Subject: Re: The Federal Study that Finds Speed Limits Irrelevant...

From: [email-masked] (Joe Gregor)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 10:34:56 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (J. Kimberlin) wrote:

>I'm not surprised that the findings on speed show it generally irrevalent.  
>The question is that if speed doesn't cause accidents, what does?

    Cars hitting things. Usually other cars. :-)

>
>Actually, an API study on Pay at the Pump Insurance, found that accidents 
>are caused by traffic density, followed by (I think) driver attitude, 
>with speed a factor albeit a minor one.

    It all boils down to people operating vehicles in a manner for which they
lack the requisite skill and proficiency. You want to really address accidents,
institute meaningfull training and periodic, meaningfull, proficiency testing.
This would almost certainly alleviate the traffic density factor, too.

        -- Joe

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim)
Date: 25 Jul 1995 16:56:31 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>This would almost certainly alleviate the traffic density factor, too.

You mean TAKE AWAY A PERSON'S "RIGHT" TO DRIVE?!  Perish the thought.
(note extreme sarcasm)
-- 
[email-masked] |   NMA #116538, MARRC #1594   |  armed & friendly
ClarksBURG, MD        | http://www.basetech.com/jimb | '93 gsx600f katana
----------------------+------------------------------+-------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (J. Kimberlin)
Date: 24 Jul 1995 16:30:03 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>,
Kevin Atkinson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Here is part of the federal study that NMA dug up after the goverment 
>tried to bury it.  The federal government spent over half a million 
>dollars and five years on it;  it is not just a trivial or academic study.
>
>	http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/

Any more thoughts?

JerryK

---

From: [email-masked] (Bryan Chow)
Date: 26 Jul 1995 18:27:34 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Tom Glaab  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>I was listening to the NASCAR race this weekend on the radio... there was a
>15-car pileup at 200 mph, and everybody walked away from the accident.  So
>much for the "speed kills" argument.

But most of us don't have a rollcage and 5-pt harness in our cars.

>How can NASCAR drivers go bumper-to-bumper at 200mph without incident while
>Joe Driver can't handle 70 on the open road?  Training and alertness.  Getting
>a driver's license is a joke in America :-(

Surviving 200 mph crashes have NOTHING to do with training and alertness.
How do you train for that?  Crash the guy into walls for practice?  They
walk away simply because of the rollcage, and the fact that they are tied
into their seats.

-- 
Bryan Chow                  California Institute of Technology [ SCP Lab ]
[email-masked] /           Home: http://www.scp.caltech.edu/~bryan/
World Wide Web      -- Roxy Music: http://www.scp.caltech.edu/~bryan/roxy/
(818) 395-3903        \    Autos: http://www.scp.caltech.edu/~bryan/autos/

---

From: [email-masked] (Walker Aumann)
Date: 26 Jul 1995 19:21:41 GMT

>walk away simply because of the rollcage, and the fact that they are tied

Please note that Tom said "bumper-to-bumper at 200mph without incident", not
"surviving 200mph crashes".  Driving safely is a matter of practice,
training, and alertness.  If drivers aren't willing to exercise those three
skills, then they can practice their crashing skills instead (or,
unfortunately, make other people practice their crashing skills).

Walker

---

From: Chuck Fry <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jul 1995 21:01:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Tom Glaab  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>15-car pileup at 200 mph, and everybody walked away from the accident.  So much
>for the "speed kills" argument.

>How can NASCAR drivers go bumper-to-bumper at 200mph without incident while Joe
>Driver can't handle 70 on the open road?  Training and alertness.  Getting a
>driver's license is a joke in America :-(

Some comments:

Training and alertness has more to do with those who *avoided* the wreck
than those caught in it.

And I wouldn't call a race with a 15-car pileup "without incident."

The *real* reason no one was hurt (seriously, at least; one driver came
away with one hell of a black eye) was that the cars are designed to
withstand the expected impact, with stout roll cages and designed-in
crushable structure, and the drivers wear crash helmets and fire suits,
and are well and truly strapped in to wraparound seats.  Even with all
these safety measures, NASCAR drivers are occasionally killed.

Joe Driver *can* and *does* handle 70 MPH on the open road.  Every day.
If he couldn't, fast drivers like you and me would be dying in droves,
and last I looked we aren't -- fatal accident rates are continuing their
long historical downward trend.  The problem is that the cops, the
courts, the legislooters (great word, I wish I'd thought of it!), and
most importantly the insurance profiteers don't wish to acknowledge this
fact, because of one important fact:

It costs these vested interests big money to admit the average driver
can drive safely when left to his/her own devices.

There is no other reason for the insane 55/65 NMSL to exist.
 -- Chuck
-- 
Chuck Fry  [email-masked]  [email-masked]  [email-masked]
The Communications Decency Act, promoting Internet censorship, passed the
US Senate.  DON'T LET IT PASS IN THE HOUSE!  Call your Congresscritter.
         See http://www.cdt.org/cda.html for more information.

---

From: [email-masked] (Juliana L Holm)
Date: 26 Jul 1995 14:10:22 GMT

J. Kimberlin ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: Kevin Atkinson <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >Here is part of the federal study that NMA dug up after the government 
: >tried to bury it.  The federal government spent over half a million 
: >dollars and five years on it;  it is not just a trivial or academic study.
: >
: >	http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/

: I'm not surprised that the findings on speed show it generally irrevalent.  
: The question is that if speed doesn't cause accidents, what does?

I'm a new motorcyclist and one thing that I have noticed is that driving
a car, people (me included) do not pay nearly enough attention to what
they are doing.  When you're on a motorcycle, any accident would be
serious or even fatal, so you ride ultra-defensively.  Motorcycle
training courses (given by the motorcycle safety foundation) focus very
carefully on traffic situations and how to react to them.

I'm a better car driver since I started riding.  But I do think that
lack of attention is a major cause of accidents.  How many times has
something come out of nowhere suddenly while you were driving.  How many
times have you arrived home from work, only to remember what the guy on
the radio was saying, not anything about the drive.  Notice how much
you pay attention to the inside of the car as opposed to the outside.

I don't converse while driving any more, and I seldom listen to the
radio.  
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Holm (ENTP)| We're all mad here.  I'm mad and you're mad.
[email-masked] | If you weren't mad, you wouldn't be here!
[email-masked]    |			-Lewis Carroll (approximately)
SHL Systemhouse  |
                 | DoD #1604  AMA #397939    1987 Virago 535 "Kate"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems)
Date: 26 Jul 95 12:42:02 PDT

> The question is that if speed doesn't cause accidents, what does?

Read it again.  They did not say that speed was "generally 
irrelevant".  In fact they found that the cars most likely to be 
involved in accidents were those in the 0-5 percentile speeds, ie the 
SLOWEST cars on the road.  The second most likely group were those 
in the 95th-99th %tile speeds.  What they did find was that 
"speeding", defined as exceeding the posted limits, was generally 
uncorrelated with accidents (except for the few very fastest drivers).

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: [email-masked] (JH645)  CompuServe: 74140,2055

---

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Atkinson)
Date: 24 Jul 1995 19:26:13 GMT

This document and a lot more can be found at my Speed Limit home page at
	http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/

                 EFFECTS OF RAISING AND LOWERING SPEED LIMITS
   
                                  Final Report
   
                            (Abstract and Finding)

 Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084                                      October 1992

U.S. Department of Transportation      Research, Development, and Technology
Federal Highway Administration         Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
                                       6300 Georgetown Pike
                                       McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

   The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of
   raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and
   accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and
   accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and
   after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also
   collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were
   not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were
   made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed
   limit changes.
   
   The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits
   by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as
   15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority
   of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed
   limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed
   by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data
   collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed
   limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed
   limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does
   significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit.
   Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or
   accidents.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Summary of Findings

   The pertinent findings of this study, conducted to examine the effects
   of lowing and raising posted speed limits on nonlimited access rural
   and urban highways, are listed below:
   
     * Based on the free-flow speed data collected for a 24-h period at
       the experimental and comparison sites in 22 States, posted speed
       limits were set, on the average, at the 45th percentile speed or
       below the average speed of traffic
       
     * Speed limits were posted, on average, between 5 and 16 mi/h (8 and
       26 km/h) below the 85th percentile speed.
       
     * Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 26
       km/h) at the study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds.
       Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist's speeds.
       
     * Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 25 km/h) at
       the rural and urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In
       other words, an increase in the posted speed limit did not create
       a corresponding increase in vehicle speeds.
       
     * The average change in any of the percentile speeds at the
       experimental sites was less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 m/h), regardless of
       whether the speed limit was raised or lowered.
       
     * Where speed limits were lowered, an examination of speed
       distribution indicated the slowest drivers (1st percentile)
       increased their speed approximately 1 mi/h (1/6 km/h). There were
       no changes on the high-speed drivers (99th percentile)
       
     * At sites where speed limits were raised, there was an increase of
       less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 km/h) for drivers traveling at and below
       the 75th percentile speed. When the posted limits were raised by
       10 and 15 mi/h (16 and 24 km/h), there was a small decrease in the
       99th percentile speed.
       
     * Raising speed limits in the region of the 85th percentile speed
       has an extremely beneficial effect on drivers complying with the
       posted speed limits.
       
     * Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average
       percentile that speed were posted in this study) provides a
       noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent.
       
     * After speed limits were altered at the experimental sites, less
       than one-half of the drivers complied with the new posed limits.
       
     * Only minor changes in vehicles following as headways less than 2s
       were found at the experimental sites.
       
     * Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were
       lowered increased by 5.4 percent. The level of confidence of this
       estimate is 44 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for this
       estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 11 percent to an
       increase of 26 percent.
       
     * Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were
       raised decreased by 6.7 percent. The level of confidence of this
       estimate in 59 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for this
       estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 21 percent to an
       increase of 10 percent.
       
     * Lowering speed limits more than 5 mi/h (8 km/h) below the 85th
       percentile speed of traffic did not reduce accidents.
       
     * The indirect effects of speed limit changes on a sample of
       contiguous and adjacent roadways was found to be very small and
       insignificant.

     _________________________________________________________________
   
Conclusion

   The primary conclusion of this research is that the majority of
   motorist on the nonlimited access rural and urban highways examined in
   this study did not decrease or increase their speed as a result of
   either lowering or raising the posted speed limit by 4, 10, or 15 mi/h
   (8, 16, or 24 km/h). In other words, this nationwide study confirms
   the results of numerous other observational studies which found that
   the majority or motorist do not alter their speed to conform to speed
   limits they perceive as unreasonable for prevailing conditions.
   
   The data clearly show that lowering posted speed limits did not reduce
   vehicle speeds or accidents. Also, lowering speed limits well below
   the 86th percentile speed did not increase speeds and accidents.
   Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds
   and accidents. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 to 10 mi/h (8
   to 16 km/h) above the posted speed limit when speed limits were
   raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h)
   when speed limits were lowered.
   
   Because there were few changes in the speed distribution, it is not
   surprising that the overall effects of speed limit changes on
   accidents were minor. It is interesting to note that compliance
   decreased when speed limits were lowered and accidents tended to
   increase. Conversely, when compliance improved after speed limits are
   raised, accidents tended to decrease.
   
   Based on the sites examined in 22 States, it is apparent that the
   majority of highway agencies set speed limits below the average speed
   of traffic as opposed to setting limits in the upper region of the
   minimum accident risk band or about 85th percentile speed. This
   practice means that more than one-half of the motorist are in
   technical violation of the speed limits laws.
   
   Although there are variations from State to State, on average, speed
   limits were posed 5 and 16 mi/h (8 and 26 km/h) below the 85th
   percentile speed. As all States use the 85th percentile as a major
   criterion for establishing safe and reasonable speed limits, it is
   surprising that the new speed limits posted on the experimental
   sections examined in this study deviated so far from the 85th
   percentile speed. There are several plausible reasons. Once commonly
   cited reason for posting unreasonably low speed limits is public and
   political pressure. While individuals and politicians clearly
   influence some speed limit decision, there are other factors involved.
  
   Although the 85th percentile speed is used as the major guideline in
   setting speed limits, other factors such as land use, pedestrian
   activity, accident history, etc., are often subjectively considered in
   the decision making process. Together, these factors can account for
   sped limits that are set 10 mi/h (16 km/h) below the 85th percentile
   speed. In addition, the 85th percentile speed is often estimated based
   on a minimum of 200 vehicles or 2 h sample. This process does not take
   into account the wide hourly fluctuations in the 85th percentile speed
   over a 24-h period. Furthermore, the vehicle selection process use of
   radar which is detected by motorist contribute to a bias sample, i.e.,
   usually lower then the average 24-h 85th percentile speed.
   
   Although the study sites could not be randomly selected, they
   represent a wide range of rural and urban conditions, traffic volume,
   and regional situations. As large changes in the posted speed limit
   did not create a meaningful increase or decrease in the motorists'
   speeds at the study sites, it is plausible that this effect would also
   be found on other nonlimited rural and urban access highways.
   
   The data collected during this study indicate that there are no
   benefits, either from a safety or operational point of view, from
   establishing speed limits less than the 85th percentile speed. This
   does not mean that all speed limits should be raised. Traffic and
   engineer investigations should be conducted to obtain an accurate
   measure of the speed distribution. Greater emphasis should be placed
   on using the 85th percentile speed in setting safe and reasonable
   speed limits. These studies should be repeated as land use and traffic
   characteristics change.
   
   The information provided in this report will be useful to highway
   agencies, enforcement officials, and other involved in establishing
   uniform safe and reasonable speed limits on the nation's highways. The
   graphics, such as figure 10 on p.15 [sorry don't have], can be used to
   illustrate the effects of speed limit changes on vehicle speeds. As
   shown below, figure 41 [see figure41.gif] (which shows the changes in 
   accidents, as well as the 95th percentile confidence limits of the 
   changes) can be used to illustrate the effects of lowering and 
   raising speed limits in  accidents. This figure should only be used 
   by persons who have read the accident analysis section in this 
   report and have a basic understanding of the analysis results.
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   A print copy of this info can be obtained from the National Motorist
   Association. They can be contacted at 608/849-6000;
   [email-masked]; or 6678 Pertzborn Road, Dane, Wisconsin 53529.

--
* Kevin Atkinson, Clarknet I'net Serv., Maintainer of the Usenet Info Center *
*     Finger [email-masked] for more info on Usenet Info Center.         *
*    Or send mail to [email-masked]  with a subject line of HELP.        *
*  This is in its beginning stages and I could use any help I could get!     *

---

From: Tom Glaab <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jul 1995 16:10:02 GMT

tg.

-- 
tom glaab    #    [email-masked]    #    [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Yasuhiro Endo)
Date: 26 Jul 1995 19:02:15 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Juliana L Holm <[email-masked]> wrote:
.. many good points deleted...
>I'm a better car driver since I started riding.  

I agree completely.  I used to ride, and the attitude that I acquired 
during that time carried over to my driving - I turn into a really
boring person when I sit in my car because I do nothing but drive.  
Another thing that I learned from riding is the importance of being 
seen; you want to be absolutely sure that the guy who's waiting to 
make a left-turn sees you when you enter an intersection.  I turn on
headlights when I feel that I'm going into a dangerous situation
even when I'm driving a car.

People's attitude toward driving sucks.  I go nuts when I see people 
occupying two lanes because s/he is too busy talking on a phone or 
looking at the passenger talking.  Can the 55 mph limit be blamed 
for encouraging poor and casual  attitude toward driving?

y.e.
-- 
Yasuhiro Endo				e-mail:	[email-masked]
Graduate Student - Computer Science	mail:   Aiken Computation Lab G24
Division of Applied Science			33 Oxford ST.
Harvard University				Cambridge, MA 02138
http://das-www.harvard.edu/users/students/Yasuhiro_Endo/Yasuhiro_Endo.html

---

From: Corey Alambar <corwyn>
Date: 27 Jul 1995 07:36:16 GMT

>driver's license is a joke in America :-(

Think about the penalties over in Europe.  I know some of this is anecdotal,
but considre the following:

In many countries in Europe, I believe the average fee for a driver's livcense
is in excess of $500.  Far cry from $20 here in the US.

Training requirements are much higher as well in Europe from a license.  None
of this "Show up to Driver's Ed a couple times and never go back" stuff.

Many traffic infractions in the US that are worth ony a couple of "points" are
grounds for immediate revocation of license and driving priviledges.  (This is
a key point:  Driving is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT)

Driving without a license is subject for immediate impoundment of the vehicle
for a minimum of 90 days, or in some cases forfeiture, and criminal charges,
including prison terms.

In Turkey, I believe, killing another person in a drunk driving accident is
nothing less than first degree murder,and is subject to the death penalty.  

Conbversely,traffic may seem "insane" in some places (no speed limits on the
Autobahn, sudden traffic movements in London and Paris), the general driving
safety is much higher.

And you can see that in the United States, too.  This NASCAR example.

Think about it.

-Corey

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jul 1995 11:53:45 GMT

>for the "speed kills" argument.

Gee, do you think the structural reinforcement and other safety systems might have something to 
do with it?

---

From: [email-masked] (Wotan)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 00:17:38 GMT

[email-masked] (J. Kimberlin) wrote:

:In article <[email-masked]>,
:Kevin Atkinson <[email-masked]> wrote:
:>Here is part of the federal study that NMA dug up after the goverment 
:>tried to bury it.  The federal government spent over half a million 
:>dollars and five years on it;  it is not just a trivial or academic study.
:>
:>	http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/

:I'm not surprised that the findings on speed show it generally irrevalent.  
:The question is that if speed doesn't cause accidents, what does?

:Actually, an API study on Pay at the Pump Insurance, found that accidents 
:are caused by traffic density, followed by (I think) driver attitude, 
:with speed a factor albeit a minor one.

:Any more thoughts?

I recall reading somewhere that driver error/negligence was way up the
list of reasons for causing accidents.  Perhaps reading the newspaper
interferes with driving the car?

--

Goverment is an association of men who
do violence to the rest of us.
	-- Leo Tolstoy

---

From: [email-masked] (Joseph E. Huesmann)
Date: 27 Jul 1995 21:49:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Phil Mueller <[email-masked]> wrote:
>A NASCAR bears little resemblance to a street car.
>
>>Driver can't handle 70 on the open road?  Training and alertness.  
>
>I'm pretty sure that there's a certain amount of inborn talent, too.
>How else can you explain consistent winners?

Sponsors' deep pockets?  Better-engineered cars?  Better-trained mecahnics?

Joe

---

From: [email-masked] ( )
Date: 27 Jul 1995 17:10:29 GMT

>Gee, do you think the structural reinforcement and other safety systems might have something to 

Isn't this a counter example. Look how bad the NASCAR drivers are.
Thirty drivers driving 500 miles endup having atleast a half dozen
accidents.  If street cars had this accident rate, can you imagine the
cost of driving.  You'd need a new car every couple of thousand miles.

The freeways would be continually backed up with every set of 30 cars
getting into a major accident every 50 or so miles.

Don't get me wrong, NASCAR and INDY drivers are excellent drivers but
there can be no comparison between racing and transportation. One is a
sport and the other (atleast in the US with the lack of public
transportation) is a means of, efficiently, getting from one place to
another.

---

GP

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Glaab)
Date: 27 Jul 1995 20:27:06 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>How do you train for that?  Crash the guy into walls for practice?  They

you missed the bit about "bumper-to-bumper at 200mph" :-)

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert King)
Date: 26 Jul 1995 20:13:25 GMT

>is in excess of $500.  Far cry from $20 here in the US.

   Try $1200 in Germany.

>a key point:  Driving is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT)

   Try to convince people of that though.  Its so easy to get a license, and driving is so common in the U.S. that many folks think its a God-given right.  It isn't.

   In Germany, ONE DUI conviction and you loose your license FOR GOOD!  No
suspension, no probation, no more driving!

>nothing less than first degree murder,and is subject to the death penalty.  

   Sounds like a good idea to me!

>Autobahn, sudden traffic movements in London and Paris), the general driving

   That amazed me while I lived in London.  The traffic was a mess, but I never
saw any evidence of accidents, and the locals I spoke with were amazed that we
in the U.S. had to have TRAFFIC REPORTS.  "You all have *that* *many* wrecks?"
was the general response.

---
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King                |                                       |
| Systems Software Engineer     |                                       |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems  |    "I drank WHAT?!?" -- Socrates      |
|                               |                                       |
| [email-masked]            |                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here arn't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (William Lewis)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 10:41:07 GMT

[email-masked] (Juliana L Holm) wrote:

> How many
>the radio was saying, not anything about the drive.  

I guess I'm the complete opposite, I arrive home without remembering
what the guy on the radio said.  Or catch the beginning of a song,
only to realize later that I missed it.  I am usually too focused on
my driving and the traffic around me.

>Notice how much

The only thing inside the car that I pay any real attention to are the
gauges and the mirrors.

>I don't converse while driving any more, and I seldom listen to the

I agree that there are an overwhelming amount of people that do act as
Juliana has stated, and she will be better off for recogizing that she
too acted similarly.  This enforces the fact that the general
population is not trained sufficeintly to handle the traffic that
exists in this area.  While it is not always necessary to give up
talking or listening to the radio, it could be a step in the right
direction for a lot of people (Include celphones here).  
I guess I am lucky (not) that I have spent nearly 20 years driving
almost exclusively in this area.  It honed me to tune out the radio,
and cease conversation to concentrate on driving.  I just wish it
would do the same to everyone else, maybe driving would be more
enjoyable again.

Bill Lewis

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian R. Hunt)
Date: 29 Jul 95 04:56:37 GMT

>a key point:  Driving is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT)

Not to single out the poster, but I cringe every time I hear this
empty slogan.  There are plenty of so-called "rights" which can be
forfeited nonetheless by those who do not play by the rules.  Would it
be fair to say things like:

Freedom of movement is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT
Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT
Life is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT

My point is that there is a continuum between "privileges" and
"rights".  Moreover, the fact is that in the U.S., not being able to
drive can have a serious impact on one's job prospects, among other
things.  Places are farther apart here than in Europe, public
transportation is less extensive, and our culture revolves more around
driving--I am not celebrating this fact, but given the society we have
built we should recognize that revoking a person's driver's license is
a serious punishment, which should only be applied when it fits the
crime.

-- 
Brian R. Hunt
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Behram Viraf Parekh)
Date: 29 Jul 1995 08:52:21 GMT

In message <[email-masked]> - Corey Alambar <corwyn> writes:
:>
:>Tom Glaab <[email-masked]> wrote:
:>>
:>>How can NASCAR drivers go bumper-to-bumper at 200mph without incident while Joe
:>>Driver can't handle 70 on the open road?  Training and alertness.  Getting a
:>>driver's license is a joke in America :-(
:>>
:>
:>Think about the penalties over in Europe.  I know some of this is anecdotal,
:>but considre the following:
:>
:>In many countries in Europe, I believe the average fee for a driver's livcense
:>is in excess of $500.  Far cry from $20 here in the US.
[examples deleted]
:>Conbversely,traffic may seem "insane" in some places (no speed limits on the
:>Autobahn, sudden traffic movements in London and Paris), the general driving
:>safety is much higher.
:>
:>And you can see that in the United States, too.  This NASCAR example.
:>
:>Think about it.
:>
:>-Corey

Having driven quite a lot in europe, its not safer in general, only on the
"freeway" equivalents, and only in western european countries (excluding
italy, which is insane).

Driving in the cities (excluding most of germany) is nuts, with people going 
every which direction, cutting in and out, etc... etc... and having witnessed 
god knows how many fender benders, accidents happen quite as often, if not 
more so, than out here (based on Los Angeles/Bay Area driving experience).

What is noticeable on the freeway equivalents, though, is a respect for the 
other driver, especially by those in slower moving vehicles (and by slower, I 
mean, slower than *me*, not slower than X arbitrary speed). Drivers move out 
of the way of faster cars, just because I'm going 75 doesn't mean I sit in 
the fast lane, and people actually use their rearview mirror during regular 
freeway driving to check for cars coming up behind them and stay current with 
the flow of traffic *all* around them, not just the car in front of them.

I agree that driver education in America is pathetic/non-existent. But what 
really needs to change more than driving *skill* is driving *attitude*. What 
ends up getting people into accidents is generally inattention. But what 
makes driving a chore rather than a pleasure is the guy doing 60 in the fast 
lane, the guy with his left turn signal on while making a right hand lane 
change, the lack of knowledge on how the merge correctly, and the idea that 
it's my car, my road, and you'd best figure out how to drive around me, 
'cause I'm not moving.

(uh, sorry, kinda got carried away with pet peeves there).

Behram Parekh
[email-masked]
-------------
Speed doesn't kill, it's the speed differential that will get you.

---

From: [email-masked] (Orin)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 19:19:02 GMT

>>driver's license is a joke in America :-(

The comment about getting a driver's license in America is unfortunately 
true and I'd guess that 99% of those that have taken the British test and 
an American test would agree.  I have a British license and a WA state 
license.  I made two mistakes on the WA test WHICH WOULD HAVE FAILED ME 
on the British test.  I was in NO danger of failing the WA test.

>And I wouldn't call a race with a 15-car pileup "without incident."

Neither would I.

>these safety measures, NASCAR drivers are occasionally killed.

A

>can drive safely when left to his/her own devices.

Surprisingly safely... considering some of the brain-dead highway 
features - on/off ramps on the left, blind merges, on-ramps which are too 
short, no enforcement of 'keep right except to pass' laws.

I don't know whether it has changed in the past few years, but in 
England, you'd better keep left unless you were passing or the cops would 
take great pleasure in giving you a ticket - probably easier to prove in 
court (what speed were you doing?  Who cares? The lane on your left was 
empty).  Similar for passing on the inside.

Orin.

---

From: [email-masked] (FolsomMan)
Date: 30 Jul 1995 23:32:39 -0400

[email-masked] (Behram Viraf Parekh) wrote:
...

>the flow of traffic *all* around them, not just the car in front of them.

I think there are two types of fast lane blockers:  One is the guy who
feels that it's his job to enforce the speed limit and likes to play games
with those who try to get around him.  The other is the guy who is driving
as fast as he dares and starts passing someone only to find that that
person speeds up once he's being passed (which happens all of the time). 
Both are a direct result of the ridiculously low speed limits on
limited-access freeways.  No one wants to get a ticket and everyone (not
quite) wants to keep or improve his place in line.  If speed limits were
raised to a reasonable level on freeways, or removed, and lane and merging
discipline were strictly enforced, things would get sorted out so you
could get somewhere safely on U.S. freeways.

>it's my car, my road, and you'd best figure out how to drive around me, 

I was astounded when my niece came to live with us in California and got
her driver's license here for the first time.  She never had to get on or
off a freeway or change lanes at all.  It's no wonder that there are
drivers who drive onto a freeway entrance ramp and stop, or merge into 70
m.p.h. lanes of traffic at 40.  But of course, if incompetent drivers were
kept off the road, then there would be a smaller market for cars and the
people who sell cars have a powerful lobby and we don't.

Mark Folsom

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Goudreau)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 95 15:44:58 GMT

Robert King ([email-masked]) wrote:

: That amazed me while I lived in London.  The traffic was a mess,
: but I never saw any evidence of accidents, and the locals I spoke
: with were amazed that we : in the U.S. had to have TRAFFIC REPORTS.
: "You all have *that* *many* wrecks?" was the general response.

I'm having trouble following your non-sequitur here.  First, it
wouldn't be all that surprising if the US experiences more vehicle
accidents per capita than Europe, because we have *much* higher rates
of vehicle ownership and miles driven per capita.  Driving is simply
much more common here.  Second, since when are accidents the primary
reason for radio traffic reports?  Plain old rush-hour traffic jams are
reason enough even on days when there are no accidents to report.  Of
course, in a metro region of any substantial size, the likelihood that
there will be at least one accident to report will definitely increase,
but that's a function of total vehicle-miles driven, not just of
driving skills.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau			Data General Corporation
[email-masked]		62 Alexander Drive	
+1 919 248 6231			Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

---

From: Jud Main <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Aug 1995 17:11:45 GMT

It is amazing.  What it all boils down to is this:  the only way to avoid an 
accident is to pay attention.

I've avoided accidents before I could even see the intersection or the car 
just by a gut feeling.  

I've slowed way down when approaching a curve only to round the corner 
and find a BIG rock in my lane.

Everyone's experience this stuff, and I'm using extreme cases to help 
prove my point.  Call it what you will, I call it paying attention...and I'd 
bet that the Londoners do a whole lot of that.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jan Richards)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 95 13:18:21 GMT

Robert King ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article [email-masked], Corey Alambar <corwyn> () writes:

:    In Germany, ONE DUI conviction and you loose your license FOR GOOD!  No
: suspension, no probation, no more driving!

Not quiet, first offence is ban plus hefty fine, second offence is longer 
ban, heavier fine and some sort of pyschological test. Third time then 
forget it. Things might have been different in East Germany, but in 
the West it's been like this for some time. 

--
Jan Richards, 65779 Kelkheim, Germany            [email-masked]
Current Transport:                             | Ultimate conclusion of PC.
  83 BMW R100RS {Old Faithfull, "Speedy"}      | Blessed are the meek: for they 
  94 Rover Mini Cooper 1.3i {fun car "Mr.Bean"}| shall inherit the earth.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gregory Resch)
Date: 5 Aug 1995 00:17:54 -0400

[email-masked] (Kevin Atkinson) writes:

> dollars and five years on it;  it is not just a trivial or academic 
> study....

If you think that the Federal government spending a measly $100K per year 
on something isn't "trivial," you don't know much about the Federal 
government nor the wonderful world of Federal grants and contracting.  For 
that kind of money, I doubt there's anything valid in the "study." 

Sorry, if this bursts your bubble.

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Jan Richards)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 95 13:18:21 GMT