heneghan@ihuxa.UUCP (Joe Heneghan) (06/27/84)
2 SUGGESTIONS TO INCREASE THE SPEED LIMIT
1. Organize a nationwide lobby:
a.) We can arrive at a foundation of
reasons to justify an increase in
the speed limit.
b.) People could write editorials to the media.
c.) Enact a write-in campaign to legislators
2. Have a "speed in" at some future date for an hour
at 65 mph. This way no one has to blow off their
vacation or whatever. Of course conditions would
have to be safe.
from the keyboard of Joe Heneghan
" I'm not a speed demon, but I beleive in freedom
whenever possible ! "mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (06/27/84)
[Excerpts from Joe Heneghan]:
1. Organize a nationwide lobby:
This is exactly the kind of thing I was (sort of) encouraging in my
55 MPH message.
a.) We can arrive at a foundation of
reasons to justify an increase in
the speed limit.
As I have already said, the only foundations of reasons I see are
in our desires to enjoy driving fast and get places more quickly.
b.) People could write editorials to the media.
I suppose we could do this, but I believe more people would be
swayed by emotional, slickly designed advertisements along the
lines I suggested in my previous message on this subject. Such
a campaign could be coordinated by the "motorists lobby" as
described above.
c.) Enact a write-in campaign to legislators
I have written to every appropriate legislator. The answers
ranged from "no answer" to disagreement with me.
2. Have a "speed in" at some future date for an hour
at 65 mph. This way no one has to blow off their
vacation or whatever. Of course conditions would
have to be safe.
I believe this would not work for two reasons:
1. The authorities would simply ticket as many people as they
could, those few would suffer, and no incentive would be given
for the authorities to do anything.
2. It would be precieved as as evidence of the reckless nature
of the people behind the movement - i.e. encouraging violation
of the law. You would be compated to murders, rapists, and other
forms of low life.
Again, the idea behind my "Too Slow, Why Go?" campaign and
driving boycott is that there will be definite economic loss.
People will sit up and take notice of that.
Several years ago, CBS ran a TV program called "The Guns of
Autumn" - an anti-hunting program. The NRA threatened to call
for a boycott of any corporation which advertised during that
program. The result? Every advertiser withdrew their support
and the program was run with public service advertisements
only.
Now you may not like the NRA or agree with any of their goals,
but you must admit that their method was both effective in
altering the behavior of businesses and it was legal.
It is my belief that if a significant number of people agreed
not to drive anywhere on one weekend and various businesses
saw significant losses, they would force some sort of action.
And, even if this method fails completely, it does not preclude
trying other techniques.
How might we organize such a motorist's lobby? One suggestion
I have is to write to the various car magazines and encourage
their editors to band together on this issue. Any such organization
would need to reach a large number of driving enthusiasts.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers allegra!pegasus!mzalkhw@druky.UUCP (WilliamsonKH) (06/28/84)
Concerning changing the 55 mph law. I have the following proposal which I believe could be a successful compromise between those who wish to raise the speed limit unconditionally, and those who wish to keep it the same. First, the current situation: Federal law requires states to set a maximum 55 mph speed limit or lose federal funding for highways. Since the feds pay 90% of new interstate construction costs, and more than half of all remaining construction costs (excluding maintenance), this has been effective club in forcing the states to pass and keep a local 55 mph limit. And since it is not strictly a national 55 law, it bypasses states rights concerns. The law was passed at the time of the 1970's energy crisis, with the goal of saving energy. Since then arguments about keeping it also have cited safety as a factor, since accidents at 55 are much more survivable than at higher speeds. I submit that energy savings is a legitimate national concern, appropriate for action by Congress, but that setting a speed limit for safety reasons should be a local concern, appropriate not for a national law, but left up to the discretion of the states. Now for the proposal. I believe that Congress should pass a law giving the states the power to set the speed limit to whatever they want on qualifying highways. Legalistic language would define what a qualifying highway is, but basically the concept is one of a rural highway which isn't in a corridor which gets a very large quantity of traffic. I believe that if everybody in Montana, say, drove 70 for a year, that the extra gas wasted would be less than what is used (not necessarily wasted) in a large city, say New York, in a day. In other words, it is a drop in the bucket. Now the 55 limit is a heavy burden in Montana, as in most rural areas, and especially the West, since the distances one has to travel to get between places is large. It is not uncommon for distances between places to be 500 miles. It is not nearly as heavy a burden where to get to the next place, you have to go less than about 100 miles, and this is where most traffic in this country is. To use a concrete example. I would not support raising the speed limit on the New York to Philadelphia corridor, because there is a lot of traffic on this, and the distance is not large enough to be a heavy burden for those travelling on it. So that is my proposal. It doesn't solve the entire problem, and will make some people unhappy. But it does lift the 55 mph burden from the places where it lays heaviest. Note that the states are free to leave the speed limit right where it is, if they desire, for safety reasons or whatever. If you think this is a good idea, why not send it on to your friends and representatives in Congress? Karl Williamson ATT ISL Denver ..druky!khw 303-538-4583
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/03/84)
Marylanders will remember that the speed limits went up to 50 MPH. They had just been lowered to 50 by the Governor to conserve fuel when the nationwide 55 law went into effect. In addition, the survivability may be part of the safety increase but I would expect the real benefit of slowing down would be a decrease in the number of accidents. -ron
jrt@hou5g.UUCP (07/13/84)
Sorry ron,
The biggest effect of lowering the speed limit to 55 was
NOT decreasining the number of accidents. Since the laws
were enacted, there was a small decrease in the number of fatalities
per mile driven (people argue about why). There was also a
marked INCREASE in the number of ACCIDENTS. This was caused
by crowding on the highways, longer trips (a six hour trip became
an eight hour trip), and BOREDOM (at the reduced speeds, you have
a tendancy to drift and watch the scenery, rather than concentrating
on driving).
(** FRODO **) alias hou5g!jrt
P.S. There were even areas in California, and other congested areas
where the number of fatalities even ROSE after the lower speed limits
were enforced(That confused the h**l out of "EXPERTS").