don't travel at what I consider an "excessive rate" (no speeder does, right? :) ). Most because I think it's bad to try and travel faster than the flow of traffic. People travelling 140-160+ scare the hell out of me. I see these people in their sedans, swerving in their lane And, when they hit a bump, the 'float' looks somewhat disconcerting (sp?), to say the least. I don't believe that 'no limits are the best limits'. That much steel/fiberglass travelling that fast could do a fair bit-o-damage. I looked at the 'people going slower are preventing others from going faster' aregument much the same as "people taking 20 items to the exress checkout counter are preventing me from quickly buying my litre of milk". This is an _extremely_ loose analogy, so please, don't eyeryone pounce on me for being naive or simple. I understand that the implications of speeding, are not as cut and dry, and I should have said more to that effect. -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"
grant@looking.UUCP (Grant Robinson) (05/18/89)
In article <8905172121.AA19911@genie.csri.toronto.edu> mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) writes: > >It seems pretty clear that most "anti-speed" people are not uniformly >anti-speed in the general case, or else we'd have cries of horror that >commercial airplanes travel at almost *ten times* the speed limit on 401. >But that's OK, because we have strict controls on pilot training, aircraft >airworthiness, etc., right? So what's the problem with considering the >idea of improving the corresponding "quality controls" on the highway >so that for the same (or lower) loss rate we get to drive a little faster??? > The "problem" is that flying is perceived by the majority to be "dangerous", while driving is not. While the current reality is that flying is much safer (on a per mile travelled basis), many people will think twice before getting on a plane, while few will think twice before getting in a car. Until this changes, we can expect heavy regulation of the airline industry and pilots' licences, and continuing pitiful regulation of automobiles and driving tests which are wimpish to the utmost. Have you ever seen anyone doing a "pre-drive" inspection (similar to a "pre-flight" check of a plane) of their vehicle, other than perhaps putting air in their tires? It may be the case that most accidents are not caused by mechanical failures, but it would have the advantage that a person would be aware of any signals and lights which were not working (which I suspect may be involved in many accidents), and secondly, it heightens the person's awareness that they are about to perform a dangerous activity. air in their tires). -- Grant Robinson, Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, ON (519)-884-7473
gvcormack@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Gordon V. Cormack) (05/19/89)
In article <89May17.145618edt.11073@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>, steeg@ai.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes: > > As for my documentation, I admit to having posted without firm > research into the issue. It is not "emotional" factors which led me > to my statements, however. (As a matter of fact, I am not only *not* > afraid to drive fast, I *love* to go fast, on land sea, or air!) Perhaps not "emotional", but our intuition of risks (and any other probabilistic phenomena) can be very wrong. Only carefully controlled studies can demonstrate risks. In my opinion, no study exists that shows 130 km/h is measurably more dangerous than 100 km/h on an uncongested limited access freeway. Here is some intuition that might show speed decreases risk: (a) driver inattention is the primary cause of accidents increased speed demands more attention increased speed is more interesting and prevents distraction (b) on long trips (such as freeway travel), risk of accident increases with time on the road. Increased speed decreases time on the road. In any event, even the claimed risks of speeding are VERY VERY much smaller than the documented risks of (a) driving at night (b) driving in the rain (c) taking the same trip twice (d) riding a motorcycle, all of which we think are perfectly acceptable risks. The choice of which risks are acceptable and which aren't is purely political. BTW, I believe a U.S. insurance study [sorry, can't reproduce the reference] has concluded that Radar-detector owners have fewer accidents than average. -- Gordon V. Cormack CS Dept, University of Waterloo, Canada N2L 3G1 gvcormack@waterloo.EDU gvcormack@uwaterloo.CA gvcormac@water.BITNET
taras@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (T. Pryjma) (05/23/89)
I think you are all missing the point, the real argument in this discussion is how fast can you SAFELY drive along a motorway. This depends upon many things including the mental state of the driver and the physical shape of the road. In many cases a driver should not even consider driving a vehicle because of his/her physical or mental state, in other cases the roads happen to be in such bad shape that it highly unlikely that you will even drive at the limit. The Rolls-Royce driving school teaches that you can drive any speed that you like, so long as you can see what is in front of you. If we as drivers knew the status of our vehicles and could adequately judge the stutus of us, as drivers, and our road condition, we would not need speed limits. For the same reason, we would not require RIDE, but that is another matter. Also, remember you chances of surviving a collision at a speed greater than 60 MPH is far less than a collision less than that speed. What really burns me up is states like Pennsylvania that have unreasonably low speed limits on Interstate type roads and feel the need to continuously inform you of their speeding fines, every ten to fifteen miles. If you can't drive safely at any speed, you should not be on the road. -- Taras Pryjma uucp: taras@gpu.utcs internet: taras@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821 Field trips are supposed to be educational-- and the more they deviate from the plan, the more educational they're likely to be!