sullivan@harvard.ARPA (John Sullivan) (04/03/85)
> Some very interesting comments here. How can the 55 mph speed limit be > saving 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day and 9000-10000 lives a year when > more than a 75% of the cars on rural interstate highways exceed it? > Phil Kos The cars may be going above 55, but they are going more slowly than they used to. Actually, the most important factor contributing to the saving of lives is the reduction in the spread of speeds. These days most people drive at 55-70, whereas the spread was much greater before. Another interesting point is that old cars may not be most efficient at 55 mph, but most newer once have been designed that way. John M. Sullivan sullivan@harvard
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (04/04/85)
I can't let this pass without comment... > Actually, the most important factor contributing to > the saving of lives is the reduction in the spread of speeds. I can't imagine how anyone can say that factor "X" is the most important factor contributing to the saving of lives. How can one know if it is: a) lower speeds; b) reduced spread in speeds; c) less driving; d) safer cars; e) more use of seatbelts; f) helicopter ambulances; g) better trained ambulance crews; h) paramedics; or i) advances in medical treatment of trauma when all of these appeared at just about the same time? -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
jeepcj2a@fluke.UUCP (Dale Chaudiere) (04/09/85)
> before. Another interesting point is that old cars may not be most > efficient at 55 mph, but most newer once have been designed that way. > > John M. Sullivan > sullivan@harvard A recent article in Off-Road reported on a road rally using brand new Jeep Wagoneers with diesel engines. One method of obtaining high points was to achieve the best mileage on the rally. With the vehicle in 5th gear the proper cruising engine RPM could only be reached by exceeding the 55 speed limit. I don't remember the exact figures, but it was somewhere around 63.
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (04/10/85)
> Actually, the most important factor contributing to > the saving of lives is the reduction in the spread of speeds. Actually, the most important factor in the saving of lives is the passage of time. If you plot highway deaths per thousand miles driven for a meaningful period of time you'll see a steady decline. The slope of this decline was not significantly effected by the institution of the 55 mph limit. Safer cars, safer roads, better driver education, better DWI enforcement all contribute to this figure. Speed doesn't seem to have a very significant effect. One of the common ploys of the 55-saves-lives campaigners is to say that absolute highway deaths declined immediately upon institution of the limit. This is true. But why was 55 instituted? Because of the alledged "energy crisis". The price of gas and the low availability got a number of drivers off the road and that's what lowered the absolute death count. The deaths per thousand miles figure is the only one that makes sense in this context. It is true that wide variation in speed, not absolute speed, is the danger factor on the highway. THis is the first claim I've seen that the spread in speed is any greater now than it used to be, however. Fred Klink Varian
bwf@ihlpl.UUCP (Fecht) (03/31/86)
I really hate to dig up old corpses, but I'm looking for the references to the real hard facts on this. Can someone give me a reference or references to reasons why or why not the 55 mph speed limit is a good idea? At first, it was touted for saving 9-11K lives per year. Now I hear that this is nonsense and the data was corrupted by the changing definitions used in collecting and processing the data. Mail to ihnp4!ihlpl!bwf Thanks, -bill fecht (AT&T Bell Laboratories)