From: drema@ccnet.com Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:24:19 GMT I have often wondered about the validity of the government claims that the reduction of the speed limits to 55 resulted in fewer accidents. At that same time there was a gas crisis/scare, and people were driving less, car pooling more, etc. Fewer miles on the road meant less accidents. How much of the reduction was due to the decrease in speed? At that time, more people abided by the speed limit, and traffic speeds were more uniform, which results in fewer accidents. Where prior to the lowering of the speed limits, speeds ranged from 45 - 75 mph, and afterwards they ranged from about 45 - 60 mph. This probably was a factor in the statistics of fewer accidents. Since that time, most people have gotten over the gas shortage scare, and have realized how ridiculous the lower speeds are, and the speeds vary more than ever, probably from 45 - 85 on our area freeways. This makes them more dangerous than if they set a speed of, say 70 mph, that people found reasonable and would abide by. Also, I live in an area of very congested freeways. A 10% increase in speed would mean 10% less time spent on the freeway, which would have the same effect as having 10% fewer cars on the freeway. If this 10% reduction made the difference between traffic moving or not, then the decrease in accidents would be substantial (although I agree that these are usually low speed accidents, and not as likely to be fatal). And this says nothing about the savings in gas and the favorable impact on the environment. Get those cars moving!!