Subject: Why it's set at 55 m.p.h...

From: [email-masked] (Jonathan Hazzard)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 00:10:25 GMT

I've been following the thread about speeders FYI and I think everyone 
who posted a followup is missing a very important point.  The fact that 
the speed limit is 55 is not to _increase_ revenue.  It's not a silly 
speed limit, even though everyone exceeds it.  

   The state and the legislature, believe it or not, actually are 
concerned about highway safety.  It costs far more money to clean people 
off the road after an accident than is gained in ticket revenue.  There 
are two reasons why fines are collected:
  1) as a deterrent to excessively exceeding the speed limit
  2) to create a source of income to offset the costs of maintaining, 
patrolling, and providing emergency services on highways.

   What you all are failing to realize is that highways and other roads 
generate a great deal of expense for the states charged with caring for 
them.  Some of this is paid by the federal government, some by gas taxes, 
some by ticket revenues, and some by other income sources.  That's why 
there are fines for speeding: to encourage more modest speeds and recoup 
some of the cost of having roads in the first place.

   That said, let me address the issue of the 55 m.p.h. speed limit.  Of 
course no one under 70 years old does the speed limit.  Of course the 
police and the state don't expect drivers to obey the speed limit.  What 
they DO expect is that most drivers will stay within several miles per 
hour of the limit.  The Dept. of Transpotation does ongoing tests on 
highway speed, constantly reevaluating the average speed and safety of 
various roads. 

   For example, let's assume the average highway driver will exceed the 
posted speed limit by 10 m.p.h.  If we want traffic to flow at 60, we'll 
set the speed limit for 50.  If we want people to do 40, we set it at 
30.  When someone is travelling at a far greater speed, we'll ticket 
them, with a higher fine and point total with higher excesses.  Have you 
noticed that 9 m.p.h. over the speed limit nets you one point and 10 nets 
you 2? Have you noticed that 25 over nets you 5? (I think)  

   The speed limits and fines are set so as to control the average speeds 
on the highways and to deter greatly exceeding them.  Revenue is an 
issue, but it goes to support the great cost of having roads in the first 
place.  However, not even politicians are cynical enough to sit back and 
say, "Hahaha, we'll make the speed limit 25 so we can make a lot of 
money!"  Usually, very low speed limits are set in an attempt to reduce 
the number of accidents and injuries on particularly accident-prone 
stretches of road, not as a tricky way to get your money.  If the state 
needs more money, there are far better and more efficient ways to get it 
than to have a $20/hour cop pull you over and spend 15 minutes writing a 
$70 ticket--things called TAXES.  

   Get over your paranoia.  Speed limits are set to reduce operating 
costs and fines are set to discourage exceeding the limits by great amounts. 

         ~~~~     Jonathan
        ~c--oo    [email-masked]
            -

---

From: [email-masked] (Steven Rezsutek)
Date: 07 Apr 1995 13:41:58 GMT

[email-masked] (P.J. Geraghty) writes:

   To add to Jonathan's point, one more reason speed limits are set absurdly 
   low is to appease neighborhood residents.  

***
This is in no way meant to be a personal attack or a flame.  Your post
does, however, seem to capture all too well the attitude of a large number
of area "vehicle operators" ["driver" gives too much credit to some], an
attitude I've seen displayed on this group time and time again.

Being a resident of a neighborhood, I am slightly offended at the
implication that I need to be "appeased", as if the existance of my
street were primarily for someone else's benefit, and that anything done
toward that end [e.g. setting a speed limit] is catagorically "absurd".

I make an effort to show some courtesy and respect [words which in car
speak seem to mean "succumbing to intimidation" more than anything else]
to the people in whose neighborhoods I drive through precisely because I
expect them to do the same.  Given that quite a few don't, though, I can
only assume that the majority of people who complain about neighborhood
curbs on traffic never notice the traffic in their own neighborhood
because they are always in somebody else's.

If people would remember one simple fact, life would be a lot less
aggrivating.  This simple principle is:

   ``The act of planting one's ass behind the wheel of a vehicle in
     no way obligates the rest of the world to bend over and kiss it.''

Sorry for ranting.  

Steve
-- 
............usenet is neither true nor false...it's television.............
  Steven Rezsutek                       [email-masked]
  Nyma / GSFC Code 735.2                             Vox: +1 301 286 0897
  NASA Goddard Space Flight Center                    Greenbelt MD  20771

---

From: [email-masked] (P.J. Geraghty)
Date: 8 Apr 1995 02:58:53 GMT

Steven Rezsutek ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (P.J. Geraghty) writes:
[deleted]

: ***
: This is in no way meant to be a personal attack or a flame.  Your post
: does, however, seem to capture all too well the attitude of a large number
: of area "vehicle operators" ["driver" gives too much credit to some], an
: attitude I've seen displayed on this group time and time again.

Well, this being a newsgroup about DRIVING...it might be expected to be a 
little bit biased in favor of DRIVERS...

: Being a resident of a neighborhood, I am slightly offended at the
: implication that I need to be "appeased", as if the existance of my
: street were primarily for someone else's benefit, and that anything done
: toward that end [e.g. setting a speed limit] is catagorically "absurd".

You do not mention where you live (perhaps for good reason).  I mentioned 
in my originial post several areas with absurdly low speed limits.  Do you 
live in one of them?

: I make an effort to show some courtesy and respect [words which in car
: speak seem to mean "succumbing to intimidation" more than anything else]
: to the people in whose neighborhoods I drive through precisely because I
: expect them to do the same.  Given that quite a few don't, though, I can
: only assume that the majority of people who complain about neighborhood
: curbs on traffic never notice the traffic in their own neighborhood
: because they are always in somebody else's.

Actually, right now I live near Rt. 29 (fast) and Rt. 650 (very fast).  
The traffic noise is such that often I cannot keep my windows open during 
the day.  (Luckily, I work most days so this isn't a problem, but once in 
a while, I'm home trying to sleep).   I accept this becaue I moved in 
here knowing these roads were heavily- and quickly-traveled.

: If people would remember one simple fact, life would be a lot less
: aggrivating.  This simple principle is:

:    ``The act of planting one's ass behind the wheel of a vehicle in
:      no way obligates the rest of the world to bend over and kiss it.''

: Sorry for ranting.  

Well, that would solve a very small percentage of the world's problems.

BTW..."Aggravating" is the proper spelling.

: Steve

I stand by my original post:  The speed limits in some area are set much 
too low, and this is done primarily to appease people living on those 
streets who are not willing to accept the fact that they live on a major 
road.  As I said before, Ceder Lane, Kensington Parkway and Huntington 
Parkway (all in Montgomery Co.) are perfect examples.  People who don't 
like the traffic patterns in their neighborhoods are free to move; that's 
exactly what I'm doing next weekend (albeit for different reasons).

--
______________________________________ ____________________________________
P.J. Geraghty, FF3/NR/MDEMT-P         |
11235 Oak Leaf Dr. #1604              |
Silver Spring, MD 20901   (SnailMail) |    "In heaven there is no beer
(703) 641-0100    (work/24 hour page) |    So leave your kidneys here"
(703) 641-0211                  (Fax) |
--------------------------------------|------------------------------------
 Recycle yourself...Be an Organ Donor |On January 17, 1994, a seat belt 
     Ask me for more information      |saved my life. Please wear *your* seat
--------------------------------------|belt, or you might meet *me* in one of 
[email-masked]            (email) |either of my professional capacities!

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew Russotto)
Date: 8 Apr 1995 16:11:02 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
P.J. Geraghty <[email-masked]> wrote:

}Actually, right now I live near Rt. 29 (fast) and Rt. 650 (very fast).  
}The traffic noise is such that often I cannot keep my windows open during 
}the day.  (Luckily, I work most days so this isn't a problem, but once in 
}a while, I'm home trying to sleep).   I accept this becaue I moved in 
}here knowing these roads were heavily- and quickly-traveled.

How could this be?  The speed limit on the divided highway which is
650 in that area is a mere 35 or 40mph, depending on what side of 29
you're on.  Surely you aren't suggesting that drivers are doing more
like 60mph betwen the lights :-) :-) :-).

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Looney)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 09:04:01 -0400

>> concerned about highway safety. 
                                     (snip)
Actually Jonathon, the speed limits were rolled back to 55 in the
early 1970s to conserve fuel. "Safety" is just the current spin.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jonathan Hazzard)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 22:49:46 GMT

Richard Looney ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Jonathan Hazzard ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >>    The state and the legislature, believe it or not, actually are 
: >> concerned about highway safety. 
:                                      (snip)
: Actually Jonathon, the speed limits were rolled back to 55 in the
: early 1970s to conserve fuel. "Safety" is just the current spin.

   That was true in 1974.  Since gasoline consumption isn't a problem
currently, and after observing the decrease in highway fatalities, safety
is now the major issue.  Hence, much of the resistance to 65, which we 
all do anyway.

   I thought it'd be fun to gauge the average speed of right lane traffic
on the beltway between the Dulles Toll Road and the 270 split (not during
rush hour).  I figured I'd do about 60 in the right lane and see how many
cars I had to pass.  Care to guess the total?  You are correct, sir. 
Zero.  I went back to 64 (only 1 point, you know!)

         ~~~~     Jonathan
            -

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew Russotto)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 19:22:00 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jonathan Hazzard <[email-masked]> wrote:
}Richard Looney ([email-masked]) wrote:
}: Jonathan Hazzard ([email-masked]) wrote:
}: >>    The state and the legislature, believe it or not, actually are 
}: >> concerned about highway safety. 
}:                                      (snip)
}: Actually Jonathon, the speed limits were rolled back to 55 in the
}: early 1970s to conserve fuel. "Safety" is just the current spin.
}
}   That was true in 1974.  Since gasoline consumption isn't a problem
}currently, and after observing the decrease in highway fatalities, safety
}is now the major issue.  Hence, much of the resistance to 65, which we 
}all do anyway.

Based on a recent trip, my car has a "plateau" in gas mileage between
about 65mph and 85mph.  I got a little over 30mpg on each tank of
regular (non reformulated) gas I took at those speeds.  When I tried
to maintain just over 90 mph, it dropped sharply to about 25mpg.  So I
don't buy the gasoline argument.  I didn't hit anything, nor even come close,
during the entire 1600+ miles, so I'm not so sure about the safety
argument either.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jonathan Hazzard)
Date: 6 Apr 1995 23:38:34 GMT

Matthew Russotto ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Based on a recent trip, my car has a "plateau" in gas mileage between
: about 65mph and 85mph.  I got a little over 30mpg on each tank of
: regular (non reformulated) gas I took at those speeds.  When I tried
: to maintain just over 90 mph, it dropped sharply to about 25mpg.  So I
: don't buy the gasoline argument.  I didn't hit anything, nor even come close,
: during the entire 1600+ miles, so I'm not so sure about the safety
: argument either.

   There was a LONG thread about this a few months back.  Basically, 
ideal gas mileage depends on the particular car one is driving.  I 
guarantee you that you will get better mileage at 55 than at 65 and 
~~~~~~~~~
you may do better around 45.  Alot of people theorized that 10 mph would 
be best, or 21, or whatever.  Fact of the matter is that your best 
mileage will be at the optimum engine speed for your car, if you negate 
factors like wind, road surface, and hills.  Try it.

         ~~~~     Jonathan
            -

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Poretsky)
Date: 7 Apr 1995 14:36:05 -0400

>guarantee you that you will get better mileage at 55 than at 65 and 

That is true for STEADY speeds.  The problem is that if you try to stay 
at a steady 55, you probably will do much more accelerating and decelerating
than at a constant 'road speed', which on the beltway is about 65.

When I drive distances at a steady 65 my mileage averages about 35mpg.
But when I travel in slower average speeds, my mileage drops to 28 or so.

Be safe out there,

JeffP

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew Russotto)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 19:09:37 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jonathan Hazzard <[email-masked]> wrote:

}   I've been following the thread about speeders FYI and I think everyone 
}who posted a followup is missing a very important point.  The fact that 
}the speed limit is 55 is not to _increase_ revenue.  It's not a silly 
}speed limit, even though everyone exceeds it.  

That makes it unjust.  It's silly, too.

}   The state and the legislature, believe it or not, actually are 
}concerned about highway safety.  It costs far more money to clean people 
}off the road after an accident than is gained in ticket revenue.

A misleading comparison (even if it were backed up), as it assumes that all
accidents are speed related.  In fact, well under 20% of them are
speed-related, according to my World Almanac (based on National Safety
Council figures)

} There are two reasons why fines are collected:
}  1) as a deterrent to excessively exceeding the speed limit
}  2) to create a source of income to offset the costs of maintaining, 
}patrolling, and providing emergency services on highways.

Cut 2) off after "income".  Ticket revenues go into the general
fund.

}   That said, let me address the issue of the 55 m.p.h. speed limit.  Of 
}course no one under 70 years old does the speed limit.  Of course the 
}police and the state don't expect drivers to obey the speed limit.  What 
}they DO expect is that most drivers will stay within several miles per 
}hour of the limit.  The Dept. of Transpotation does ongoing tests on 
}highway speed, constantly reevaluating the average speed and safety of 
}various roads. 

Unfortunately, they do nothing except occasionally threaten states to
enforce their speed limits on penalty of losing highway funds.

}   For example, let's assume the average highway driver will exceed the 
}posted speed limit by 10 m.p.h.  If we want traffic to flow at 60, we'll 
}set the speed limit for 50.  If we want people to do 40, we set it at 
}30.

You assume that people take the speed limit and then deliberately
exceed it by a certain amount. You haven't backed that up.  Perhaps it
was true at one point, but I don't think it is anymore.  There seem to
be two groups of people-- those who scrupulously follow the speed
limit and those who drive whatever speed they feel like.  (this is
from my own observations).  I recently took a >1600 mile trip on the
highways, some 65mph, some 55mph, and didn't notice anyone driving any
slower on 55mph roads as compared to 65mph.  I did notice a lack of
the occasional 55mph driver on the 65mph roads-- probably the two
groups aren't distinct on 65mph roads. 
70mph for the trip (if you ignore stops for gas and food-- and one
speeding ticket.  With them,average was a bit under 70mph)

}   The speed limits and fines are set so as to control the average speeds 
}on the highways and to deter greatly exceeding them.  Revenue is an 
}issue, but it goes to support the great cost of having roads in the first 
}place.  However, not even politicians are cynical enough to sit back and 
}say, "Hahaha, we'll make the speed limit 25 so we can make a lot of 
}money!" 

Wanna bet?  This is the textbook definition of a "speed trap",
typically set at a municipal border (especially infamous in southern
states)

---

From: "David C. Frier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:12:07 -0400

> speed-related, according to my World Almanac (based on National Safety
 
Ah, it may well be that fewer than 20% of accidents are *caused*by* 
speed, but over 60MPH the chances of the word "accident" requiring that 
dreaded modifier, "fatal" rise very sharply.

--David 

 -=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-
               Life is complex:  part real, part imaginary. 
     GB/CM$ d++(*) H s+:+ g+ p?+ w+ a v+++ C+++ N+ K-- U--- W+(++) M--
        V-- -po+ Y+(++) !tv b+++ B-- e h---- u+/* y++++ r+++ n--- f
                               Hamavin yavin.
 #*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#*=-=*#

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew Russotto)
Date: 7 Apr 1995 14:23:09 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jonathan Hazzard <[email-masked]> wrote:
}Matthew Russotto ([email-masked]) wrote:
}: Based on a recent trip, my car has a "plateau" in gas mileage between
}: about 65mph and 85mph.  I got a little over 30mpg on each tank of
}: regular (non reformulated) gas I took at those speeds.  When I tried
}: to maintain just over 90 mph, it dropped sharply to about 25mpg.  So I
}: don't buy the gasoline argument.  I didn't hit anything, nor even come close,
}: during the entire 1600+ miles, so I'm not so sure about the safety
}: argument either.

}   There was a LONG thread about this a few months back.  Basically, 
}ideal gas mileage depends on the particular car one is driving.  I 
}guarantee you that you will get better mileage at 55 than at 65 and 
}~~~~~~~~~
}you may do better around 45.  Alot of people theorized that 10 mph would 
}be best, or 21, or whatever.  Fact of the matter is that your best 
}mileage will be at the optimum engine speed for your car, if you negate 
}factors like wind, road surface, and hills.  Try it.

What is the optimum engine speed for my car?  Torque peak is way up
over 5000rpms, HP peak higher than that.  At 80mph in 5th it's running
between 4000 and 4100 rpms.  By 90mph in 5th, air resistance is
certainly a major factor.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave bd Hsu)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 22:39:19 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jonathan Hazzard <[email-masked]> wrote:
>the speed limit is 55 is not to _increase_ revenue.

Unfortunately, it IS, but not for who you think.

>  There 

I believe Matt has already pointed out that ticket revenues go into the
general fund, and aren't earmarked for SHA or even MSP use.

>...  What

However, these studies are routinely ignored.  Most of our interstate
highway system was designed in the 60s for general use at speeds up to
75 or so.  The 55 limit wasn't chosen by highway engineers...it was set
by Congress.  In retaliation, California passed a law prohibiting the
use of police radar on their highways where the limit was set by
legislation and not by highway engineers.  A separate law prohibited the
use of VASCAR-type speed traps.  Until 65 was passed, highway speed limits
were primarily enforced by pacing from modified aircraft (yes, PACING) and
patrol cars because almost no stretches of interstate existed that were
designed for a 55 limit.

Moreover, the group dynamics of driving shows that whatever the speed
limit, drivers tend to produce an average speed well within the safe
design limits of a given highway.  The rule of thumb among highway
engineers used to be to set the speed limit at the 85th percentile;
effective speed enforcement only requires disciplining the fastest 15%
or so.

Try driving 55 on interstates in Maryland and see how many cars you pass...
basically none, except derelicts.  Is this because all drivers drive
unreasonably quickly?  No.  Who gets the tickets?  Anybody.  When your
"deterrent" is randomly applied to everyone, it loses any credibility.

>30.

The statistics show otherwise.  When 65 became available in the '80s, the
average speed rose only two or three mph in states which adopted 65.  The
fact is that most drivers already drive at their level of comfort, limits
be damned.  Moreover, modern cars are safer, more crashworthy, better
handling, and vastly better braking than almost anything built when 55
became law.  To reinforce this point, the highway fatality rate remained
about the same in those states, even before seatbelt laws, airbags, and
cheap ABS.

>  When someone is travelling at a far greater speed, we'll ticket 
>...  However, not even politicians are cynical enough to sit back and 
>money!"

What do the words "campaign contributions" mean to you?

The modern emphasis on safety is a bunch of hogwash from the insurance
industry, which wants you to collect tickets so they can profit from the
points.  A decade ago, each "point" assessed was worth about $600 to your
insurance company in premium surcharges.  They don't care where the points
come from.  Once the correlation has been established between points and
payout risk, it's in their best interest to pad the point sources as much
as possible.

Will they fight to protect their pork barrel?  Hell yes!  20-24mph is only
worth about $100 to the Comptroller of the State of Maryland.  It's worth
two to three thousand to your insurance company.  Think about it!  Wouldn't
you like to be able to randomly stop anyone you see breathing air and hit
them for a couple thousand bucks on the grounds that a few people cancer
victims had high radon levels in their basements?

-dave

-- 
Dave Hsu    <[email-masked]>

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence."
                                - UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave bd Hsu)
Date: 5 Apr 1995 02:28:31 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Dave bd Hsu <[email-masked]> wrote:

Lest I be misunderstood, I need to clarify a few points.  I chose the
California illustration simply to point out that most interstates are
built to handle much higher speeds than 55.

>  Moreover, modern cars are safer, more crashworthy, better

I meant this last point to refer to those states which raised the speed
limit, where permissible, to 65 in the 1980s.

-dave

---

From: [email-masked] (Rick Paquin)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 1995 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT)

>        ~c--oo    [email-masked]

I do not normally speed unless the traffic is moving greater than the
speed limit.  Even then, I never exceed 9 miles above the limit,
however, the idea that the roads are built for perhaps 10 mph greater
than the set limit (or the limit is 10mph below the safe limit for the
road)  irritates me.

What ever happened to honesty with respect to our government?  If a
road is safe at 45 then what right does the government have to set the
limit lower, thus anticipating people are going to speed.  This is
highly disfunctional and encourages speeding since the public cannot
trust the honest judgement of the government as to what is safe and
not safe.

I think I have the right (considering the amount of tax money I've put
into the road system) to have the government or highway authority set
the limit of speed accurately with respect to the safe travel of the
road and not fudge it so as to compensate for  people who are not law
biding to begin with or to lower it because it's in what the
government defines as an urban area.  There are many roads where 55 is
too slow, but it MUST be set at 55 because it's within a magic
boundary of a city.  Go out of that magic boundary and it increases to
65.  Also, there are many roads out in very open spaces where 80 could
be deemed safe, but the government doesn't permit ANY speed over 65.
Try driving in western Kansas and you'll know what I mean.

We need accurate speed limits, no politics, and VERY STRICT
consequences when an accident does occur due to improper speed.    

Why not try a new approach.  Let's get rid of the ticket writing
police and set the speed limits to the true accuracy of safe travel.
If someone get's in an accident due to speed in excess of the
recommended speed, they should then pay for all the damage, whether to
the other parties or to any other entity that may own damaged propery.
A drivers licence should be revoked for 6 months.  Let this be
mandatory and for "prevention" purposes, spend huge sums of money to
advertise this.  Now watch the speeders slow down!

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Apr 1995 18:05:02 GMT

>the other parties or to any other entity that may own damaged propery. 
 
If someone is at fault in an accident, their insurance *does* pay for the damages. 

>advertise this.  Now watch the speeders slow down! 
 
People are in court for driving on suspended and revoked licenses all the time.   
 
Sorry, but it's being tried already, and it doesn't work.

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew Russotto)
Date: 6 Apr 1995 14:33:47 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, Rick Paquin <[email-masked]> wrote:

}I do not normally speed unless the traffic is moving greater than the
}speed limit.  Even then, I never exceed 9 miles above the limit,
}however, the idea that the roads are built for perhaps 10 mph greater
}than the set limit (or the limit is 10mph below the safe limit for the
}road)  irritates me.

They aren't.  It's usually at least 15mph, and often 20mph or more.  The
interstates were designed for at least 75MPH (and this with the land
yachts of the late 50's).  Those warning signs for curves are often
set too low-- I've seen minivans take 25mph curves at 40mph.  This is
especially dangerous when a REAL 25mph curve is also marked for 25mph.
Some non-interstates seem to have a speed limit inversely proportional to
the number of cops around-- so a 2-lane road in Frederick County (no
county ticket-writers) might have a speed limit of 50mph, where a 4
lane divided highway in Gaithersburg might have a speed limit of
25mph.  But the general rule of thumb seems to be that the speed
limits are appropriate for driving in a blizzard.

}What ever happened to honesty with respect to our government?

You're kidding, right?

}Why not try a new approach.  Let's get rid of the ticket writing
}police and set the speed limits to the true accuracy of safe travel.
}If someone get's in an accident due to speed in excess of the
}recommended speed, they should then pay for all the damage, whether to
}the other parties or to any other entity that may own damaged propery.
}A drivers licence should be revoked for 6 months.  Let this be
}mandatory and for "prevention" purposes, spend huge sums of money to
}advertise this.  Now watch the speeders slow down!

I'm a habitual speeder (enough to bug you, I suspect-- I typically cruise at
80-85mph when there's room on the road) who has never hit anyone else
on the road.  I certainly wouldn't slow down under this scheme.  I
doubt many others would, either.  Pull the license?  Who cares --
what's another law when I am almost constantly breaking them under the
current scheme?

---

From: [email-masked] (Jonathan Hazzard)
Date: 6 Apr 1995 23:50:33 GMT

Rick Paquin ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I do not normally speed unless the traffic is moving greater than the
: speed limit.  Even then, I never exceed 9 miles above the limit,
: however, the idea that the roads are built for perhaps 10 mph greater
: than the set limit (or the limit is 10mph below the safe limit for the
: road)  irritates me.

: What ever happened to honesty with respect to our government?  If a
: road is safe at 45 then what right does the government have to set the
: limit lower, thus anticipating people are going to speed.  This is
: highly disfunctional and encourages speeding since the public cannot
: trust the honest judgement of the government as to what is safe and
: not safe.

: I think I have the right (considering the amount of tax money I've put
: into the road system) to have the government or highway authority set
: the limit of speed accurately with respect to the safe travel of the
: road and not fudge it so as to compensate for  people who are not law
: biding to begin with or to lower it because it's in what the
: government defines as an urban area.  There are many roads where 55 is
: too slow, but it MUST be set at 55 because it's within a magic
: boundary of a city.  Go out of that magic boundary and it increases to
: 65.  Also, there are many roads out in very open spaces where 80 could
: be deemed safe, but the government doesn't permit ANY speed over 65.
: Try driving in western Kansas and you'll know what I mean.

: We need accurate speed limits, no politics, and VERY STRICT
: consequences when an accident does occur due to improper speed.    

: Why not try a new approach.  Let's get rid of the ticket writing
: police and set the speed limits to the true accuracy of safe travel.
: If someone get's in an accident due to speed in excess of the
: recommended speed, they should then pay for all the damage, whether to
: the other parties or to any other entity that may own damaged propery.
: A drivers licence should be revoked for 6 months.  Let this be
: mandatory and for "prevention" purposes, spend huge sums of money to
: advertise this.  Now watch the speeders slow down!

   All excellent, logical points.  I also stay at 9 mph over the limit
because the point jump in Maryland at 10 over.  However, I think a high
speed limit, like 75, which is SAFE in most places would be inappropriate
in the right lane where merging traffic enters and exits the road. 
Collector/Distributor lanes would be neccessary like one finds on I-270
and on I-95 at 212 and 198.  These could be set at 60, maybe, which is
about as fast as a truck or old Yugo can get up to by the end of the ramp. 
I've long dreamed of lane-specific speed limits set at realistic levels. 
For I-95 where there are no C/D lanes, it could be 75 in lane one, then
70, 65, and 60.  What do you think? 

         ~~~~     Jonathan
            -

---

From: [email-masked] (Joe Gregor)
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 10:05:21 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jonathan
Hazzard) wrote:

>off the road after an accident than is gained in ticket revenue.

    Wouldn't improved driver training, meaningful proficiency testing, and
periodic driver reciertification do a far better job that attempting to
solve all safety problems throught the manipulation of one variable?

    Oh, and how about improved roadway design. On ramps leading to a stopsign
with no acceleration lane seem more dangerous than an upper speed limit of,
say, 70 mph on a flat straight 4 lane didvided highway IMHO. No one is _forced_
to drive at the speed limit, it is a limit, not a mandatory speed. Everyone
_is forced_ to merge into traffic at highway speed from a dead stop with no
acceleration lane at these on ramps, however. There are other examples, but you
take my point.

        -- Joe

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 6 Apr 1995 12:31:14 GMT

In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jonathan Hazzard) wrote
a lengthy piece about the 55 speed limit.  While I disagreed with most of
his post, I take particular exception to one paragraph and have a comment
on another.

>you 2? Have you noticed that 25 over nets you 5? (I think) 

I don't find this assumption valid.  Every survey I have seen indicates that
drivers will travel at the design speed of the highway.  Set the speed limit
on the NJ Turnpike or I-95 at 35, 45, or 55, and the traffic will continue 
at 70+.  Put the speed limit at 50 on neighborhood streets and people 
will still drive in the 20s and 30s.  
 
>$70 ticket--things called TAXES.  

No, the things are called photo radar.  No expense except the equipment and
postage.  When you need more money, just set the tolerance lower.  Of course,
since you don't know about it until long after the fact, there is no deterrent
value (unliked a marked police car, which makes people slow for 30 seconds
or so.

As far as taxes vs. tickets, which is easier to sell--we have to crack down
on these maniacs causing carnage on our roadways, or we have to increase
everyone's gasoline taxes?

Bob Nelson

---

From: [email-masked] (Dirk Broer)
Date: 7 Apr 1995 22:18:39 GMT

>speed limit, even though everyone exceeds it.  

I disagree

>off the road after an accident than is gained in ticket revenue.  There 

Unfortunately the major cause of accidents has never been linked to 
the vehicles speed.  Infact, I would bet that an argument can be made that 
an absurdly low speed limit would actually reduce the attentiveness of the
drivers and cause more accidents.

Look at the states that did increase the speed limit to 65.  Although
some states showed an increase in the first year - as far as I know
those every one of the cases where statistically insignificant.  One
year they had 2 deaths on the highway - the next year there was 3 in 
the car - thus 50% increase.  However in the long run, it has been 
well publisized by car oriented magazines, that the death rate on the
highways continues to decline - unaffected by the posted speed limit.

>  1) as a deterrent to excessively exceeding the speed limit

However, the most effective deterent seems to be a patroling police
officer - preferably on a motorcycle.

>patrolling, and providing emergency services on highways.

Paying for more radar guns so they can nab more speeders....  So if 
no one speeds our roads become crap - thus I'm doing my civic duty
by speeding - I just have to do it more obviously so that I get caught
once.

[stuff deleted]

>costs and fines are set to discourage exceeding the limits by great amounts. 

But my point is 
1) operating costs should not be affected by the number violators caught.
This leads to quotas, which in turn lead to tighter and tighter enforcement
while the police try to reach their quotas.  At what point does the police
enforcement become harasment?

2)If 55mph truely saved lives versus 65mph - why shouldn't the speed limit
be set at 45mph - or perhaps 35mph?  Given your justifications for
55mph explain how they exclude a 35mph maximum speed.

3)It ignores the real threat to motor safety - the poorly skilled driver.
I lump in the un-courteous driver.
a) The driver that fails to follow the simple rule - slower traffic should
keep right - if your passed on the right hand side you are in the
wrong lane (or the guy that passed you is eithier on the shoulder (an @$$hole)
or in the far right lane (also an @$$ hole)
b) The driver that fails to signal a lane change (my ESP has not been the
same lately)
c) The driver that weaves in and out of traffic (usually has problems
with item b as well)
d) The driver that speeds up to prevent you from pulling in front - 
I guess that's what I get for signalling.
e) Conversly, the driver that cuts you off and then decides he's not
in that much of hurry after all.
f) The driver that thinks "Merge Area" means come to a complete stop - 
then either cut off people driving much faster, or drive into the 
grass as the merge area ends.  Note: these people jepardize all those 
stuck behind them.

Is it unreasonable for me to expect that the drivers on the road have
some level of confidence?  Well what do I expect from a place where a
driver's license cost a couple of bucks and the "test" involves an
easy written exam and a parking lot test.

My mother never fails to remind me that her test (West Germany at the 
time) required an extensive test including panic stops (pumping the
brakes) and even changing the tire (installing the spare).  You also
had to know the basics - like where to check the oil etc and be able
to judge if the car was safe or unsafe.  Although insurance is alot
less - I here a license in Germany costs about $1000 - and a hell of
alot more if you loose it because of drunk driving.  

The road is not a place to read newspapers, shave, talk on the phone, 
read a book,  There was a story about a man in Germany who was caught
on photo radar kissing a girl.  Not only was he fined for speeding 
, in trouble with his wife (not the woman in the picture), but he was
also fined for not paying attention to the road.  As it should be!

Interestingly enough Germanies roads (even with unlimited speed limits on
some) are among the safest in the world - and pre reunification they
where the safest?  

Hmmm   - The fastest and the safest?  (also among the best maintained)
How does that fit into your model of "55 saves <fill_in_blank>"?

Dirk

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave bd Hsu)
Date: 8 Apr 1995 09:05:33 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>How does that fit into your model of "55 saves <fill_in_blank>"?

Don't get me wrong...I think 55 should go the way of the do-do, but
pointing to Germany as an example is still an oversimplification, like
gun ban advocates pointing at Canada or UK, or unlimited RKBA advocates
pointing at Switzerland.  The German example shows that unlimited roads
_can_ work, but it does not follow that they'll work here.

I've only experiences the souther half of Germany, but at least there,
the autobahns are unlimited only between interchanges which are some
distance apart, much like in the midwestern US.  In the vicinity of an
interchange, the limit drops down to 80 or 100 km/h.  This is analogous
to the current rural requirement for exercising Congress' 65mph
exception.  This system works in spite of the fact that many of the
highways aren't nearly as well paved or lighted as a typical US
interstate (excepting those in the northeastern US, which are shit).

More importantly, though, is the conscientiousness of German drivers, and
the strict rule enforcement.  Mandatory lane discipline: no passing on the
right.  Mandatory turn signals for lane changes.  Tighter speed enforcement,
(sometimes by polizei in Porsches :-), which isn't really objectionable as
the limits are more sensibly set.  German drivers are a huge factor in why
the Germans can have autobahns...virtually all of the assholes (read: lane
hogs) I saw on the road were from other EC countries, or from former East
Germany or Czechoslovakia.

-dave

---

From: [email-masked] (P.J. Geraghty)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 11:51:14 GMT

To add to Jonathan's point, one more reason speed limits are set absurdly 
low is to appease neighborhood residents.  Cedar Lane and Kensington 
Parkway in Montgomery county are but two examples of this.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ed Tuthill)
Date: 9 Apr 1995 22:59:15 -0400

In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Jonathan Hazzard)
wrote:
> you may do better around 45.

I hope you're not extending this guarantee to me!  I don't even hit top
gear in my car until 65mph.  I would seriously doubt that doing 2000 RPM
at 65mph will give me worse gas mileage than driving 3000 RPM at 55mph.

Gas mileage is FAR more dependent on the character of the driving being
done than on the speed.  I get about 30mpg on my trips to Myrtle Beach,
when I'm consistently driving 80-85mph for all of the trip except the
stretch through Virginia.  My normal commute, on the other hand, nets me
about 25mpg.

Of course, I missed the thread a few months ago, so I maybe pummelling
a deceased equine.

/===< [email-masked] >===\
|  Ed Tuthill, Archbishop Polygon |
|  "No faith without laughter."   |
\=================================/
-- 
-Ed Tuthill ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (Dirk Broer)
Date: 12 Apr 1995 22:36:17 GMT

>Dirk Broer <[email-masked]> wrote:

[snip]

>interstate (excepting those in the northeastern US, which are shit).

My experience is mostly from the Frankfurt - Bonn stretch (3 lanes I think)
and in and around Koln.

>Germany or Czechoslovakia.

Note that Germany no longer has _the_ safest roads - something about a 
Trablat (sp?) driving maxed out in the wrong lane.  A Porsche barreling
down at 150+mph makes a few assumptions and one is that the Trablat driver
will get out of the way....

BTW I though the speed limits on the non-unlimted sections was more like
100kph for trucks and 110 for everyone else (note that trucks must drive
in the right lane - period).  In any case your arguements seem valid.

Dirk

---

From: [email-masked] (Steven Rezsutek)
Date: 12 Apr 1995 16:56:19 GMT

In reply to me, [email-masked] (P.J. Geraghty) writes:

Streets you mentioned?  No.  Street with an "absurdly low speed limit"?
Depends on who you ask, I suppose.

My property, though not actually abutting Piney Branch Road [MD320], may
as well be from my perspective.  The posted limit in my area is 30 MPH.
A good portion of the people traveling it, however, seem to feel it can
"safely" support 40 or 45.  This of course doesn't take into account the
occational idiot who has to pass traffic in the turn-only [center] lane
because even 45 is too,,, damn,,, slow,,, but they are rare and probably
afflict all areas equally.

I suppose that if people didn't have to pull on to it from somewhat
obscured side streets or driveways, and you didn't care about the noise
problem, schools, pedestrians, and other things like that, it could
support a higher speed, but ignoring all those things is a lot like
saying "screw the world, I'm trying to get somewhere" to me.  And even
if it "could", the question of whether it "should" ought to be left,
IMHO, to those who will ultimately have to live with it (for longer than
the 5 minutes per day it takes them to pass through, that is).

[Oops.  Sorry.  I forgot my place in life for a moment there.  Unlike
those hurried, important souls zipping along from where they came from
to where they are going, I only live there. ]

I knew what Piney Branch was like, too.  That doesn't mean I have to
roll over, expose my belly, and put up with it.  Granted, it's never
going to be a quiet country lane, but the noise is a lot less offensive
at 30 (which _is_ the posted limit, after all) than it is at 40, not to
mention that it makes the street more pleasant and safe to walk along.
In fact, one could say that "quality of life" is higher for not living
next to a highway.

Seeing as how the only people making it a "highway" are vigilante
drivers, I hardly see why I should accept that as a fact of life.  If
they really want to raise the limit, then they can try to do so using
political channels (and expect some opposition in the process :). 

Yes, I know.  I caught that just as the article was being submitted.  I
just figured that rather than go through the bother of cancelling and
resubmitting, I'd rely on the driver's ability to translate unresonable
or incorrect printed information into what it properly should be, much
as they do with speed limit signs. :-)

   People who don't 

They are equally free to influence, control and even change those patterns.
Has something to do with community, politics and all that...

Steve