jdd (11/23/82)
<Enter Flame-Inducing Mode>
The 55-MPH speed limit doesn't save lives, it wastes them. Consider the
number of drivers in the U.S. and the distances driven yearly (I don't have
the numbers handy, but you can guess them as well as I can). Compute the
extra time that drivers waste by driving more slowly, summed over a year,
and convert to equivalent remainder-of-lifetimes (using actuarial info).
The result is the number of "lives" wasted yearly by the 55-MPH speed limit;
my impression is that (even after fudging) far more "lives" are wasted than
are saved.
Without considering such tradeoffs, one might conclude that if 55 is a good
idea, then 50 is even better, and so on.
<Leave Flame-Inducing Mode>
Cheers,
John ("Fifty-Five is Thrifty-Five") DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hilldwv (11/23/82)
About 4 Years ago, A very good friend of mine was killed in an accident on Illinois 5, which is a limited access tollway. This person was hit head on by someone who was clocked at 73 MPH by the state police. He happened to have a blowout, crossed the median and hit my friend. You may wonder what difference 55 MPH makes. In the Inquest report, the last sentence is "If the accident occured within the legal speed limits, the victim would have survived". You can control the condition of your car, as well you should. However you *cannot* control what people dump in the road. Dave Vollman BTL IH
larus (11/26/82)
From: larus To: net-auto I find the "arguments" against the 55 mph speed limit rather curious. Many people seem to think that an assertion that they do not like driving at a moderate pace is a solid argument. Let's not forget that the 55 mph speed limit is but one of many rules imposed on drivers who wish to use the roads. Consider the above "argument" in another context: I prefer the British convention of driving on the left-side of the road, hence I will do it. Does anyone on this mailing list assert that this is a reasonable position? (Would that person to put his or her beliefs into action?). The argument, however, is the same as the one against the 55 mph speed limit: I do not like some rule, therefore I can break it. The rules imposed on drivers are meant to make to roads more pleasant and safer for everyone. People who place themselves above the rules endanger not just themselves and other drivers, but the system of conventions that make life civilized (pardon the flame). If a majority of the people in this country don't like the 55 mph speed limit, then they should lobby their legislators to change it (if it is really that unpopular, why has it persisted for so long?). Violating the rule is not a legtimate form of protest, for it is indistinguishable from sheer callousness and, more important, endangers innocent people. Until the law is changed, I for one, would favor a strict crack-down on speeders. /Jim
wagner (11/27/82)
Not knowing your friend, Dave (Vollman), and not knowing the details of the accident, it would be hard to comment very knowingly on the inquest statement that the victim would have survived. But not too many people survive straight head-on collisions at highway speed, 55 or 70. My brother, for instance, did not. The fact that others in the same accident survived had everything to do with the geometries of the two cars and their angle of strike, and nothing to do with their speeds. This, from my research after the fact, seems to be the general case. My family continues to drive at what they consider a safe speed, which is above the posted speed limits when that seems safe. Head-on collisions are unsafe and generally fatal starting around 80mph combined, and *can*, of course, be fatal below that. I hope we dont plan to back down to 40mph on highways. I think the proper way to address this problem is to minimize the likelyhood of head-ons by proper medians (all the 400 series highways *have* to have them in Canada), proper signs (the GO BACK, ONE WAY signs on the wrong approach ramps), and speed limits that match the maintenance of the road. Michael Wagner, UTCS
ark (11/27/82)
I am not surprised the 55-mph limit has survived despite its unpopularity. My experience has been that most people I meet (a) normally drive faster than 55 on highways, regardless of what they SAY they do, and (b) want to force EVERYONE ELSE to drive more slowly. This seems almost universal. We are so eager to tell our neighbors what to do! If more people were to mind their own business, we might all be better off.
nishri (11/29/82)
I am more afraid of drivers who are mentally incapacitated behind the wheel then those who go at a reasonable speed--which might happen to be over a posted limit. Drivers under the influence are unpredictable and I have no way of protecting myself from them. On the other hand, if someone is going too fast for my tastes I can usually spot them in my mirror and allow them to pass. Alex Nishri decvax!utzoo!nishri
markm (11/30/82)
I can fully understand anyones wishes for safer highways. I just don't think that speed always kills. More often than not some idiot slow-poke is some how responsible for the trouble. I'm talkin' 'bout the type that drive 54 on highways and 25 on 35mph back roads. Trucks can't manouever (sp?) on the highways 'cause these cretans will not get out of the way. Trying to get anywhere with one of these types in front of you is impossible. This leads to attempting passing at inoportune moments. Besides the garden variety of turtle, there is also the standard issue US moron (growing rapidly in numbers). These are the type who think that since you can't stop easily on snow, that you shouldn't try to (like at intersections). Lowering the limit won't affect these types either. Let's face it, a large segment of the population who drive today - shouldn't. It is because of these people that the rest of us suffer. Now figure the average backroad has a limit of 40-45mph. This means that you get go 50 and be real safe. If you can only go 55 on the major highways - why bother. You spend so much time worrying if the "statie's" radar will clock you at 120 due to a bad transistor that you're likely to tail-end someone. What did the 'double-nickel' accomplish? Well, it allowed smaller cars to survive on the highway. Thats about it. If the limit were still 70 these little econoboxes would shrivel up. Hasn't it done wonders for our economy!? And see, the gas shortage is gone too!! Isn't 55 wonderful - now your 83 year old grandmother can drive on the highway (just don't get behind her). As to the argument of obeying stupid laws - remember 'laws were meant to be broken'. Put philosophicly, 'laws were meant to be changed'. With the new emphasis on 'muscle cars' in Detroit, the push for 70mph may return. Americans are rebels, and so we rebel against 55. The same way we'll bitch when they start doing under-the-hood engine inspections for emisiions controls (isn't that catalytic converter great too!?). I feel that if a driver is any good, then he can go 155 and I won't care. He'll know enough to watch out for the rest of us. I'll know enough to get out of his way. It's the rest of the world thats the problem. Put simply, the 55mph limit forces every one else to slow down to allow for those of lesser ability (no offense to those who LOVE to drive 55). Rather than making sure that anyone with a liscense could cope with 70-75 mph, they decided to make sure that no one went that fast. Oh well, thats enough . . . MSMiller GR Concord, MA
mark (11/30/82)
M.S.Miller claims there is an "econobox" class of cars that cannot keep up at 70 MPH. From my experience, even a VW Beetle has no trouble (eventually) reaching 80. The only classes of properly running vehicles that can't keep up at 70 are (1) small motorcycles, mopeds, and other vehicles that are not legally allowed on the freeway even at 55 MPH, (2) trucks with a heavy load, and then only when they are going uphill. Freeways have two lanes so you can pass, and severe upgrades usually have an extra lane for slow moving trucks. Also, there is often a minimum speed for the freeway - 40 or 45 MPH is common - and these people are expected to stay in the right hand lane. (Someone previously suggested that the minimum speed for the slow lane be set to 55 - I'd like to see him try to enforce THAT!) Conclusion: 55 does not get more people onto the freeway.
markm (12/01/82)
A VW Beetle was built when 70 was the highway speed. Since 55 went into effect, suspensions are not built for such speed. Also, engines are strangled to death with emission controls. Getting those little put-put's up to 55 is bad enough, but getting them up to 70!? Also, what would the mileage of that put-put be if it had to run at 70 all the time rather than 55? I haven't seen to many stat's lately on highway fatalities. If my memory serves, though, they went down for a while, and then went back to the old levels. When everything else in the world is going faster, why should we have to spend so much time getting there? Finally, this note . . . The National Highway Safety Committee reminds all drivers that road related fatalities don't count unless they occur during the holidays. MSMiller GR Concord, MA
morry (12/01/82)
I have a little Put-Put (Plymouth Horizon), and I have no trouble going the speed limit here, in Canada, or in Pa. on route 80. (Those who travel that road will understand that I mean about 85 mph.) If you can't keep up, buy a cheap, reasonably well behaved (no mantenence problems in 75000 mi), ugly, effecient (35 mpg on highway) American car, like the ones that you all make fun of.
garry (12/01/82)
when was the last time you rode in a 4 cylinder Shove-itt (
garry (12/01/82)
When was the last time you rode in a Chevette (Shov-it) @ 55 on the Highway. good luck getting to 80 (does not count if car is on a trailer. Garry
ili (12/06/82)
I hope ark's crusing (his spelling) speed is 55 and not 155!