riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (01/07/84)
Sure, driving fast can be safe in Germany, where (almost) everyone who gets
on the Autobahn has the equipment and the know-how to drive fast safely.
But in North America, most people don't, and an individual who takes the
law into his own hands and sets his own speed limit deserves to have the
book thrown at him: for every qualified speeder who knows what he's doing
are ten reckless speeders who won't let themselves be outdone. I don't
like to see our highways turn into tryouts for the Indy 500.
----
Prentiss Riddle
("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddleleiby@yeti.UUCP (01/09/84)
> Prentiss Riddle: > > Sure, driving fast can be safe in Germany, where (almost) everyone who gets > on the Autobahn has the equipment and the know-how to drive fast safely. > But in North America, most people don't, and an individual who takes the > law into his own hands and sets his own speed limit deserves to have the > book thrown at him... Back in the Good Ol' Days, when the U.S. highway speed limit was 65mph or 70mph, the quality of driver education in the U.S. was essentially equivalent to what passes for driver education now. The "know-how" is still as good(bad) as it ever was, so what's the objection to putting the speed limit back up? It doesn't save lives--studies show that accidents are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the amount spent on road repairs, NOT on speed. It doesn't save gas--it's obvious that fuel consumption depends more on the design and condition of the individual vehicle than on an arbitrary bureaucrat-chosen speed. More gas could be saved if everyone just inflated their tires properly. +------------------------------------------+ | 55 -- It's not just an assinine idea, | | It's an assinine law. | +------------------------------------------+ -- Mike Leibensperger, Massachusetts Computer Corporation ...!{ucbcad,tektronix,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!leiby
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (01/10/84)
[...] >driving fast can be safe in Germany, where (almost) everyone >who gets on the Autobahn has the equipment and the know-how >to drive fast safely. But in North America, most people don't. Oh, come on, "maestro de nada", you know better. Throughout Europe the speed limit is higher (and far less obeyed) than in the USA, but safer??? And we have the same equipment as you (cars...) and know no better than Americans how to use them. >I don't like to see our highways turn into tryouts for the Indy 500. Well, an Autobahn generally isn't that either. But what do you prefer: drivers moving along at 90 km/h (like in the USA) and falling asleep or making 120 km/h (quite normal here in Holland) and [therefore] being more alert? Actually none of them contributes to safety. -- Piet Beertema CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
hlh@linus.UUCP (Henry L. Hall) (01/11/84)
Another point to be made is that soem roads (particularly in the midwest and
southwest are actually dangerous to drive on at 55 mph. These roads, long,
strainght, with two lanes each direction, and with slow-changing scenery can
be awfully boring to drive on. They don't have much travel on them and there
is no reason to have to drive at 55 risking boredom and fatigue. As I recall,
when the national 55 mph law was intially started, with the threat of denying
highway funds to those states who chose to resist, there were one or two states
that chose to leave their then current 65 mph speed limits in place (Nevada
and Arizona, I believe). Later when they found that they needed to repair
some of those interstates that federal funds had paid for, they decided to get
back in line with the rest of the Union. Ca, c'est dommage.
As far as road hazzards go, how about those people who turn up their car
stereo's so loud that they can't hear emergency vehicles coming by or horns
honking as they weave their way down the highway with cruise controls set to
55 in their gas hog Caddy's.
Henry L. Hall
{allegra, cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4} !linus!hlh {UUCP}
linus!hlh@mitre-bedford {MIL}jbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (01/11/84)
Well said. Clearly the thing to do is have a rather strict European-style driving test, get the drunks and morons off the road, and make a decent public transit system so it is possible to exist without driving. Jerry Ford gave us the 55mph limit and Tricky Dick a pardon. He is the sort of person they shouldn't let so much as ride a bicycle (he might hurt himself). --Jim Bray
ted@teldata.UUCP (ted) (01/12/84)
Would you please post your source of information backing your contention that lower speed limits do not save lives. Also your statement on gas consumption isn't valid. Given the conglomeration of cars using the roads, there will more fuel used at 70mph then at 55mph.
jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (01/12/84)
from Jim Bray
** Well said. Clearly the thing to do is have a rather strict European-style
** driving test, get the drunks and morons off the road, and make a decent
** public transit system so it is possible to exist without driving.
Hear! Hear! Make it *possible* to survive without driving. Short of being a
social cripple, that is.
This problem is less severe in the Northeast. Here in California it is stark
reality.
** Jerry Ford gave us the 55mph limit and Tricky Dick a pardon.
Yeah, aint it the pits. Should have been the other way around :-)
--
Dr Memory
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!jdbwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (01/13/84)
Hoorah for Prentiss, My sentiments exactly. Here in N. J., the Garden State Parkway is becoming a disaster waiting to happen. Every morning, the general traffic pattern moves at a steady 65 to 70. However, for every 50 autos moving at the steady pace, there is one who is doing 80 or better, zipping from lane to lane, in and out of small holes, zapping the brakes, and generally causing havoc. Just when you get a nice interval between yourself and the car in front of you, one of these idiots flies up on the right and screws it up. Of course, none of these dim-wits has a CB so you can at least yell at him/her. After the last snowstorm, there was a 1-inch coating of ice over most of the highway and it was necessary to creep in some spots, never getting over 35 mph. Ice, notwithstanding, the same nuts came flying up the fast lane doing 50 to 60. At least four of them went off the road and did I gloat. Several others found themselves spang up the tailpipes of other vehicles. Using the highways as their own special racetrack, many of these wierdos cause more problems than they think they are solving. There are times and places where fast driving might be excused, but, the following list of times and places cannot be excused and violators should have the book thrown at them. 1. Residential areas at all times. 2. Commuter highways during rush hours 3. During rainstorms. 4. Under ice conditions 5. At night. The excuse that "My car can stop faster than your car......" is a bunch of horse puckey. The stopping distances for cars is established using ideal road conditions (dry, straight, no other traffic), professional drivers, and newly adjusted brake systems. None of these conditions exist in the real world, especially under the 5 points given above. Further, when you throw in the tailgating habits of most of the rabid speeders, you throw all sembelance of safety out the window. For those of you who seem to think speeding (excessive) is your god given right, I invite you to do it any time you want to, as long as you don't do it under the conditions listed above. Or, better yet, go out to Utah and get it all out of your system on the Flats. Doing stupid things when other people may be affected is not the sign of a good driver. Any fool can push an accelerator to the floor, it takes someone with brains to know when to ease off. So, any of you who get into trouble for speeding, don't come crying to the net. Most highway patrols and police departments overlook speeding (reasonable) when the conditions permit, but heaven help you if the conditions are wrong and your caught. In New Jersey, a driver can be cited for speeding if the patrolman thinks that the conditions do not permit higher speeds. That is, if it is dark and raining, and most of the traffic is moving at 40 mph, a person can be cited for going 50 mph, EVEN IF THE POSTED SPEED IS 55 mph. On the other hand, they will often overlook speeding (65-70) when the conditions permit. Most often, this is during rush hours when it is necessary to keep the traffic moving on the commuter highways. They will still, however, pick out the nuts doing 70 to 80 and pull them over. The laws concerning speeding are not there to harass you, they are designed to protect the other guy from your stupidity.
jbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (01/14/84)
Both my cars (Volvo 122, Saab 99) will get better mileage at a nice steady 80 than a guzzler will ever get at any speed. Change the cars, not the road. --Jim Bray (decvax!bbncca!jbray)
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (01/14/84)
As power(and hence, fuel) used is directly proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, and viscous drag factors to the fourth and higher powers, it is totally without justification to assert that no more fuel is used at 70 mph than at 55. The kinetic energy(and hence, potential for injuries) is also related to the square of velocity, and so you can see that the ASSertion that no lives are saved is invalid without even referring to the 1974 statistics on highway deaths which showed the first DECREASE in highway fatalities coinciding with the implementation of the 55 mph limit. -- :from the cluttered mind of | --+-- | | we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ WECo SWR HQ, St. Louis, MO)
lmg@houxb.UUCP (L.M.Geary) (01/14/84)
# The decrease in highway fatalities in 1974 also coincided with one of the deepest economic recessions since the 1930's and a tremendous increase in gasoline prices, both of which will tend to decrease the number of drivers and miles driven, and also the number of fatalities. There was another drop in fatalities in the 1979-1980 period when the same factors recurred and 55 was old news. In general, the trend in highway fatalities per 10**8 vehicle miles has been decreasing for decades, mainly due to safer cars and better built highways. The imposition of the 55mph limit caused no significant change, up or down. Everyone knows that drunk drivers cause half of all highway deaths. One driver in ten is drunk or drugged, some drink or take drugs while driving. I recently heard that 90% of all highway accidents involve an impaired driver. If you want to cut highway fatalities, the course should be obvious. Of course a car will use more fuel at 70mph than at 55mph, but the primary cause is wind resistance. A car with bad aerodynamic design will spend as much fuel tunneling through the wind at 55mph as a smoother car will spend at 70mph+. If fuel wastage concerns you (it concerns me), don't impose speed laws, get a tuneup! Keeping the car properly maintained will cut fuel use ~15% at any speed. Just keeping your tires properly inflated will cut ~5% off your gas bill. And of course a smaller car get's better gas mileage. Improved engine design should contribute to savings in the future. Highway driving would be a lot more pleasant if I didn't have to keep checking for cops with radar guns (who travel from station to speed trap at 80mph) who ought to be arresting drunk and erratic drivers or catching danerous criminals. Yours for higher speeds, Larry Geary AT&T Information Systems Holmdel, NJ ...houxb!lmg
hlh@linus.UUCP (Henry L. Hall) (01/15/84)
Actually, I made my point about smaller cars going faster (say 65 mph) being
safer than larger cars going 55 mph a bit too general so I thought I'd clear
it up with a little math and specific examples.
I own a 1982 VW Scirocco, a fairly capable car able to be driven fairly
quickly and safely. This car weighs 1978 lbs. or 987 kg. with me in it
(I weigh about 185 lbs.) At 65 mph., the total kinetic energy is
~2.965 * 10^9 Joules (I think that's the unit of measure for kg.*(meters/sec)^2)
A friend of mine has a 1978 Caddilac Coupe de Ville (yes, I don't determine
who my friends are just by the cars that they own :-), necessarily). His
car weighs ~4000 lbs. or 1818 kg. AT 55 mph, the total kinetic energy is
~3.911 *10^9 Joules. Even if I'm incorrect in my units of measure (college
physics was "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away...."), the point is
that his car has more kinetic energy travelling down the highway at 55 mph
than my car does at 65, E=m*v^2.
Further, and this is empirical data, my gas mileage on the highway is +35 mpg
while driving at about 65, ok, maybe even 70. My friend luckily has a gasoline
company charge card, he can get 25 mpg going down a hill, with a tail wind, on
a clear day.......
Perhaps, as has been suggested in Car & Driver magazine, we ought to have
two different speed limits, one for cars under 2000 lbs. and one for those
that go faster, similar in spirit to the gas guzzler tax. Too bad that it
would be so hard to enforce.
Perhaps we should also have a tax on overweight drivers, (more mass = more
kinetic energy) :-).
Henry L. Hall
{allegra, cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4} !linus!hlh {UUCP}
linus!hlh@mitre-bedford {MIL}robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding XT/DU) (01/16/84)
I have always found that when there has been a risk that I might fall asleep
the speed has made no difference. It is rather the nature of the road and
the fact that I am tired. A straight, dull road is still as straight and
dull at 120 km/h as it is at 90 km/h.
The most irretating speed limits, I think, are those for 50 or 70 km/h where
you (or me in this case) can't see any reason for it. I own a sports car and
like driving fast but my inferiority complex can stand the pain of keeping
the speed limits and still seeing other cars pass me.
Robert Virding @ XT/DU L M Ericsson, Stockholm
P.S. It maybe true that many large pile-ups on the autobahn are not caused
by high-speed, but the severity (number of dead) and number of cars
involved are.mart@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mart Molle) (01/16/84)
> "As power(and hence, fuel) used is directly proportional to the SQUARE of > velocity, and viscous drag factors to the fourth and higher powers, it is > totally without justification to assert that no more fuel is used at 70 > mph than at 55..." Sorry Brian, unlike all those massless springs and frictionless hinges we all used in freshman physics problems, automobiles do NOT exhibit ideal behaviour. Using your reasoning, then, am I to believe that my car's fuel mileage will approach INFINITY at very slow speeds? My car's certainly does not. Does yours? Don't forget that (1) there are speed-independent contributions to the consumption of fuel (such as the alternator, engine driven fan, internal friction in the drivetrain, etc.), (2) gasoline engines are EXTREMELY non-linear in their conversion to fuel into power, based on load, throttle position, rpm, etc., and (3) automobiles are equipped with a DISCRETE set of gear ratios in their transmissions, so that, say 55mph, could easily fall BETWEEN the optimum speeds in two adjacent gears. Thus such generalities are no more relevant to the discussion of whether the fuel consumption of my car goes up or down when my cruising speed increases from 55mph to 65mph than a comparison of the assymptotic complexities of the bubble sort and quicksort is to the problem of deciding which C program sorts 20 integers in minimum time. Lots of airplanes attain their maximum cruising range at speeds greater than 55mph. Why shouldn't some cars? > "... and so you can see that the > ASSertion that no lives are saved is invalid without even referring to > the 1974 statistics on highway deaths which showed the first DECREASE in > highway fatalities coinciding with the implementation of the 55 mph limit." I suppose it does not matter that 1974 also happened to coincide with a gas crisis, a downturn in the U.S. economy and lots of other things which correlate better with changes in highway fatalities. How do you rationalize the fact that the fatality rate declined EQUALLY on all roads that year, including those whose speed limit was ALREADY at or below 55mph? There have been some excellent articles on this subject in `Road & Track' and `Car and Driver' within the last couple of years. Apparently the changes in highway fatalities correlate most strongly with changes in the GNP [perhaps because poor/depressed people are less likely to joyride or drink and drive?]. I suggest you go to the library and browse through some back issues. I found the charts on pages 68 and 69 of the July 1983 issue of `Car and Driver' very enlightening. They show that the 55mph limit has not altered the long-term trend in the death rate per vehicle mile, and that annual traffic deaths follow the Industrial Production Index. `Road & Track' had a much better-researched article a while back, but I don't have it handy. Many people resent the 55mph limit because its supporters sound like they are on a holy crusade. Sometimes saving fuel and lives seem like excuses for protecting the 55mph limit from its ``obviously'' irresponsible murderous opposition. If the object really is to save fuel, why not first implement 20 other things that are more cost effective, like annual vehicle inspections, even roadside spotchecks for tire pressure! If the object really is to save lives, why not first try compulsory seatbelt usage, daytime headlight usage, or teaching people how to drive? I don't see the logic. It reminds my of children who don't want YOU to do anything THEY don't like. Mart L. Molle University of Toronto
david@tekig.UUCP (David Hayes) (01/16/84)
I believe the May 1980 issue of Road & Track has an article that refutes most all the Gov't drivel on fuel and lives saved at 55 mph. Granted, 70 mph on your basic two lane country road might violate the basic rule, but 70+ on the interstate is very reasonable. If you want to drive 55 great, just stay the hell over in the right hand lane!! tektronix!tekig!david
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/16/84)
*** Both my cars (Volvo 122, Saab 99) will get better mileage at a nice steady
*** 80 than a guzzler will ever get at any speed. Change the cars, not the road.
*** --Jim Bray (decvax!bbncca!jbray)
***********
Mr. Bray apparently feels that it's an infringement of his freedom not to
be able to go 80, but it's not an infringement of his freedom to be
prevented from buying, say, a Cadillac. This is the kind of logical thinking
which generally surfaces in this whole 55-anti-55 argument; that's why I'm
damn sick of it. I suspect most other people are too - at least, that would be
a good explanation for the fact that Congress doesn't seem to consider it a
serious issue. And who can blame them?
186,000 miles per second - it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Jeff Winslow
PS. For what it's worth, my brother's Volvo gets best mileage at right
about 55.hess@fortune.UUCP (Marty Hess) (01/17/84)
*<-splat <refs 'lots of other articles, too.>
(mild flame:)
Hey come on now! All this about who is a 'good' (or whatever)
driver is obviously a relative issue! So let's quit complaining about
how someone drives, why, or whose 'laws' are 'better'.
(personal view:)
What should come out of this whole issue is a lot of discussion about
how inappropriately these 'laws' are enforced. All I ever seem to hear are
excuses in place of reasons for why enforcement of the SPEED 'laws' is such a
high priority. I feel that other, equally serious violations occur WITH
GREATER FREQUENCY, AND GREATER CHANCE OF INJURY. I could list a lot of reasons
why the SPEED 'law' is enforced more than: failing brake lights; failure to
signal a LANE CHANGE or turn; failure to allow an adequate stopping distance;
failure to YIELD; OBSTRUCTION OF THE NORMAL FLOW OF TRAFFIC; and basically
reckless driving, but none of those reasons are good ones. (Heading the list:
these laws are AMBIGUOUS and therefore difficult to enforce, whereas we now have
the technological wonder known as RADAR...)
If MY POLICE spent as much time and MONEY enforcing ALL the 'laws', I'd
feel a lot safer on MY ROADS. (I didn't say MY 'LAWS' either. By now you may
have noticed that I say "'laws'". I didn't vote for them, and a LAW to me is
an indesputable FACT. Our 'laws' are really RULES.)
I'm pretty sick of the whole "'law'-enforcement" attitude and I'm doing
something about it. I'm writing letters to the 'law' makers, and I'm taking a
city to court about their failure to enforce THE 'LAW' properly in a given area.
Who said you can't fight city hall! (Wish me luck, tho!)
P.S. I'm also armed with a list of infractions of many of the above 'laws' by
'LAW'-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS (, and I don't mean the thought police!).
--
Marty "not normally a doer, but often a complainer" Hess
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!hess
DDD: (415)595-8444wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (01/17/84)
Mayhaps Mr. Hess needs another trip through Civics 1, as the "laws" he refers to are surely just as much his as anyone elses. He is trying to interperet the word in a scientific framework, forgetting that the word was around long before the scientists took it under their wing. Mr. Hess also forgets that he is currently living in a Democracy where the rule of law is set by the majority for, hopefully, the good of all. Would he rather have everyone interperet the law to themselves? What fun that would be.
richard@sequent.UUCP (01/19/84)
Personally, I've always worn seatbelts, and I'm sure it's saved me hundreds of dollars in hospital bills, if not funeral expenses. I recently passed a fairly new car with a "55 saves fuel and lives" bumper sticker, and I noticed the driver was not wearing seatbelts (I was fairly sure of this, since on new cars shoulder harnesses are part of the seat belt, and one wasn't visible.) I was doing about 70, the "safety concious" driver was doing around 55. I suppose he didn't want to get his suit wrinkled. I also heard a story that, when seatbelt laws were first being introduced, then-president Nixon mentioned to one of the car company execs that "I'll sign it, but you wouldn't catch me dead in one of those things." The exec was then confident that they could fight the seatbelt and airbag laws, and have the power with them. We still don't have mandatory seatbelt laws, and *not a single* car can be bought in the U.S. that has airbags installed. If we really wanted to save fuel and lives, the best ways would be: o Initiate a "Gas Tax Rebate" program - where a high tax was charged on every gallon, the majority of which was refunded to people evenly every year. High-consumers would be punished, while those who drive very little, or not at all, would get a wind-fall. o Create and enforce seatbelt laws for all - not just children. (The child-restraint laws now in effect in some states are highly commendable, but alas, difficult to enforce. o Require auto manufacturers to offer airbags as an at-cost option; these are still shown to be effective life-saving devices. o Enforce the hazardous driving laws that *really* need it - like people tailgating at 70mph when there's no place for the lead car to move to. Or high-speed driving in fog or on icy roads. I'm much more afraid of that Chevy eight feet behind me than I am of the *evil black Ferrari* that just zipped by. There are hazards on our roads that are much, much worse than mild speeding, and I think abolishing the "double nickel" would give the Highway Patrol more time to save lives. From the Confused and Bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard P.S.: Our site doesn't get net.flame, so don't bother. Ha!
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (01/19/84)
> Mr. Hess also forgets that he is currently living in a > Democracy where the rule of law is set by the majority for, > hopefully, the good of all. Would he rather have everyone > interperet the law to themselves? What fun that would be. Hold it! The rule of law is most definately *not* set by the majority. Laws are passed by *Congress*, a body of elected representatives (the best money can buy :-) ). This is NOT the same thing! Question for you: if the majority of people support 55, then why do the majority drive faster than 55, breaking the very law they supposedly support? -- _____ /_____\ from the flying doghouse of /_______\ Snoopy |___| ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
hrs@houxb.UUCP (01/19/84)
a Those who believe speed limits don`t make a difference should compare European fatality rates with the US rate. It is also instructive to look at the fatality/accident rate. This is more than double the US rate in W. Germany.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (01/20/84)
<foo>
Mr. Bray apparently feels that it's an infringement of his freedom
not to be able to go 80, but it's not an infringement of his freedom
to be prevented from buying, say, a Cadillac.
Mr. Bray didn't say people shouldn't be allowed to buy Cadillacs, he said that
if they wanted to cut gas consumption they shouldn't buy Cadillacs, and if
the auto companies want to cut gas consumption they shouldn't make cars like
that. There is a difference.
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guyseifert@ihuxl.UUCP (01/20/84)
I remember when 55 first started (Gadzooks I'm getting old!)
reading about cars that would not stand for running at 55 in top
gear for long periods of time. The owners of these cars are forced
to drive in a lower gear at 55, which does wonders for gas mileage.
(Of course there's always the other solution!)
As far as a 'right' to buy and drive a Cad, or other disgusting
wasteful car: fine, that's your right, but it can and should
be taxed very heavily.
Anyone who's against driving fast should also be against 747s.
Their fuel efficiency per person isn't too hot, in the interest
of getting there fast. Do we even need to mention the SST?
Perhaps you're against fast cars *and* jets. So how are we
supposed to get around? Do you live next door to the rest
of your family? I don't. I like to visit them once or twice
a year. I don't wish a return to stagecoach speed travel.
Do you? Does someone who has to do a lot of traveling in
connection with their job?
Re: "We have the best Congress money can buy." I believe
it was Will Rogers who came up with that one, (anyone know for sure?)
and yes, JJ, it's sad, disgusting, and a few other choice words.
--
_____
/_____\ from the flying doghouse of
/_______\ Snoopy
|___|
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifertneill@mprvaxa.UUCP (Robert Neill) (01/21/84)
However, you might try looking looking at a different statistic. Two of interest are: Accidents per 100,000 road miles driven. Deaths per accident. Neither of these link into total traffic volume, but I think you might find a positive relation between speed, and both these figures. Bob Neill.
hlh@linus.UUCP (Henry L. Hall) (01/23/84)
As I recall, when the Interstate highway system was first started, the basic
intent was to create a system of highways to link the the country. These
were to be limited in access (not alot of entrances or exits) and provide
a safe means of travel at the THEN current speed limits (60-65 mph) for the
THEN current automobiles on the road.
Cars, nowadays, are unquestionably safer than those in the mid 50's and
generally more economical besides (oops, remember the model from Nash (aka
Rambler/AMC) that got 45 mpg in the late 1940's, it didn't sell very well as
gasoline was under $ .20/gal. and the car was not very well appointed, nor
was it very expensive). We have been asked to ignore the progress of
technology and travel at a speed that has questionable economic value.
As was mentioned before, "the people", that great amorphous mass, does not
directly make laws, the Congress does. However, after driving in Maryland
in a car with the cruise control set to 65 mph (an Oldsmobile 98 rented from
Avis, just seeing how the "other half lives" ;-) ) I was never stopped by the
10-12 police cars that I passed on the road between D.C and Baltimore. This
law and its enforcement, or lack thereof, seems to give too much leeway to the
individual traffic officer as to whether to issue a citation. If the 55 mph.
speed limit is not going to be enforced/obeyed strictly, then it seems that it
should be abolished.
Just because a law is on the books, does not make it a good law. In Italy
recently, a psuedo-competent female political figure was asked to resign
because she did not meet the law decreeing that all political figures had
to be at least 5'1" in stature to hold a political office. Hmmmmmmm.
Henry L. Hall
{allegra, cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4} !linus!hlh {UUCP}
linus!hlh@mitre-bedford {MIL}jim@randvax.ARPA (Jim Gillogly) (01/23/84)
-------- Maybe there ARE less fatalities at 55 MPH than at 75 ... so what? I'll bet if the speed limit were 45 you would get less still. And even less at 25 MPH. Does that mean we should make the speed limit 25 MPH? Not a chance! The point is this: there is a tradeoff between speed and safety, and a driver is always deciding how safe he is willing to be in order to get where he wants to be "in time". I don't buy the 55 MPH advocate telling me that 55 is always fast enough for ME to be driving. And the number of fatalities is a non-issue. BTW, somebody said we in the U.S. should use European licensing methods. On my trip to Europe last summer a German friend and a Dutch friend both told me that Belgium doesn't require any driver's license: that as soon as you can reach the pedals you can drive. My experiences trying to get through Brussels in a rented car would tend to support this. Jim Gillogly I/ / randvax!jim I_/ jim@rand-unix I
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (01/26/84)
>The rule of law is most definately *not* set by the >majority. Laws are passed by *Congress*.... Laws are supposed to regulate a community. Therefore laws have to be adapted to the all-day practice of that community and *not* the other way around! -- Piet Beertema CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) (01/26/84)
I recently saw a graph of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles, for the years ~1965 to ~1982. This graph showed a steady decrease until 1973, a sudden drop, a level stretch until 1980, then the beginning of another gradual decrease. The sudden drop coincides with the reduction of the speed limit, and amounted to (maybe as much as) .5 person per 100 million vehicle miles. This, on the surface, looks like a justification of the lower speed limit. I contend that it is not, however. Some calculations: at 70mph, 100 million vehicle miles takes 1.4 million vehicle hours; and at 55mph, 100 million vehicle miles takes 1.8 million vehicle hours. The difference, 0.4 million vehicle hours, is about 45 years of driving 24 hours per day. So, if there is only one person in each vehicle, we are wasting 45 years of people's lives to save .5 lives. This is 90 years wasted to save one life. The average number of passengers is larger than 1 (although maybe not much), so there is really more than 90 years wasted. Also, if you look at the driving time as time taken from your waking hours only (I hope most people don't drive while they're asleep), 135 years of driving 16 hours per day is wasted to save one life. I don't feel that this is a good trade-off. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
slb@inuxh.UUCP (Stephen Browning) (01/26/84)
The calculations and arguments presented for allowing faster driving make sense as long as the life you are willing to sacrafice is someone else's.
ber@gummo.UUCP (01/27/84)
#R:ut-sally:-74000:gummo:29700003:000:37 gummo!ber Jan 26 19:29:00 1984 It takes a life to save a life.
cej@ll1.UUCP (Chuck Jones) (01/27/84)
[] I would like to coin a new term to use to refer to cars. Let's not call them cars, or autos, or mobiles, but a name that really represents just what each driver is dealing with when that driver is behind the wheel. The term is M.S.B.s, which is short for Mindless Steel Boxes. Maybe the owners manual should include the warning "brains not included". It seems that some (most ?) people don't realize that driving is a full time job, and that some thought about what your doing is required! (I know that us nice netters aren't this way.) So far I have been hit three times in four years. I was rear-ended twice, once when I was stopped at a red light, and the other time when I was stopped for a school bus (with all it's lights flashing!!!). The third was a stop sign runner. In each case the driver said they never saw me/the bus/the light/the sign! In the case of the bus and red light I was hit 15 to 30 second after I stopped. The drives had hundreds of yards to see me, and hit me at full speed!! (I almost got out of the way at the red light, by trying to make a right as soon as I saw the car did not have room to stop any more.) The point of all this is that speed limits, seatbelts, air bags, and the rest do NOT prevent accidents. Only drivers that pay a least a moderate amount of attention while they drive will prevent accidents. DRIVE DEFENSIVELY!! (As a point of interest, yes I was wearing my seatbelt each time, and never got a scratch. However, the women who hit me by the school bus was not, nor was the small child she was busy yelling at when she hit me. Both had to be taken to the hospital, and their car towed away, while my TC-3 and I drove away.) I'd hate to read about any Chuck Jones of you in the paper. ...we13!ll1!cej
wagner@utcsstat.UUCP (Michael Wagner) (01/27/84)
One issue which hasnt (I think) been raised here yet is that we are probably all implicitely comparing apples and orange crates here, at least across the Canada/U.S. border. Our (Canada's) highway system is significantly better than the American highways that I have had the (dis)pleasure of driving on, and I have driven a fair number of American highways. So while it is unsafe (perhaps) to drive above 55 on an American highway, it need not be. A drive on our 400 series highways will demonstrate the difference. It has been suggested, in fact, that it is unsafe to drive too slowly on them, because one tends to find it too monotonous at low speeds. They are significantly smoother, both in the micro and macro scale, and this saves considerable fuel. We fell from 70 to 60 to mimick Geraldine Ford, and I have seen no reliable studies that demonstrate any positive compensation for slowing down. In fact, in one province, the limit is still 70 (translated to metric, of course), and I have yet to see any demonstration that consumption or accidents are any different there. Michael Wagner, UTCS (utcsstat!wagner)
johnc@dartvax.UUCP (John Cabell) (01/30/84)
>> If I want to risk my life, that is and alwasy should by >> <<MY>> business, not the state's!! If I want to ignore >> my 'responsibilities', that is my problem. This was written about using seat belts, but someone could say the same thing about driving at whatever speed they wanted. But that's not right. It is true you can do what you want to do in this country (I don't want to bring patriotism into this), but you're bound by law not to violate other peoples rights. You can drive at whatever speed, but you might kill someone else while doing it!! If that isn't violating their rights, I don't know what is!! So please drive at or around the speed limit so as not to kill others. Personally, you can drive at whatever speed you want to on a lonely road out in the middle of no where if you wnat to, but don't come crashing into my living room, ok? --johnc
engels@ihuxs.UUCP (SME) (01/30/84)
Would 135 years of driving 16 hours a day (divided by how many people?) 'wasted' to save one person's life be 'wasted' if that person saved was your spouse, lover, mother, father, child or best friend?
tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) (01/30/84)
I get a little annoyed by people who make foolish arguments against statistical presentations. In particular, the following was recently posted: Would 135 years of driving 16 hours a day (divided by how many people?) 'wasted' to save one person's life be 'wasted' if that person saved was your spouse, lover, mother, father, child or best friend? Obviously, if I knew that one of these people who are special to me would be saved by having everyone else drive slowly, then *I* would want everyone else to drive slowly. On the other hand, the people who are now driving slowly, using up their lives for no similar gain (since, by this same foreknowledge, they would know that only MY mother will die) would not like it at all. When talking about large statistics (such as highway death rates), it is entirely inappropriate to bring in emotional arguments. The ONLY logical conclusion we can reach from this person's argument is that people should not be allowed to drive at all, since someone driving at 5 miles per hour MIGHT still kill my (or your) spouse, lover, etc. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
leiby@yeti.UUCP (01/31/84)
...!eisx!bls (Bernard Smith) sez (in part): > In the fast driving articles, the proponents of speed based on mechanical > and response-time criteria are operating on at least two false assumptions: > (1): A driver is capable of determining his own ability. Having functioned > for a number of years as a member of a rescue squad, this is simply not > true. The fantastically skilled and responsive drivers that I have picked > up in a bucket have convinced me of that. > (2): The slower drivers are over-concerned with protecting the life of > those who are driving faster.... FLAME ON! Your style of argument is ludicrous. Just because you've scraped up a lot of dead meat, I fail to see how that qualifies you to sit in judgement on the driving skills of the general populace. Certainly I have more data concerning my own driving abilities than you do! I also wonder how you manage to read the minds of slower drivers to discover their benevolent intent. Some trick. (And now, watch as I go off the deep end in a blaze of glory... :-) But no, wait! I see the light!!! Clearly you are much more qualified to run my life than I am! I give in! 2 + 2 = 5 (remember your Orwell?)! ...God, I love net news (not to mention Big Brother)...
tim@minn-ua.UUCP (Tim Giebelhaus) (01/31/84)
Look, yes people die because of faster speed limits. To make it even safer, I propose that we lower the limit another 25 mph. Let's make the maximum limit on all roads 30 mpr. Further, many people a year die because they mine coal. Let's stop mining coal. We all know the dangers of nuclear power so forget that. Wood is a horrible polluter, and even if burned hot enough, we don't have enough trees. Their is such a thing as a reasonable risk. 75 or 80 mph is a reason risk. We can't stop the world because it might be dangerous.
scw@cepu.UUCP (01/31/84)
*<-dead bug >[deleted paragraph] >Some calculations: at 70mph, 100 million vehicle miles takes 1.4 >... >people don't drive while they're asleep), 135 years of driving 16 hours >per day is wasted to save one life. I don't feel that this is a good >trade-off. Well, let's see here. people don't start driving until they reach about 17 years old, and most people older that 75 don't drive either, so let's say that people have a driving life of ~60 years (a reasonable aproximation). What you have just stated is that we waste 2+ driving lifetimes to save 1 life. Hmmmmmmmm, sounds like something is wrong here. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: ...{ hao, trw-unix, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding XT/DU) (02/03/84)
There is one thing that must be stated here concerning the idea that speed
limits are really unnecessary as drivers should always know how fast they
can drive safely. While I always (?) know how fast I can drive I'm not sure
that everyone else knows their limits. As most accidents on the road, apart
from drunk driving, are caused by too high speeds I feel people need all the
help they can get.
However, I don't think that a general maximum speed limit should be set, as
there are highways and there are highways. We have a similar system here in
Sweden with 110 km/h on freeways and 90 km/h on other roads, and many times
these limits feel too slow. Of course we don't have the fantastic pile-ups
that they get in Germany on the autobahn!
Trying to show balance off the number lives saved by lowering a speed limit
against how much extra time is used in lives is ridiculous. Ask the people
in hospital who are there because someone drove to fast. Also try looking at
the total cost in time, money and lives of road accidents. Any reduction
leads to large savings.
As I said before though, the speed limit on a road should depend on the road
and not on some general limit.
Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!roberthans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (02/05/84)
Hear, hear!
Merely as a minor addition, individual speed limits based on road quality,
is a far more expensive solution, and probably politically impossible.
As long as the discrepancy between the limits imposed, and your idea of
the possible is no more than a mere sigh, things are surely good enough.
Hans Albertsson,
@ TeleLOGIC in Nyn{shamn, Swedenmonroe@sequent.UUCP (02/07/84)
and "Car and Driver" is an unbiased source?
monroe@sequent.UUCP (02/07/84)
About manditory seatbelts...U.S. law has a problem protecting people from
their own stupidity. I'm glad the little kids are "protected", at least
after an accident the parents can be cited for breaking the seatbelt law,
as well as homicide.
The Knight In Glowing Phosphor,
Doug Monroe
Sequent Computer Systems
{ogcvax,cdi,verdix}!sequent!monroemonroe@sequent.UUCP (02/07/84)
Though I agree with the speed limit laws, I must point out that the car/km of autobahn ratio in Germany is a LOT greater than in the U.S. European drivers are a little "different" than most U.S. drivers.
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (02/09/84)
************************************************************************** >Trying to show balance off the number lives saved by lowering a speed limit >against how much extra time is used in lives is ridiculous. Ask the people >in hospital who are there because someone drove to fast. Also try looking at >the total cost in time, money and lives of road accidents. Any reduction >leads to large savings. Au contraire, any other approach is ridiculous. If you consider the extreme case, obviously there would be no traffic fatalaties if there were no traffic. Since this is not acceptable, we need to find some way of balancing number and severity of accidents with our desire (or need) to get where we want to go. Given that some sort of balance is needed, we might as well approach it rationally. (I realize that since we're involved with laws and therefore politics, that will never happen; but I can dream.) Balancing lives saved by not being in an accident with lives wasted by taking (e.g.) twice as long to get where you want to go sounds like a reasonable first approach to me. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (02/13/84)
>> Given that some sort of balance is needed, we might as well approach it >> rationally. (I realize that since we're involved with laws and therefore >> politics, that will never happen; but I can dream.) Balancing lives saved >> by not being in an accident with lives wasted by taking (e.g.) twice as >> long to get where you want to go sounds like a reasonable first approach >> to me. Then we will start trying to balance: On a personal level. How much time are willing to offer to increase the chance that you will get where you want to go? How much time is it worth to you not to end up in hospital (if you die we'll assume that you stop worrying about time) and maybe never get where you wanted to go? How much time are you willing to offer not to have to pay for the effects or your accident? On a more national level. How much does an accident cost society (or the tax payer)? If you ignore any personal suffering the cost of any non-trivial accident is large. The amount of time and money saved in reducing traffic accidents would be such a benifit to society (and the inviduals living in it) that it would more than balance (what you wanted to do) the effort involved.