smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (10/15/86)
> > > > One thing I've never seen on here is any kind of variance analysis of just > > how much the speed limit change DID affect the fatality rate. > > Surely SOMEBODY (insurance company, govt. organization > > or whoever) has statistically isolated the speed limit change. I think this > > information would be quite interesting! > > **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh 1955 26,100 2.7 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle-miles 1960 38,137 1965 49,163 1970 54,633 1973 55,511 **************** 55 MPH ******************* 1974 46,402 1975 45,853 1.3 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle-miles *********** Light-weight Cars ************* 1978 52,411 1979 53,524 1980 53,300 1981 51,500 3.1 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle-miles 1982 46,000 The statistics are from some dusty almanacs. The comments are my own, but compacts and subcompacts have 3 times the fatality rate of the rubber-wheeled tanks of the 60's and early 70's.
rgrove@pogo.UUCP (10/15/86)
In article <418@fai.UUCP> ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: [Raising speed limit discussion deleted] > >I can't argue against making our streets safer, but I object to blanket >'easy' answers that don't look at the real situation. Time to dump >the double nickel and try something else. > > > Ron I couldn't agree with you more Ron. After all if the arguement for keeping 55 is "it saves lives compared to 65 -70" then the same logic could be carried to its extreme. That is: If 55 saves more lives than 70, then 30 would save more lives than 55; we could save all lives by making the speed limit zero. The point that I think that several people have been making is that a logical approach is to weigh the risks against the benefits. Since I haven't seen anybody advocating that we outlaw driving completely, I assume that most people are willing to accept some risk for the benefit of traveling by car. If this is indeed true, we should should set speed limits at a level such that the benefits and risks are balanced. I am certainly willing to trade the increased risk of a 70 mph speed limit for the faster travel. I think that many, if not most people, would also provided the road is designed for it. There are some people who probably feel that 25 or 30 is the speed limit that best suits the risk they are willing to take. I hope that they do not represent a strong enough influence to have the speed limit lowered. I also believe that any law that is violated by a majority of people is a bad law and, as the 55 MPH speed limit is broken regularly by what I believe is well over 50% of the drivers on the road, well as you said, "Time to dump the double nickel and try something else." Robert Grove !tektronix!pogo!rgrove
plocher@puff.wisc.edu (John Plocher) (10/16/86)
In article <1101@mhuxl.UUCP> smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) writes: >> has statistically isolated the speed limit change. >From ... Steve Henning ... The statistics are from some dusty almanacs. I'd like to know how many accidents are on interstates as -vs- other state/county roads. In light of Congress wanting to raise non urban interstate speeds to 65mph the nay-sayers are quoting the above stats. I would *think* that the fatality rate on I's is low; that the accidents are on lesser highways and in cities. (no this is not a flame against cities, some of my best friends live in cities... :-) -- harvard-\ /- uwmacc!uwhsms!plocher (work) John Plocher seismo-->!uwvax!< topaz-/ \- puff!plocher (school) "Never trust an idea you get sitting down" - Nietzche