mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (06/24/84)
Judging by the recent number of articles in this group complaining about
the 55 MPH limit, it seems the readers of net.auto are quite unhappy
about it. It also seems that this energy could be channeled more
effectively.
First, we must be really honest with ourselves. Dubious arguments
like increased mileage above 55 MPH or claims that the 55 MPH limit
cause more accidents aside, the real reasons we are unhappy with the
limit is that it restrains our emotional desire to drive fast (i.e.
have fun driving) and makes long trips drag out. So, how can we
drivers go about scoring a political victory with few facts to
support our cause? I have two proposals: A driving boycott and
a nationwide publicity blitz against the limit.
- A Boycott? -
Suppose we (drivers and our friendly automotive press) declared
some weekend a "no travel" weekend. A slogan something like "Too
slow, why go?" might do the trick. The idea here is that we don't
go anywhere that weekend. No ski trips, beach trips, shopping
trips, or anything of that sort. If such a boycott is in any way
successful, toll roads, gasoline companies, retail businesses,
recreational facilities, and even the police should see a reduced
income for that weekend. The hope is the fear of continued loss
of revenue from additional boycotts (or the hope that increasing
the limit might increase revenues) will cause business people to
sit up, take notice, and start putting some real pressure on the
political wheeler dealers to raise with the limit.
- A Publicity Blitz? -
Typically, issues of this sort are fought with more emotion than
fact on both sides. Mothers will cry over the loss of their
children under the wheels of speeding motorists on suburban
streets as if this was in some way related to interstate highways.
How can we fight this? Equally emotional advertisements in the
non-automotive press which:
- tell a sad tale of a family breaking up because the breadwinner
lost his or her license for too many speeding tickets, couldn't
get to work, lost a job, etc, etc.
- appeal to people's fear of crime, leave the impression that police
watching the highways are not doing useful police work. (Actually,
a large number of police are killed every year in traffic accidents.
Perhaps a police organization or two could be encouraged to come
out against the limit.)
- appeal to people's distrust of technology. (Ever get a wrong bill
from a computer? How can you trust a radar unit that gets banged
around, has coffee spilled on it, etc, etc?)
- appeal to nationalistic desires, implying that because we have a
lower speed limit than many other countries, we are really a second
class nation.
- imply that driving slowly induces stress and other sorts of
unhealthy things.
- imply that the 55 MPH limit has given the police another tool to
use to spy on and harass innocent citizens.
- imply that the 55 MPH limit is a plot by lawyers and politicians
to make more money without adding anything productive to the
economy.
- Are There Any Facts? -
In point of fact, the following could probably be offered as evidence
against the 55 MPH limit:
- Any gas savings are more than offset by time wasted, if one values
their time as being worth at least the minimum hourly wage.
- The actual number of fatalities on the high speed, limited access
highways is only about 10 percent of the total number of fatalities.
Also, it appears that the actual number of highway miles driven
has fallen since the 55 MPH limit was imposed, so the number of
fatalities per highway mile has in fact remained fairly constant
(hence refuting the safety argument).
- The effective throughput of the highways might be increased if
traffic could move along faster.
- A Compromise? -
Finally, we should realize that we are not going to see limits
go up to 75 MPH, or have unlimited speeds on our highways.
Personally, what I think would be reasonable:
1. Raise the speed limit to 65 MPH.
2. Speeding offenses of up to 10 MPH over the limit would be treated
as simple fines, with no points or insurance consequences.
In return for this, I would be willing to accept either a national
seatbelt law, or a law requiring airbags, or both.
I'd be interested in hearing other people's comments on these thoughts
of mine.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers allegra!pegasus!mzalreview@drutx.UUCP (Millham) (06/25/84)
[Honest officer.. I didn't know that I was doing 130!] I read an artical in Popular Mechanics that stated that 7 (I think, somewhewe around that number) states are considering losing their federal funding and raising the speed limit on the Interstates back to 70. One of the states was Colorado, I think that the others were all mid-western states. If enough interest, I'll find the artical and post the states that are considering this change. (I vote for it) Brian Millham AT & T Information Systems Labs Denver, Co ...!drutx!review [Honest officer.. My speedometer was only reading 55!]
rogerh@arizona.UUCP (Roger Hayes) (06/27/84)
In Arizona, if you're clocked between 55 and (I think) 65, the citation is for "wasting precious national resources". This is fourth-hand hearsay -- I rarely go that fast on my bicycle, and my car can't.