paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) (02/12/86)
LA TIMES, 2/12/86 (excerpts):
The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of
Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph sppeed limit be boosted
to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside
metropolitan areas.
The joint report ... asserted that accidents would not significantly
increase and that law enforcement personnel could focus more effort
on urban traffic problems...
...the average speed along rural stretches of I5 ... is 63 to 65 mph.
... people are already goin that fast...
We've told Congress we want to set our own limits...
...report also recommended that the federal formula for assesing whether
Cal. motorists are complying.. be softened.
...
...only 47% of the drivers like the speed limit as it stands...
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Paul Blumstein | "One doesn't have a sense of humor.
Citicorp/TTI | It has you."
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. | Larry Gelbart
Santa Monica, CA 90405 +--------------------------------------------
(213) 450-9111 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!paulbmberns@ut-ngp.UUCP (Mark Bernstein) (02/13/86)
** The argument that people are already driving close to 65 mph *already* doesn't seem too impressive... I'm certain that if Calif. raised the limit to 65, then people would tend to drive at 70-75 mph. So then what? Perhaps 65 isn't unreasonable in terms of safety, etc. That's what we've got now, according to this argument. But can the same be said for 75? I'm sure it's fine for net.auto readers; we're all great drivers, at any speed :-) . But I can think of any number of drivers and/or cars for which 70 - 75 would be quite unsafe. BTW, I'm not suggesting that 55 is a sensible limit for open freeway driving - I don't think it is - but just questioning the logical consequences of the type of argument quoted in the posting. I just don't know what on earth would be a good solution to all this. mb
svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) (02/13/86)
In article <152@ttidcc.UUCP> paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) writes: >LA TIMES, 2/12/86 (excerpts): > >The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of >Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted >to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside >metropolitan areas. > >...the average speed along rural stretches of I5 ... is 63 to 65 mph. >... people are already goin that fast... I saw the same thing on the news. Now my question is if people are averaging 8-10 mph over the speed limit now, why wouldn't they do the same with a 65 mph speed limit? My observations are that most people drive the highway at 5-9 mph over the posted speed limit regardless of what that limit is. -- Bill Svirsky Citicorp/TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcb!svirsky
ma@hropus.UUCP (Miguel Abdo) (02/14/86)
> The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of > Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted > to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside > metropolitan areas. > Well, now, if the speed limit were to increase to 65 MPH, then people would go between 70 and 75 MPH. Then what? I suppose someone would suggest upping the speed limit to 75! I'm not trying to say I don't occasionally speed; we all do once in a while. But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should be changed. After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy.
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (02/14/86)
> The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of > Transportation) recommended ... that the speed limit be boosted to 65 > mph on the state freeway system outside metropolitan areas. > ...the average speed along rural stretches of I5 ... is 63 to 65 mph. > ...only 47% of the drivers like the speed limit as it stands... Thus only 53% want it lower or higher. Also if you want people to drive 65 you make the limit 56 not 65. I am old enought to have driven when speed limits were up to 70 in places and people drove 75 to 80 with great frequency, but there were still people who drove 50 like some people do today. Therein is the problem. A 30 mph spread in speed is frequently fatal. It is not the 160 mph closing speed that starts the accident, it just finishes off the survivors. With 65 mph limits many people will drive 73 to 75 mph. Is that what you really want? Perhaps we need a system of toll roads with minimum speeds and maximum speed 10 mph apart. Personally, my wife and I drive 30,000 miles a year and have little trouble with the 55 mph limit and the pad the police allow.
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (02/14/86)
> while. But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should > be changed. After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy. And it has since been proven that statement couldn't be farther from the truth! Notice and 55 SAVES ENERGY signs? NO? Notice any 55 SAVES LIVES signs? You do? How about that! Addison ihnp4!ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
neal@weitek.UUCP (Neal Bedard) (02/15/86)
In article <680@ttidcb.UUCP>, svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) writes: > In article <152@ttidcc.UUCP> paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) writes: > >LA TIMES, 2/12/86 (excerpts): > > > >The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of > >Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted > >to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside > >metropolitan areas. [...] > > I saw the same thing on the news. Now my question is if people are > averaging 8-10 mph over the speed limit now, why wouldn't they do > the same with a 65 mph speed limit? My observations are that > most people drive the highway at 5-9 mph over the posted speed > limit regardless of what that limit is. > -- Could be so, however the thing to keep in mind is that 55 mph is considerably lower than the `design speed' (60-70 mph) of most major highways. I would infer that if speed limits were instead set at `design speed' and not 55 mph, more motorists would drive at or near such speed limits since they would be the most `comfortable' for the majority of drivers (certainly the frequency and magnitude of deviation in speed would be smaller than is the case presently.) This has an obvious safety benefit: fewer motorists would be trying to pass slower vehicles, since the distribution of speeds would be narrower. Now, given that motorists would adjust following distance properly to correspond with the higher speeds they would be travelling (begging the question a bit, but would most likely be the case) there really isn't an inherent danger in removing the 55 mph limit. Or so say I (given the above news item, apparently the CHP agree.) No matter how we feel about it, we should remember that the 55 mph speed limit was enacted as a conservation law that was badly needed at the time. It is not needed now, and should be abandoned until it is needed again (hopefully never.) -Neal -- "If I owned half of that dog, I'd shoot my half." -Pudd'nhead Wilson UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!neal
che@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che) (02/16/86)
In article <567@mhuxl.UUCP> smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) writes: >> The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of >> Transportation) recommended ... that the speed limit be boosted to 65 >> mph on the state freeway system outside metropolitan areas. >> ...only 47% of the drivers like the speed limit as it stands... > >Thus only 53% want it lower or higher. > >Also if you want people to drive 65 you make the limit 56 not 65. I am >old enought to have driven when speed limits were up to 70 in places and >people drove 75 to 80 with great frequency, but there were still people >who drove 50 like some people do today. The CHP and Caltrans are not arbitrarily recommending this increase. The Highway Patrol is recommending a higher speed limit in certain areas where the average speed is closer to 65 than 55 mph and the speed distribution looks like this: Speed Distribution on Rural Highways (e.g. I5) | ** | * * % | * * | * * | ** * | * * * + //-------------------------- 55 65 75 85 mph--> below | exceeding ^ | Maximum Posted Limit The speed that drivers tend to drive on an open stretch of highway generally has nothing to do with the speed limit in the absence of a patrol car. It's what the driver feels comfortable with. If you are comfortable at 55 mph on Interstate 5 (for those unfamiliar, I5 from San Francisco to Los Angeles sometimes seems like a straight line from horizon to horizon), that's fine. There is nothing to keep you from driving that speed, however most people WILL be driving above 55 mph. NOW... everyone put on your Highway Patrol cap and think real hard. (This is a test.) If you, Mr. or Ms. Patrolman, are chartered to a) enforce the law with a finite number of resources, and b) have statistics to prove that rural highways such as I5 are very safe at 65 mph, compared to urban highways at 55 mph, then QUESTION 1: What is wrong with the above graph? and QUESTION 2: Why is this bad for you as a patrolman under the above circumstances? If you can answer these questions from the CHP point of view, you'll quickly understand what is going on. If you can't, well ..., er, hmm... (I am now waving my hand in front of your face... :-) -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (02/16/86)
In article <379@weitek.UUCP> neal@weitek.UUCP (Neal Bedard) writes: >In article <680@ttidcb.UUCP>, svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) writes: >> In article <152@ttidcc.UUCP> paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) writes: >> >The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of >> >Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted >> >to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside >> >metropolitan areas. [...] >> >> I saw the same thing on the news. Now my question is if people are >> averaging 8-10 mph over the speed limit now, why wouldn't they do >> the same with a 65 mph speed limit? My observations are that >> most people drive the highway at 5-9 mph over the posted speed >> limit regardless of what that limit is. >> -- > >Could be so, however the thing to keep in mind is that 55 mph is considerably >lower than the `design speed' (60-70 mph) of most major highways. I would >infer that if speed limits were instead set at `design speed' and not 55 mph, >more motorists would drive at or near such speed limits since they would be >the most `comfortable' for the majority of drivers (certainly the frequency and >magnitude of deviation in speed would be smaller than is the case presently.) > >This has an obvious safety benefit: fewer motorists would be trying to pass >slower vehicles, since the distribution of speeds would be narrower. ... Let's see, now. The "Sunday drivers" will still drive at 28, the bulk of the drivers will drive at 72 instead of 62, and the speeders will drive at 80 instead of 70. Where does the narrowing of the speed distribution come in? It seems to me that (80-28) > (70-28). FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon {hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 5302 Betsy Ross Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054 AT&T: (408)748-4817 [direct] (408)727-1234 [switchboard]
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/17/86)
In article <274@hropus.UUCP> ma@hropus.UUCP (Miguel Abdo) writes: > >Well, now, if the speed limit were to increase to 65 MPH, then people would >go between 70 and 75 MPH. Then what? I suppose someone would suggest >upping the speed limit to 75! I don't think this is true. Most people will drive at a speed they feel safe at, a speed they feel does not exceed their ability to maintain control. I know I don't go 55 down a residential street. As proof of this, suppose the speed limit were raised to 95. Do you believe people will go 100 MPH? I don't. It seems clear that raising the speed limit will not always cause people to drive faster. If you think raising the speed limit to 65 MPH will cause people to drive at a dangerous rate, then that is a different issue. But you will need to demonstrate this. There are at least two questions you will have to answer. 1) how fast will people go if the limit is raised to 65. (don't assume people always drive 10 MPH faster than the limit) 2) is this speed a dangerous speed for the roads in question? -- Real men don't have answering machines. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) (02/19/86)
> > The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of > > Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted > > to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside > > metropolitan areas. > > > > Well, now, if the speed limit were to increase to 65 MPH, then people would > go between 70 and 75 MPH. Then what? I suppose someone would suggest > upping the speed limit to 75! > > I'm not trying to say I don't occasionally speed; we all do once in a > while. But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should > be changed. After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy. Many people don't realize that California used to have 65 & 70 MPH speed limits in the 60's. Nevada had NO SPEED LIMITS and one would only get a ticket if he were blatantly unsafe, but would not be bothered driving 80 on an isolated stretch in the desert. > But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should > be changed. After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy. PEOPLE appoint legislators to create laws to govern society-- if an unpopular law gets passed, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE IT CHANGED by petitions, letters to officials, and voting! Most vehicles today get better mileage at 70 or 80 than most 60's vehicles got at any speed. A point that many posters to this issue forget, is that there are many places where a speed limit is arbitrarily or unfairly set. Traffic engineering studies often show that a stretch of roadway is safe for X mph, while the limit is set to some figure substantially lower. Why? Sometimes in error, and other times for creating a speed-trap. Challenging the point, rather than behaving as a sheep and blindly accepting all laws, is ONE way to change such laws, albeit not the best way. It would be interesting to watch some of the sheep on this net encounter a 15 MPH sign on a straight stretch of freeway outside of Salt Lake City. 8^) Send your flames to your local Highway Patrol Office! Bob
piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) (02/19/86)
> > The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of > > Transportation) recommended ... that the speed limit be boosted to 65 > > mph on the state freeway system outside metropolitan areas. > > ...the average speed along rural stretches of I5 ... is 63 to 65 mph. > > ...only 47% of the drivers like the speed limit as it stands... > > Thus only 53% want it lower or higher. > > Also if you want people to drive 65 you make the limit 56 not 65. I am > old enought to have driven when speed limits were up to 70 in places and > people drove 75 to 80 with great frequency, but there were still people > who drove 50 like some people do today. Therein is the problem. A 30 > mph spread in speed is frequently fatal. It is not the 160 mph closing > speed that starts the accident, it just finishes off the survivors. > With 65 mph limits many people will drive 73 to 75 mph. Is that what you > really want? Perhaps we need a system of toll roads with minimum speeds > and maximum speed 10 mph apart. Personally, my wife and I drive 30,000 > miles a year and have little trouble with the 55 mph limit and the pad > the police allow. It is better so set a speed limit of 65 MPH and ENFORCE IT, instead of a 55 MPH limit that is not enforced! People lose respect for unfair laws and laws that are not enforced. That is detremental to all of society.
piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) (02/19/86)
I wonder how many of the 55 MPH supporters were licenced to drive when the limts were 70 MPH?....In fact, how many were even walking? Bob
bjorn@dataioDataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) (02/19/86)
>> ... After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy. > >And it has since been proven that statement couldn't be farther from the >truth! Car and Driver did a little research and... 65 mph consumes 13% more fuel than 55 mph in an average automobile. Bjorn Benson
carl@vger.UUCP (Carl Hewitt) (02/20/86)
In article <680@ttidcb.UUCP>, svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) writes: > In article <152@ttidcc.UUCP> paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) writes: > >LA TIMES, 2/12/86 (excerpts): > > > >The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of > >Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted > >to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside > >metropolitan areas. > > > >...the average speed along rural stretches of I5 ... is 63 to 65 mph. > >... people are already goin that fast... > > I saw the same thing on the news. Now my question is if people are > averaging 8-10 mph over the speed limit now, why wouldn't they do > the same with a 65 mph speed limit? My observations are that > most people drive the highway at 5-9 mph over the posted speed > limit regardless of what that limit is. > -- Regardless? I'm sure if the speed limit were 90 MPH, not as many people would exceed it, let alone get to it at all. 65 miles an hour is a good speed on the highway, and by raising it to that, it would satisfy a lot of people who think 55 is too slow, and they would not object to obeying it as much. Thus, instead of a 50% lawless rate, it might go down to 25-30%, and California would start getting more highway money. -- Carl C. Hewitt ------------------------------------ | uucp: ucbvax!ucscc!carl | | Bitnet: CONCCH at UCSCVM | | CSnet: carl@ucsc | ------------------------------------
jj@nrcvax.UUCP (Utah) (02/20/86)
In article <274@hropus.UUCP> ma@hropus.UUCP (Miguel Abdo) writes: >> The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans (California Department of >> Transportation) recommended ... that the 55-mph speed limit be boosted >> to 65 mph along hundreds of miles of the state freeway system outside >> metropolitan areas. >> > >Well, now, if the speed limit were to increase to 65 MPH, then people would >go between 70 and 75 MPH. Then what? I suppose someone would suggest >upping the speed limit to 75! > >I'm not trying to say I don't occasionally speed; we all do once in a >while. Once in a while? In Utah (and most other western states) the average speed is around 65 (my guess). I think that 55 might be acceptable in most parts of New Jersey but just doesn't make any sense driving across the Bonneville salt flats. >But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should >be changed. Gee, I thought that that was what democracy was all about. Shouldn't the laws reflect the will of the majority of the people? >After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Jennings Network Research Corp. ihnp4!nrcvax!jj 923 Executive Park Drive Suite C ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!jj Salt Lake City, Utah 84117, U.S.A. {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!jj (801) 266-9194
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/22/86)
In article <507@nrcvax.UUCP> jj@nrcvax.UUCP (Jeff Jennings - NRC-Utah) writes: >>But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should >>be changed. > >Gee, I thought that that was what democracy was all about. Shouldn't >the laws reflect the will of the majority of the people? Not at all, the law is also supposed to protect minorities against "the tyranny of the majority". (this has nothing to do with 55MPH) I'm against a national 55MPH limit also, but your argument is invalid. -- Noah, this is God speaking. I'm going to make it rain for forty days and forty nights. In California. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
wersan@daemen.uucp (John Slasher Wersan III) (02/24/86)
In article <3289@hplabsb.UUCP>, piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes: > > I wonder how many of the 55 MPH supporters were licenced to drive when the > limts were 70 MPH?....In fact, how many were even walking? > > Bob I was about 8 when my folks left Arizona for NYC by car, the speed limit then was 65. I remember vividly a stretch of roadway in New Mexico, we were doing ~70 and had not seen a car going in either direction for about 3+ hours (We did see a lot of sand though :-}). The point that I am trying to make is that the speed limits should be dependent on the road conditions, and the location of said roadway. If you have ever driven on Long Island, you would know that it is almost impossible to do 55, let alone drive above the speed limit! (If you don't know, the LIE could pass as the largest parking lot on the east coast :-}) -- John Wersan UUCP : "decvax!sunybcs!daemen!wersan" or "inhp4!kitty!daemen!wersan" "The doctor said I had dain bramage... But my friends don't know what 'dat shit is"
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (02/24/86)
In article <915@dataioDataio.UUCP>, bjorn@dataioDataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes: > >> ... After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy. > > > >And it has since been proven that statement couldn't be farther from the > >truth! > > Car and Driver did a little research and... > 65 mph consumes 13% more fuel than 55 mph in an average automobile. > > Bjorn Benson The milage on my car (a 1975 Volvo) improves with increased cruising speed up to about 65-70 mph, then falls rapidly, due (I believe) to change in the properties of the engine OIL as temperature rises. I strongly believe the optimum speed for best milage varies widely depending on car model, year and maintenance history. I am not sure if Car and Driver's "average automobile" has any relationship to the population of cars in use. about 65 mph
rdz@ccice6.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/25/86)
In article <379@weitek.UUCP>, neal@weitek.UUCP (Neal Bedard) writes: > > Could be so, however the thing to keep in mind is that 55 mph is considerably > lower than the `design speed' (60-70 mph) of most major highways. I would > infer that if speed limits were instead set at `design speed' and not 55 mph, > more motorists would drive at or near such speed limits since they would be > the most `comfortable' for the majority of drivers (certainly the frequency and > magnitude of deviation in speed would be smaller than is the case presently.) I'm afraid I have to take exception to this one. That "design speed" was determined in the late 1950's and early 60's. The average automobile was much larger, higher, heavier and faster in those days. There have been many cases where today's econo-boxes have hit a "break-away" post at a lower point than they were designed for and have been stopped dead in their tracks. Also, many approach ramps are too short to allow a modern car time to get up to highway speed. This is not to say that I don't agree with raising the limit (I do), but I think we should be aware that a car, if it came under the same scrutiny as other consumer products, would probably be outlawed from sale in the US. I'll pay my money and take my chance, and accept responsibility for driving.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/03/86)
> In article <3289@hplabsb.UUCP>, piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes: > > > > I wonder how many of the 55 MPH supporters were licenced to drive when the > > limts were 70 MPH?....In fact, how many were even walking? > I was about 8 when my folks left Arizona for NYC by car, the speed limit > then was 65. I remember vividly a stretch of roadway in New Mexico, we > were doing ~70 and had not seen a car going in either direction > for about 3+ hours (We did see a lot of sand though :-}). I'm strictly an after-55 driver, but I've had the car past an indicated 65 on the Pennsy Turnpike. That really means about 73 in my Reliant, and I was in the right lane with enough traffic that I couldn't slow down and cars going 10 MPH faster in the left lane. We passed a speed trap with about 8 staties, and they were just watching the stream of traffic. I've also been up to about the same speeds on the NYS Thruway in Nyack. I can maintain 65-70 in top gear on the automatic on the hills, but I can't GET to that speed ... the 3-speed automatic and the engine (1st year production, with the CA(!) emissions package) leave some torque holes, I guess. As to highest POSTED speed: the Adirondack Northway used to be posted at 90 MPH. I remember riding up that way with Dad a few times. And the station wagon (with about a 32 gallon gas tank) had no trouble holding that speed. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
cater@mcc-hi.UUCP (J Cater) (03/03/86)
References: <152@ttidcc.UUCP> <567@mhuxl.UUCP> <315@ptsfb.UUCP> <107@daemen.uucp> In article <107@daemen.uucp>, wersan@daemen.uucp (John Slasher Wersan III) writes: > In article <3289@hplabsb.UUCP>, piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes: > > > > I wonder how many of the 55 MPH supporters were licenced to drive when the > > limts were 70 MPH?....In fact, how many were even walking? > > > > Bob > > I was about 8 when my folks left Arizona for NYC by car, the speed limit > then was 65. I remember vividly a stretch of roadway in New Mexico, we > were doing ~70 and had not seen a car going in either direction > for about 3+ hours (We did see a lot of sand though :-}). > > The point that I am trying to make is that the speed limits > should be dependent on the road conditions, and the location of said > roadway. If you have ever driven on Long Island, you would know that > it is almost impossible to do 55, let alone drive above the speed limit! > (If you don't know, the LIE could pass as the largest parking lot on > the east coast :-}) > Just last month ~Feb 15, a driving trip through the New Mexico salt flats around Los Alamos and Socorro shows that the drivers are still doing 70+ out there. Almost every car I encountered (passed!) was going 70-75 mph. Some passed me at probably 80-85 mph. I don't really think anyone in the New Mexico flatlands and West Texas prairies observes that 55 after leaving major city limits. Remember New Mexico only has a TOTAL state population of somewhere around 1.5 to 2 Million residents. Considering the difference in areas between New York and New Mexico and the BIG Difference in population, 55 in both places is really rather idiotic. John
mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) (03/05/86)
In article <113@mcc-hi.UUCP> cater@mcc-hi.UUCP (J Cater) writes: >I don't >really think anyone in the New Mexico flatlands and West Texas prairies >observes that 55 after leaving major city limits. If you're from out of state, you'd better. A friend and I were driving cross-country from Calif. to Mass. in Dec. 1984. We were going east on I-40, and had seen maybe two cars in the preceding hour, when we were stopped by a State Trooper and ticketed for going 65 in a 55 zone! The nearest city was at least 100 miles away! -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!mbr ...!{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!mbr
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/06/86)
The statistics that have been posted regarding highway deaths have been in the form of number-of-deaths per vehicle-miles-travelled. Would not it be more meaningful to see: number-of-deaths per (vehicle-miles-travelled X hours-spent-on-road) Thus, we would factor in the longer times it takes to travel a given distance, given the mandated lower speeds of recent years. Perhaps there could be another factor added -- how many (if any) trips were not taken, or transferred to another transport medium [going by air instead of by car, for example], due to the lower speed limit making driving less desirable. I don't know how to do that latter, though. Will
moroney@jon.DEC (Mike Moroney) (03/06/86)
>As to highest POSTED speed: the Adirondack Northway used to be posted at >90 MPH. I remember riding up that way with Dad a few times. And the station >wagon (with about a 32 gallon gas tank) had no trouble holding that speed. When was this? I used to live 2 miles from the Northway since I was a kid and the speed limit there was always 65 - that was the maximum speed allowed in New York State. -Mike Moroney ..decwrl!rhea!jon!moroney
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (03/11/86)
In article <9834@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <507@nrcvax.UUCP> jj@nrcvax.UUCP (Jeff Jennings - NRC-Utah) writes: >>>But just because people don't like it doesn't mean the law should >>>be changed. >> >>Gee, I thought that that was what democracy was all about. Shouldn't >>the laws reflect the will of the majority of the people? > >Not at all, the law is also supposed to protect minorities against >"the tyranny of the majority". (this has nothing to do with 55MPH) > > Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 How does this work? Laws, referendums, ordinances, etc. are passed every day by a majority vote. How can the minority still get what they want? If I vote against a law and it passes anyway, can I disregard it? I'll take it one step further. I believe that if the majority of people disregard the 55 mph limit, then by definition it is not a law. If most people drive 70 mph then that's what the limit should be. How else can such a thing be established, but by how reasonable and prudent people react in a situation? Is it possible for the MAJORITY to be reckless and unreasoning? All this aside, the new proposed bill does not attempt to raise the national speed limit. It is only aimed at returning control of the speed limit to the states (where it belongs, in my opinion). It is inevitable that some states will raise the speed limit if the bill passes, but it is also likely that some states will maintain the 55 mph limit if that is what is wanted by the people of that state. Please read the last paragraph carefully before flaming. Other opinions? Dave "Democracy or Death" Richards
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/11/86)
In article <950@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >>Not at all, the law is also supposed to protect minorities against >>"the tyranny of the majority". (this has nothing to do with 55MPH) >> > >How does this work? Laws, referendums, ordinances, etc. are passed every >day by a majority vote. How can the minority still get what they want? >If I vote against a law and it passes anyway, can I disregard it? I was thinking of civil rights legislation, etc. Sure it would be nice to have a slave but I think it's better for society that slavery is illegal. -- "We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will become the present, and respect the past, knowing that once it was all that was humanly possible." Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (03/11/86)
In article <1220@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: ................ missive deletion ................ > >As to highest POSTED speed: the Adirondack Northway used to be posted at >90 MPH. I remember riding up that way with Dad a few times. And the station >wagon (with about a 32 gallon gas tank) had no trouble holding that speed. >-- > > from Mole End Mark Terribile Can someone check this?!! I have traveled the northway since (slightly before) it was opened to the public, and don't ever remember the posting being over 65. About ten years ago NY messed with a metric speed limit and had 90kph postings in several places, is that what you remember? -- -bill davidsen seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\ / \ ihnp4! unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen \ / chinet! ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA) "It seemed like a good idea at the time..."
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/12/86)
> > >As to highest POSTED speed: the Adirondack Northway used to be posted at > >90 MPH. I remember riding up that way with Dad a few times. And the station > >wagon (with about a 32 gallon gas tank) had no trouble holding that speed. > > When was this? I used to live 2 miles from the Northway since I was a kid > and the speed limit there was always 65 - that was the maximum speed allowed > in New York State. > > -Mike Moroney > ..decwrl!rhea!jon!moroney I don't recall the exact section. I am pretty sure of the speed. I also seem to remember stretches of the Thruway at 80, but I might be wrong about that. Anyhow, it would have been around '63 or '64, I guess. The road was two lanes each way, not much hard shoulder but lots of grass median, and some tandem semis. And I remember reading that the Thruway and the Northway were exempted from the maximum speed limit laws, each being operated by an authority that was responsible for building and maintaining a road that would be safe at that speed. The Thruway was around long before the Interstate system. So was the Northway. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
alanj@orca.UUCP (Alan Jeddeloh) (03/14/86)
RE: specifically, 90 mph posted speeds Oregon used to post sections of Interstate 80N (now designated I84) at 80 mph. This was on the long, straight, flat sections of high desert in Eastern Oregon. Oregon used to also distinguish between a "posted speed" or "basic speed" posting and a "speed limit". A sign that said "Speed Limit 55" was just that ... illegal to exceed. If the sign said "Basic Speed 55" (or even just "Speed 55", exceeding 55 was considered *prima facie* evidence of violation of the "Basic Rule", i.e. Thou shalt not drive faster than conditions warrant. (Prima facie means sufficient to convict in the absence of other evidence). I remember a case back about '69 when a guy was ticketed for doing 80 on I5 between Grants Pass and Medford. The posted speed was 70. The judge asked the officer what the conditions were: clear, dry, sunny, no other traffic, and threw the case out of court with the comment: "I drive 80 of to Medford all the time." Note that the Basic Rule is a two-edged sword; it can also be used to nail you for doing 50 in a "55" zone if, for example, there is ice and fog. Personally, I figure if everybody's passing me, I'm going too slow. If *nobody's* passing me, I'm going too fast. Apparently the state police agree with me, I've never gotten a ticket for speeding (knock on wood). (I did get a verbal warning once for 60 in a 45 ... ) -Alan Jeddeloh Tektronix GWD Wilsonville, OR tektronix!orca!alanj
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/22/86)
> In article <1220@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > ................ missive deletion ................ > > > >As to highest POSTED speed: the Adirondack Northway used to be posted at > >90 MPH. I remember riding up that way with Dad a few times. And the station > >wagon (with about a 32 gallon gas tank) had no trouble holding that speed. > > from Mole End Mark Terribile > > Can someone check this?!! I have traveled the northway since (slightly > before) it was opened to the public, and don't ever remember the posting > being over 65. About ten years ago NY messed with a metric speed limit and > had 90kph postings in several places, is that what you remember? Well, It was a while ago ... about '66 or so, I imagine, and I would have been 9 years old, but I don't think that I could have confused 65 and 90. I MIGHT have the Northway confused with some other road: two lanes each way, wide grass median, shoulders not too fancy. No concession/restaurant type rest stops, but picnic area type stops. Lots of trucks -- tandems, I think, but they may have on been the Thruway leg of the trip. In '66, I don't think that they were playing metric with the signs, especially since there was only the one number. I recall that we paralleled the NYS Barge Canal (successor to the Erie of musical fame) for a ways. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
moroney@jon.DEC (Mike Moroney) (03/27/86)
>> >As to highest POSTED speed: the Adirondack Northway used to be posted at >> >90 MPH. I remember riding up that way with Dad a few times. And the station >> >wagon (with about a 32 gallon gas tank) had no trouble holding that speed. >> > from Mole End Mark Terribile >> >> Can someone check this?!! I have traveled the northway since (slightly >> before) it was opened to the public, and don't ever remember the posting >> being over 65. About ten years ago NY messed with a metric speed limit and >> had 90kph postings in several places, is that what you remember? >Well, It was a while ago ... about '66 or so, I imagine, and I would have >been 9 years old, but I don't think that I could have confused 65 and 90. >I MIGHT have the Northway confused with some other road: two lanes each way, >wide grass median, shoulders not too fancy. No concession/restaurant type >rest stops, but picnic area type stops. Lots of trucks -- tandems, I think, There are very few picnic rest stops on the Northway. The ones on the Thruway are the restaurant type. >but they may have on been the Thruway leg of the trip. In '66, I don't think Sounds like the Thruway to me. I've never seen tandem trailers in NYS anywhere except the Thruway. They used to have triple trucks at one time! (Or were they lost freight trains?) >that they were playing metric with the signs, especially since there was only >the one number. I recall that we paralleled the NYS Barge Canal (successor >to the Erie of musical fame) for a ways. Thruway. ... >And I remember reading that the Thruway and the Northway were exempted from >the maximum speed limit laws, each being operated by an authority that was >responsible for building and maintaining a road that would be safe at that >speed. >The Thruway was around long before the Interstate system. So was the Northway. The Thruway was around long before the Interstate system. The Northway was built as part of the Interstate system, it wasn't completed until about 1967. Otherwise, it would be (still) a toll road. The Thruway was built and still operated under the Thruway authority, a quasi-independant authority who maintains the road and collects the toll. Conclusion: I believe that the trip remembered was the Thruway. It may be possible it had a 90mph speed limit at one time since it has many of its own rules (like the tandem trailers) but it definitely was not the Northway. I don't know as much about the Thruway, but I would remember a 90mph limit on the Northway. Perhaps your father didn't want to admit he was speeding when you saw the speedo at 90 so he said that was the speed limit? :-) Mike Moroney ..decwrl!rhea!jon!moroney