werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (04/02/85)
[ I do not encourage a renewal of the discussion, but hope you find this
bit of news encouraging. ---Werner
]
LAW IN THE FAST LANE - House bill asks 65mph limits for rural roads
Washington (AP) - If comedian Rodney Dangerfield were a law, he'd be the 55MPH
speed limit -- it doesn't get any respect -- especially in West Texas, where
you can leave Odessa, drive 2.5 hours, and only be in Lubbock.
More than three-fourths of the cars on rural interstate highways exceed the
55MPH speed limit, according to a study by the National Research Council of the
National Acadamy of Sciences.
Twenty-one congressmen have co-sponsored a House bill under which a governor
could ask the Secretary of Transportation to increase speed-limits on certain
four-lane rural roads to 65MPH.
"Out here, that's the general feeling - that it's a nuisance and it's
time-consuming," said Charles Muery, district public affairs officer for the
Texas State Highway Department in Odessa (speaking for himself, not the
Department, however).
"You've got to realize that in the oil fields, which we're in the middle of the
Permian Basin, people commute to jobs 60 to 120 miles, ... that adds a lot of
hours to their workday, and they're jealous of that time because it is
unproductive."
There have been previous attempts to get rid of the 55MPH, but .. this one
might have a chance because it would only affect wide, straight rural highways.
It has been 11 years since the 55mph was put into effect in response to the
Arab oil embargo. It was made permanent in 1975. Transportation groups
estimate that it has saved an estimated 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day.
But with more fuel-efficient cars and more plentiful gas, the law is probably
still on the books for a different reason - the 9,000 to 10,000 lives it is
estimated to save every year.phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) (04/02/85)
> LAW IN THE FAST LANE - House bill asks 65mph limits for rural roads > > > More than three-fourths of the cars on rural interstate highways exceed the > 55MPH speed limit, according to a study by the National Research Council of > the National Acadamy of Sciences . . . . > > Twenty-one congressmen have co-sponsored a House bill under which a governor > could ask the Secretary of Transportation to increase speed-limits on certain > four-lane rural roads to 65MPH. > > . . . . Transportation groups > estimate that it has saved an estimated 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day. > > But with more fuel-efficient cars and more plentiful gas, the law is probably > still on the books for a different reason - the 9,000 to 10,000 lives it is > estimated to save every year . . . . 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? Also, it is (and always has been) possible for any state to deliberately (AND LEGALLY) raise the maximum speed limit on any road under their juris- diction to more than 55 mph. The reason it hasn't been done is federal extortion. Raise the speed limit, lose revenue. I would like to see the government drop its current blackmail policy and allow speed limits to go back to whatever is appropriate for the road and the conditions, rather than having to conform to yet another arbitrary standard. It seems, however, that the part of Ronnie's brain which knew anything about his 1980 campaign promise regarding this is long since defunct, so I'm not holding my breath. Phil Kos The Johns Hopkins Hospital ...!decvax!grendel!aplvax!osiris!phil
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (04/03/85)
> > I would like to see the government drop its current blackmail policy and > allow speed limits to go back to whatever is appropriate for the road and > the conditions, rather than having to conform to yet another arbitrary > standard. It seems, however, that the part of Ronnie's brain which knew > anything about his 1980 campaign promise regarding this is long since > defunct, so I'm not holding my breath. > > Phil Kos > The Johns Hopkins Hospital > ...!decvax!grendel!aplvax!osiris!phil I really do not know which promise you think Ronnie has broken Phil. Give me a hint. Then compare this to the other bills Reagan must tackle. Is it better for Reagan to fight congress on this one, along with the rest? Or do you think that the minimal amount of harm this does to speeders is not worth the presidential initiative. Mark Reina
samuels@h-sc1.UUCP (ronald samuels) (04/04/85)
> 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? > The reason that the 55 mph speed limit saves lives and gas despite people exceeding it is that people exceeded the old limit too. What proponets of the bill are actually saying is that we want to change the law so that it will now be legal to drive 65 so that everyone can drive 75 without getting a ticket. -- Ron Samuels Harvard University Science Center ...harvard!h-sc1!samuels (or better yet) ...harvard!h-sc4!samuels_b
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (04/04/85)
> > > > I would like to see the government drop its current blackmail policy and > > Phil Kos > > I really do not know which promise you think Ronnie has broken Phil. > Give me a hint. Then compare this to the other bills Reagan must tackle. Yeah, do you really mean that. REAGAN is not only breaking a promise but is going against his own policy of minimizing GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in citizen lives. The same kind of blackmail to states crops up with regard to drunken driving and automatic seat belts. It's the same line always : "Do this else LOSE FEDERAL REVENUES" These matters of deciding speed limits should be left with the state govts./lawmakers and the chief executive should try to concentrate on more important matters to the nation and these days he is definitely not short of them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staring at the CRT for too long is harmful for the eye do not read bulletin borads else you'll lose FEDERAL SUPPORT :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- usual disclaimer Sanjay Tikku Perkin-Elmer,SDC,Orlando {allegra,ihnp4 ..}!pesnta!peora!san
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (04/04/85)
I also find the 55mph frustrating and inconsistant with the rest of congressional policy. Over the last 11 years I have tallyed up 6 years driving in excess of 50k miles a year -- much of it ignoring the 55 at a great savings in time. In calif we don't have the CHP using radar and up until they started flying enforcement was minor - result was getting stopped once a year or so. If they really wanted to save gas they would ban from the road any passenger car with less than 20mpg -- including the police cars. They would also concentrate on getting heavy trucks above 5mpg and improving rail for cross country service. Granted that 55 does save lives and reduce serious accidents -- but I doubt somehow that the real number is as large as 10k/year -- I wonder how many of those are DUI accidents. If they really thought that saving lives in america was a HIGH priority they would impose a manditory 6month jail term and $5k fine for first timers caught DUI -- with no parole or plea bargining. Flat out -- Drive DUI and go to jail. Doubling the sentence with each violation would drive the point home. I know SEVERAL persons caught DUI driving with a revoked license or with hardship wavers -- and still driving DUI. Lastly they could save 100 times more lives by stopping the production subsidies for tobaco growth, putting 10% of that money into education on smoking, drinking and drugs. They would save 4-5 times that sum in reduced public aid for elderly cancer care and disablity care. They would also see an increase in us productivity and a resulting increase in taxable revenue. The real issue the that the congress feels it must DO SOMETHING to save lives and the 55 supporters provide a cheap out since most americans aren't very vocal on this subject. The smoking and drinking lobbies pay the bills of some congressmen (campain and other expenses) so why rock the boat?? I say we rock it for them -- write, call, and be active. John Bass
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (04/06/85)
The claim is that 9,000 - 10,000 lives a year are saved by 55 vs 65 and we spend about $80,000/year per hiway patrolman to make sure each state gets it's funding. The claim is that OVER half of the 125,000 highway deaths each year are alcohol-related and some number more due to other drugs now classified as DUI but not well tested for. Radar and Flying patrols are useless in catching all these affenders and the deaths they cause. I wonder how many officers hiding on off ramps can tell the DUI drivers from the rest -- many DUI drivers don't speed or drive carelessly. The claim is that up to 75,000 deaths each year are related to asbestos exposure. Claims of many times that for smoking related cancer deaths are made ... and they are probably LOW. Multiply out the cost of 55 -- we have more than 10,000 unecessary patrolmen doing speed enforcement at a cost of 10,000 x $80,000 = $800,000,000.00 per year -- that is ONE BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR --- or about $80,000 per life saved in DIRECT COST. The indirect cost is MUCH higher --- lost time and productivity. It takes 20% longer in travel time to travel at 55 vs 65 (based on a net average of 50 and 60 including stops and traffic). That adds 20% to the delivery cost of trucked freight -- nearly everything. For the millions of people that drive more than 5,000 mi/yr on the hiways for work that is BILLIONS more dollars wasted each year picked up by both goverment and private sector employers. I bet that if the SAME 10,000 officers were assigned to watch known places to find DUI drivers and some FEDERAL law was to remove state funding based on DUI offences that we could save maybe 100,000 or more of the DUI related deaths. THAT IS A 10 TIMES BETTER WAY TO SAVE LIVES If the same ONE billion dollars was invested in an anti-tobaco campain we could reduce lung cancer deaths for even more lives saved per year. I am tired of hearing that it saves lives and oil. There are much more effective ways of saving lives -- infact the same goverment PAYS the tabacco growers to kill 10 times that many smokers. For the cost of saving that oil -- we can BUY several times that much oil on the open market. That is a FALSE savings given that OIL ISN"T A SCARCE economic resource in todays market. I wish the dumb public would catch on to the goverments tune of: We saved 30 lives today in our 55 program. We also pleased some farmers and manufacturers with our subsidy program at only a cost of 450 lives a day. John Bass
burd@unm-cvax.UUCP (04/08/85)
> > > > I would like to see the government drop its current blackmail policy and > > allow speed limits to go back to whatever is appropriate for the road and > > the conditions, rather than having to conform to yet another arbitrary > > standard. It seems, however, that the part of Ronnie's brain which knew > > anything about his 1980 campaign promise regarding this is long since > > defunct, so I'm not holding my breath. > > > > Phil Kos > > The Johns Hopkins Hospital > > ...!decvax!grendel!aplvax!osiris!phil > > I really do not know which promise you think Ronnie has broken Phil. > Give me a hint. Then compare this to the other bills Reagan must > tackle. Is it better for Reagan to fight congress on this one, > along with the rest? Or do you think that the minimal amount of harm > this does to speeders is not worth the presidential initiative. > Mark Reina Quite simply, the promise that Ronnie broke was his commitment to see that the federal government doesn't use federal funds to twist the arms of local governments. Based on this principle, he was supposed to do away with things like highway funding cuts for states who don't enforce 55, funding cuts for municipalities that don't meet clean air standards, court ordered school bussing, etc. However, Ronnie showed us that principle is all well and good until it costs some votes. The most classic example of this being his recent support of legislation to cut highway funds to states that don't raise their drinking age to 21 by the end of 1986. As to whether or not this issue is worth expending political capital on, why should anyone think that there's a cost involved. The principle of "non-arm-twisting" has wide support from the congress, the people, and local governments. He can always deal with this problem in the same way he dealt with all of those "excessive" environmental regulations: cut the budget of the department that enforces these rules in half. FROM: Stephen D. Burd USNAIL: Anderson School of Management University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 AT&T: (505)-277-6418 UUCP: {lanl,ucbvax,gatech,...}!unmvax!unm-cvax!burd
berniem@teklds.UUCP (Bernard J. Miller) (04/12/85)
In article <1545@ut-ngp.UUCP> werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >[ I do not encourage a renewal of the discussion, but hope you find this > bit of news encouraging. ---Werner >] > > LAW IN THE FAST LANE - House bill asks 65mph limits for rural roads >estimated to save every year. I've wondered if a moderated speed in areas of high density interchanges (say 40 to 55 mph) and higher speeds (say 70 to 90 mph) in areas where interchanges are far enough apart to allow reaction time (say a minimum mile apart) would result in the same or lower death statistics claimed for the all-pervasive 55 mph. This approach probably would limit speeds throughout an entire moderate size city but you could go like scat in the country or between suburbs. Are their any traffic engineers out there who would comment? -Bernie