Re: Repeal of the National Speed Limit Law

In article <3t7sei$bip$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> Jason Cepelak <73150.1540@CompuServe.COM> writes:
$The bottom line is this: If you are going to drive fast you must 
$anticipate hazardous conditions sooner. Driving 80 MPH requires a 
$higher level of attention than driving 55 MPH. Merely blaming 
$speed for accidents is a cop out and removes responsibility. I 
$say raise the speed limit and start going after the REAL hazards 
$on the road

   Actually, I'd say that an increase in the speed limit should probably
_follow_ an increase in the ability of a typical driver.  Of course,
in the real world you could never trust a politician to carry through
on such a promise - "Today, we enact sweeping new legislation to make
our roads safer through better training, tougher examinations, periodic
re-testing, and a change in the focus of traffic law enforcement from
the pursuit of speeders to the pursuit of dangerous drivers.  Over
the next three years, we will clear our roads of the unsafe drivers
and make the highways safer for all.  At the end of this period,
we will increase the speed limit on our major highways from 100 km/h
to 120 km/h."  Yeah, right.  And income tax was a temporary levy to
fund the war effort in 1917 (at least that's how it was introduced
in Canada).

   Our new Premier here in Ontario, as one of his first acts, did
away with photo radar and promised to make the roads safer.  He's
right in that photo radar was put in place to raise revenue and
is not an effective way of making the roads safer.  Time will tell
if he'll manage to put together a package of proposals three months
hence to make the roads safer.  I rather doubt that the political
will exists to do what's really needed.
/  Hi Ho Silver, who likes the idea of having  \  __________________________
\  SNTF and large h00ters in the same package   \/   silver@bokonon.UUCP    \
 \______________________________________________/ ...{!uunet}!bokonon!silver \