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
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
copp@petrus.UUCP (04/11/85)
Whatever the 55mph speed limit may have done for the accident rate, it appears to me (purely subjective--no data) that the near-miss rate is also down. The result is--a drive on the Interstate is no longer a scary experience for me. I.e., despite the longer travel time, the lower speed limit has improved my personal "quality of life." I realize that it has NOT improved the "quality of life" for people who frequently have to drive long distances. I think the ultimate solution is to use high-tech hardware to make both vehicles and roads truly safe at higher speeds.
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/11/85)
I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/12/85)
I know of an argument that cannot be advanced for the 35 mph speed limit. It is a brick through the rear window of that BMW that just cruised down my street doing 55 mph so the pencil neck could make the 7:15 on the other end of town. T. C. Wheeler
mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (04/13/85)
> I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit > that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. For cryin' out loud! Don't say that too loud, or some knee-jerk congressman will hear about it, and the next thing you know, we'll have a 35 mph national limit! -- Mike Stalnaker UUCP:{decvax!grendel,cbosgd!seismo}!dolqci!mike AT&T:202-376-2593 USPS:601 D. St. NW, Room 7122, Washington, DC, 20213 "You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Never count on having both at the same time." -Lazarus Long.
faunt@hplabs.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (04/15/85)
> > I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit > > that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. > > For cryin' out loud! Don't say that too loud, or some knee-jerk > congressman will hear about it, and the next thing you know, we'll > have a 35 mph national limit! > Enforce it, give mass transit an exemption, and we'd see some good mass transit systems pretty quick. -- ....!hplabs!faunt faunt%hplabs@csnet-relay.ARPA HP is not responsible for anything I say here. In fact, what I say here may have been generated by a noisy telephone line.
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (04/17/85)
> I think the ultimate solution is to use high-tech hardware to make > both vehicles and roads truly safe at higher speeds. It's been done...and never mind the high tech. The vehicles are called trains. 90 mph lines are commonplace where the traffic is there, and bad accidents are so rare that they make the news. And if you must have high-tech, well, 125 mph and more is seen every day in France, Japan, Britain... Building expensive roadways, whether for trains or cars, just isn't economic without the traffic. And while people prefer to kill themselves in their individually controlled vehicles, we won't see the spending needed to substitute anything else. { allegra | decvax | duke | ihnp4 | linus | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb also via { hplabs | amd | twg | ... } !pesnta!lsuc!msb Mark Brader and uw-beaver!utcsri!lsuc!msb
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (04/17/85)
> > > I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit > > > that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. > > > > For cryin' out loud! Don't say that too loud, or some knee-jerk > > congressman will hear about it, and the next thing you know, we'll > > have a 35 mph national limit! > > > Enforce it, give mass transit an exemption, and we'd see some good > mass transit systems pretty quick. > -- No, you would get millions of people breaking the law and several politicians would be looking for new jobs. Mass transit would still stink. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/22/85)
>I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit >that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. I know of no argument for the 65 mph speed limit that cannot also be advanced for a 135 mph speed limit. Can this line of reasoning be dropped now? Merlyn Leroy
paul@dual.UUCP (Baker) (04/23/85)
> > > I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit > > > that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. > > > > Enforce it, give mass transit an exemption, and we'd see some good > > mass transit systems pretty quick. > > -- > > No, you would get millions of people breaking the law and several politicians > would be looking for new jobs. Mass transit would still stink. > It is, of course, the cars that stink. Even with pollution control devices, they still stink. They have plenty of other problems as well. They kill thousands of people a year and maim thousands more. For any other consumer product, killing a few people a year is normally sufficent grounds to withdraw the product and attract quite a few law suits. For some reason cars have never been subject to the same rules as other products. Homicide by auto seems to be quite socially acceptable. Cars have made the centres of most cities and towns decidedly unpleasant with their stink and roar. In many cases large parts of cities and towns have been demolished to accomodate the wretched things. I am not even allowed to cross the road where I want to (in the Land of Freedom?), because we even have laws that favour cars over people. A large percentage of the world's resources are squandered fuelling and manufacturing automobiles. Most cars are so poorly built that they only last a few years, even if their owners manage to avoid driving them into something or someone during that time. Vast amounts of land (and Tax Money) have been used to build freeways and other roads. Standard Oil, General Motors, Firestone and a few others spent a lot of money and effort in a illegal conspiracy destroying Mass Transit around the country in the 40s and 50s, just to try and make you buy their products. This is a large part of the reason why Mass Transit isn't as good as it might be. Just a few of the reasons that cars stink. Paul Wilcox-Baker.
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (04/23/85)
[] If you don't know why cars are exempt from many of the stigma applied to other products (like if a couple of people are killed using them its curtains for the product) and all you can do is talk about how they stink, then you are beyond reason and I'm sorry. I'll give you one picture: Suppose you lived in the age of the dinosaurs and all you could think of was how big and smelly and rotten and dangerous and ugly and ...they were. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
david@ut-sally.UUCP (David R. Kuykendall) (04/24/85)
In article <991@dual.UUCP> paul@dual.UUCP (Baker) writes: >> > > I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit >> > > that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. >> > >> > Enforce it, give mass transit an exemption, and we'd see some good >> > mass transit systems pretty quick. >> > -- >> >> No, you would get millions of people breaking the law and several politicians >> would be looking for new jobs. Mass transit would still stink. >> >It is, of course, the cars that stink. Even with pollution control devices, >they still stink. > >They have plenty of other problems as well. They kill thousands of people a >year and maim thousands more. For any other consumer product, killing a few >people a year is normally sufficent grounds to withdraw the product and attract >quite a few law suits. For some reason cars have never been subject to the >same rules as other products. Homicide by auto seems to be quite socially >acceptable. > >Paul Wilcox-Baker. Dear Idiot paul: I can only say that you are one of the stupidist people I have had to deal with! Cars DO NOT kill people. People driving cars kill people. If this is to difficult for you to understand, ask someone else to explain it to you. Your mother must be very disappointed. david@ut-sally.ARPA ps: 55 sucks pss: Get out of my way, or we'll bouth die!
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (05/04/85)
In article <556@digi-g.UUCP>, brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) writes: > I know of no argument for the 65 mph speed limit > that cannot also be advanced for a 135 mph speed limit. I do: the Interstates were engineered for safe operation at 70 mph. They were not designed for 135 mph. -- I speak for myself and no one else. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
liang@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (05/08/85)
> In article <556@digi-g.UUCP>, brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) writes: > > I know of no argument for the 65 mph speed limit > > that cannot also be advanced for a 135 mph speed limit. > > I do: the Interstates were engineered for safe operation at 70 mph. > They were not designed for 135 mph. > -- > I speak for myself and no one else. > > Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 Take note, most post-manditory-55-mph-speed-limit highways were designed for 55-65 max safe driving. That doesn't mean that you can't drive faster safely, just that the design (banking, shoulders, surface) weren't designed for cars going too much faster. This interesting fact first struck home on the Washington DC beltway one Monday morning at about 2am when I managed to hit ~100 on an empty stretch..... Oh, and another thing, I'd be willing bet that most cars nowadays are much happier at going 60 mph than 135 mph. -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (05/08/85)
> In article <556@digi-g.UUCP>, brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) writes: > > I know of no argument for the 65 mph speed limit > > that cannot also be advanced for a 135 mph speed limit. > > I do: the Interstates were engineered for safe operation at 70 mph. > They were not designed for 135 mph. > -- Yes and no. The Interstate highway building began in the late 1950's and really picked-up in the 1960's. Cars at that time were about twice as heavy as they are today, on average. Guard rails, light posts, etc. were designed to retain and break away when hit by that greater mass. They were also designed for impact at higher points from the road surface. I saw an interesting film clip a couple of years ago (sorry, can't remember where) of an early 60's GM sedan and a mid 70's Japenesse coupe taking on these obstacles at about 60MPH. The "occupents" of the Olds lived to tell the tale. Those in the Datsun did not. BTW, this is NOT an advocacy for the 55MPH limit. I drive a Saab so I don't have to worry about crashing! [:-)] *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
meister@faron.UUCP (Philip W. Servita) (05/10/85)
In article <556@digi-g.UUCP> brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) writes: >>I know of no argument for the 55 mph speed limit >>that cannot also be advanced for a 35 mph speed limit. > >I know of no argument for the 65 mph speed limit >that cannot also be advanced for a 135 mph speed limit. > >Can this line of reasoning be dropped now? >Merlyn Leroy while they can all be advanced, not too many of them still remain valid. (is your reaction time less than .01 sec? i did'nt think so) Can we stop shooting from the hip now? -the venn buddhist -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- is anything really trash before you throw it away? ---------------------------------------------------------------------
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (05/12/85)
In article <825@ccice5.UUCP>, rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: > > I do: the Interstates were engineered for safe operation at 70 mph. > > They were not designed for 135 mph. > > Yes and no. The Interstate highway building began in the late 1950's and > really picked-up in the 1960's. Cars at that time were about twice as > heavy as they are today, on average. Guard rails, light posts, etc. were > designed to retain and break away when hit by that greater mass. I don't mean they are designed to let you survive a crash at 70 mph. I mean you can drive at 70 mph without your car falling off the road when you take a turn. -- I speak for myself and no one else. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA