das@cubsvax.UUCP (David Sassoon) (02/21/86)
All this debate on the 55mph limit made me wonder whether claims made by the "government" were ever verified. I remember that the lower speed limit had 'dramatically' reduced gas consumption. Although the original intention was to save lives (which I think was well demonstrated) this second boon resulted. It would be interesting to see if the oil industry, which is not in the best of shape these days to to the soft market created primarily by a lower demand, start to lobby for higher speed limits. David
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (02/22/86)
> All this debate on the 55mph limit made me wonder whether > claims made by the "government" were ever verified. I > remember that the lower speed limit had 'dramatically' reduced > gas consumption. Although the original intention was to save > lives (which I think was well demonstrated) this second boon > resulted. > David Apparently David was not old enough to read newspapers in 1974. On Aug. 15, 1971, Nixon imposed wage and price restrictions which made it unprofitable to produce oil and gas in the US. Then on Dec. 18 he devalued the US dollar which really had the effect of making it unprofitable to import oil into the US. Then on October 19, 1973 the Arab oil producing states imposed a total ban on oil exports to the US. In January, 1974, US oil companies posted record profits, lines at the gas stations were several blocks long and we were in trouble. After the 55 mph limit was imposed, the number of highway deaths droped from 55,000 per year to 46,000 per year. Therefore, the limit which was put in place to help shorten the lines at the gas pumps also reduced the lines at the mortuaries.
mjw@aluxp.UUCP (Michael Weber) (02/23/86)
In article <424@cubsvax.UUCP> das@cubsvax.UUCP (David Sassoon) writes: >I remember that the lower speed limit had 'dramatically' reduced >gas consumption. Although the original intention was to save >lives (which I think was well demonstrated) this second boon >resulted. Since I was awarded my drivers license just after the "National Maximum Speed Limit" was instituted, I remember its details well. It was originally intended to reduce gasoline consumption due to the artificially induced gasoline shortage at that time. The emphasis on the "life savings" effect of this act was used later (and still is) to justify its existence since gasoline was once again readily available and (relatively) cheap. In my opinion the only reason this law remains in effect is due to the considerable amount of revenue it generates for state and local governments. If 100% of us would obey this law 100% of the time for an extended period the limit would probably be further reduced ;-). Seriously, if you were a congress-critter would you find it easier (i.e. more politically expedient) to increase taxes or save a few additional lives? Does anyone on the net have any information about the percentage of various state and local incomes derived from traffic violations? It must be quite high since every state has set up an independant enforcement unit dedicated to monitoring the highways and byways of the country ;-) -- Regards, AT&T Bell Laboratories Michael Weber 1255 South Cedar Crest Boulevard ihnp4!aluxp!mjw Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103
tohaapanen@watrose.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (02/24/86)
In article <597@mhuxl.UUCP> smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) writes: > >... After the 55 mph limit was imposed, the number of highway >deaths droped from 55,000 per year to 46,000 per year. Therefore, >the limit which was put in place to help shorten the lines at the >gas pumps also reduced the lines at the mortuaries. (I can't believe I'm actually posting an article on 55 mph!) 55,000 highway deaths in what year? 46,000 highway deaths in what year? The two numbers don't mean anything by themselves without any reference to years. Further, it is ridiculous to base conclusions on two data points. How about producing highway death stats from 1964 to 1984, together with the number of cars and number of highway miles driven. OK, let's make the assumption that highway deaths have declined significantly since 1974. Does this mean that 55 mph saves lives? NO!!! The decrease could just as well result from better driver education, new bumper standards, higher seatbelt usage, safer cars (consider how much better brakes today's cars have) or a number of other factors. The main effect of the 55 mph limit is to generate revenue through speeding tickets. \tom haapanen watmath!watrose!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (02/24/86)
In article <597@mhuxl.UUCP> smh@mhuxl.UUCP writes: >> All this debate on the 55mph limit made me wonder whether >> claims made by the "government" were ever verified. I >> David > >the US. In January, 1974, US oil companies posted record profits, >lines at the gas stations were several blocks long and we were in >trouble. After the 55 mph limit was imposed, the number of highway >deaths droped from 55,000 per year to 46,000 per year. Therefore, >the limit which was put in place to help shorten the lines at the >gas pumps also reduced the lines at the mortuaries. So what you're saying, then, is that the additional 9,000 drivers would have consumed more gas had they been dead in a mortuary? Or that a lower speed limit scared more drivers from driving? "Oh my God...there's a 35 zone out there...I can't go out..." :-) -dave "I'm not the David you're looking for" hsu -- David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department <disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Godzilla has been spotted in Sector 5!"
ben@catnip.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (02/25/86)
In article <597@mhuxl.UUCP>, smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) writes: > > All this debate on the 55mph limit made me wonder whether > > claims made by the "government" were ever verified. > > After the 55 mph limit was imposed, the number of highway > deaths droped from 55,000 per year to 46,000 per year. Therefore, > the limit which was put in place to help shorten the lines at the > gas pumps also reduced the lines at the mortuaries. Consider the following: 1) The era of the oil crisis and the 55mph national limit was also the era that Joan (85mph speedo) Claybrook was running the National Highway Traffic Safety administration. Her move to publicize high speed crash test results combined with more stringent safety regulations meant much safer and crashworthy new cars. 2) In response to high fuel prices, the major automakers downsized their lineup. This reduced the average weight difference between cars on the road. A collision involving two cars of similar weight is much less likely to cause fatalities than a collision involving one heavy car and one light one. 3) Insurance data shows that most accidents occur under 40 mph. It also shows that high speed limited access roads (like the Garden State Parkway) are amongst the safest. The 55 mph limit almost exclusively affected these limited access roads, already the safest in the nation. 4) Compliance with the 55mph limit has been very poor. The average speed on the Garden State Parkway on my morning commute is 63-68mph, about the same as it was when the limit was 60mph. --- I have no doubt that the 55mph limit had some effect on reducing the number of fatalities, but I am certain that the number is much smaller than the statistics would first indicate. When you correct for the effects of safer cars, increased seatbelt usage, fewer land yachts and minicars, the comparison is far less striking. My guess is that the government like to blame speed for highway carnage because it is so easy to measure. As long as police radar is accepted in a court of law, speeding becomes the traffic safety measure of choice. Why go after the wiseass kid cutting in and out of traffic, the leisurely executive with a cup of coffee in one hand and a newspaper spread over the steering wheel or the old lady who can't see well enough to keep her car in one lane? These rolling menaces are certainly more dangerous than a competant driver doing 68 mph on a road built for 75, but guess who gets the ticket? -- Ben Broder {ihnp4,decvax} !hjuxa!catnip!ben
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (02/25/86)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > In article <7838@watrose.UUCP> tom haapanen writes: > How about producing highway death stats. 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.
kishore2@watdcsu.UUCP (K.Singhal - Systems Design) (02/25/86)
In article <424@cubsvax.UUCP> das@cubsvax.UUCP (David Sassoon) writes: > > All this debate on the 55mph limit made me wonder whether >claims made by the "government" were ever verified. I >remember that the lower speed limit had 'dramatically' reduced >gas consumption. Although the original intention was to save >lives (which I think was well demonstrated) this second boon > . . . >David Huh? I thought that it was the other way around! Can anyone verify? -- Sherman Lang Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo
toddv@copper.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) (02/25/86)
Did 55mph shorten lines at mortuaries? My guess is no.
Rather, the corresponding increase in gas prices encouraged all the
"Sunday drivers" to stay home. That saved lives! :-)
Todd Vierhellerlance@ubvax.UUCP (Lance Keigwin) (02/26/86)
As long as we're on the endless subject of 55mph and saving lives, I thought I'd mention an interesting point Road & Track made years ago. They suggested (with rather obvious tongue-in-cheek) that given the increased time drivers spend travelling due to the lower speed limit, perhaps one should factor in the shorter "life time" left as a result. Using the government's own statistics, it was easy to show how far more man-lives would be lost in extra driving time than saved in fewer highway deaths, even considering the dubious conclusion that 55 alone was responsible. Lance P. Keigwin
hp@lanl.ARPA (Akkana) (02/26/86)
I once saw a plot of highway deaths per vehicle mile vs. year.
Unfortunately, I don't have the figures here (anyone have the
mile vs year statistics?) but the curve went something like this:
deaths |-
| - _
| - _
| - _
| - _
| - - -
| - _ ... and so forth
|
|
|____________________________________
^55 mph
I assume the hump around the institution of 55 is an artifact,
but it WAS there. Just goes to show that you can say practically
anything you want if you plot the numbers appropriately ...
--
...Akkana akkana%cnls@lanl.arpa
Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratorymrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/27/86)
In article <424@cubsvax.UUCP> das@cubsvax.UUCP (David Sassoon) writes: > > All this debate on the 55mph limit made me wonder whether >claims made by the "government" were ever verified. I >remember that the lower speed limit had 'dramatically' reduced >gas consumption. Although the original intention was to save >lives (which I think was well demonstrated) this second boon >resulted. > >David You have it backwards - the 55Mph limit was instigated as a result of the Arab oil embargo in order to save fuel. If you think about it, it should be obvious that slower speeds save fuel. After about 40mph, wind resistance becomes the single most influential parameter affecting fuel efficiency. You can make cars more efficient than others over an entire range of speeds, but I fail to see how you can make it more efficient at 65mph than at 55mph. Face it - the faster you go, the more wind resistance there is for ANY shape of car (up to Mach 1 :-)). The only way to do it would be to change the gearing in order to make it happen that way, but then you're not making the higher speeds more efficient so much as crippling the lower speeds. All you people out there who doubt that slower speeds are more fuel efficient, please post an article explaining just *how* that can be so. Perhaps you're right, but it is counter-intuitive, and I don't see how it can be true that faster speeds are more efficient. -- --MKR When in Rome, do as the ancient Etruscans used to do before they became extinct because of the things they used to do.