[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: 65 means 65




In article <3vtp7p$9ob@condor.philabs.philips.com> John P. Curcio wrote:
>In article <3vtl63$p50@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
>Scott Richard Rosenfeld <ham@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>...about 65mph limit....
>
>>So basically, nothing has really changed, except that I can now 
>>make my long trips at 67 instead of 62, and not worry about getting
>>a ticket.  There are, undoubtedly, pockets where enforcement is 
>>lax at best.  But don't expect the same policies to exist as when 
>>the law was 55.
>
and John writes:
>You are the type of person the gloom-and-doom insurance companies and
>safety nazis say don't exist.  You are proof that drivers will respect
>a reasonable limit (although I belive 65 might be 5-10 mph too low)
>and not hold speed limits in contempt, as happened before.

WHAT???? He's the type of person that the insurance company uses
to solidify their beliefs!  His willingness to speed even when the limit
is raised to 65!!!!!  He is EXACTLY why those of us who wish the
speed limits could be 75 won't get our wish.  Because the government
KNOWS that if they raise to 75....he  (and many others) will take that
as a sign to do 85!
>>

Kenny Morse
"Mr. Traffic" on
Los Angeles Radio & TV  responding to
>-JPC
>
>-- 
>=================================================================
============
>John P. Curcio  jpc@philabs.philips.com  Philips Labs  Briarcliff Manor, NY
>                "FOSTERS:  Australian for Bud, mate!!"
>   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH
>




Follow-Ups: References: