Subject: Re: Need Help Bad speeding ticket

From: [email-masked] (Randy Tomlinson)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:03:11 -0400

rector, and states that dead is dead--whether traveling 5 or 105!
>Follow the speed limit--it was set for a reason.  

>Let's try a little experiment.  Get in your car and go 80 mph
>and aim for a tree.  Let's see if it is safer to go 80 and hit
>something, and survive, then try going 55 and hit that tree.
>See if you live to tell it.

>Drive 65--stay alive!  My wife loves her job, but she doesn't like
>restoring faces at 2 a.m.!  :-)

If 55 is safer than 65, then it only makes sense that 35 would be a whole lot 
safer than 55 and hitting a tree at 20 would even be better still.  Germany 
sees speeds of over 150 on a regular basis on certain Autobahns.  The speed 
limit should be at a point where most drivers can handle it.  If you use the 
lowest common denominator, we'd all be driving 35.  What REALLY needs to be 
enforced is hogging the left lane at lower than average (for the traffic) 
speeds, or actually hogging the left lane, PERIOD.  The frustration and 
maneuvering by drivers to overcome being trapped by these hogs is much more 
dangerous than driving 75 or 80.  I've NEVER even heard of a cop stopping an 
interstate left lane hog.

Randy T.

---

From: [email-masked] (Matt Rowe)
Date: 24 Oct 1995 06:03:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Randy Tomlinson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>If ANYONE should be closely watched and regularly ticketed, its the very ones 
>that are almost NEVER ticketed:  the TRUCKERS.  My Corrado will stop from 60 
>mph in 120 ft or less and make avoidance maneuvers quickly and safely even at 
>high speeds.  Trucks can't avoid and can't stop fast.  In spite of this, they 
>regularly run 80 or more, tie up the left lane going up hills, and try to 
>intimidate cars that don't treat them with adequate "respect".  I talked to a 
>local State Patrolman who said he had only ticketed 4 truckers in his 2 years 
>with the patrol.  He said they were "too slick" to catch.  If I was a 
>patrolman, I think I could come up with some creative method of catching them. 
>Since I'm on the nation's interstates on a regular basis (and have been for 25 
>years) I can see who's on the side of the road and who's not.  Truckers RARELY 
>get caught.

Actually, if given the choice I would rather drive with nothing but 
trucks.  There are only about 5-10% of them that are NOT alert, 
considerate and aware of the traffic around them.  This compared to the 
5-10% of cars that ARE alert, considerate and aware.  Granted they can't 
stop as quickly or manuever quite as well, which is why I try to give 
them a little bit of consideration.  By your own admission if they went slower 
it would only increase the danger in having cars weaving around trucks.  
It is rare that I see trucks that don't keep to right, they usually 
follow the same speed as everyone else on the road, and almost never hog 
the left lane (especially not on hills)  Of the problems I have seen with 
trucks they are almost always traceable to the people in the cars around 
them.  

For instance.  Picture a truck that moves over a lane in  order to pass a 
car going slower than the rest of traffic.  While the truck is passing 
your average impatient driver comes up behind and wants to get around.  
Just about the time the truck has room to get back to the right is 
usually when the car in the left lane will try to pass the truck on the 
right.  This usually sets up a pattern for the cars behind and so the 
truck is stuck in the left lane.  Invariablly when I come up behind a 
truck in this situation I will hang back long enough to allow room for 
the truck to get right.  Usually he does so as soon as a safe opportunity 
is there.  Then all I have to do is pass on the left and usually am 
greeted to a friendly wave of thanks.

In all, I would have to say that most truck drivers behave like the 
professionals that they are.

	-Matt Rowe

---

From: Paul.Patricio
Date: 2 Nov 1995 06:11:47 GMT

[email-masked] (Midnight) says:

>Yup.  Illinois requires 6 hours of behind the wheel training, with 30 minutes
>on the highway.. The driving test in my town took 10 minutes and wasn't
>even a mile long.  No reverse, no highway driving, basically just drive 
>around a few blocks without hitting anything and you got a license.

What's the big deal with highway driving? It's easy as hell, especially when 
compared to surburban driving. Sure, you're moving faster, but you don't have
to worry about some kid jumping into the highway to get his ball. All you have
to worry about is staying in your lane basically. There are so many distractions
that you must stay alert at all times in the suburbs. Simple things like cars
backing out of driveways or parking spots suddenly or even hidden stop signs.
The hardest part of highway driving is staying awake. 

					Paul Patricio

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:27:54 EST

Interesting debate....  one example would come to mind.  I lived in 
Germany for 10 years (can you see my point coming? <grin>), most recently 
in 1992.  While there I drove a 1979 BMW 728a.  It was easily capable of 
cruising upwards of 140mph.  I can't remember the conversion, but I 
usually kept it cruising around 190kph because of the type of tires I was 
using.  Many of the "worst case" scenarios you have been mentioning have 
happened to me-- or some variation thereof.  Nothing ever happened that I 
was not able to avoid or maintain control during, because the higher 
speeds absolutely DEMAND full alertness and attention.  Perhaps the 
oddest encounter was a goose or some kind of large white bird which 
struck the passenger side of the windshield at full tilt, and splattered 
gooeyness all over the front of the car-- I couldn't see anything and the 
wipers only made it worse... but I got myself stopped-- long story.  
ANYWAY, my point is that the roads in Germany are actually no where near 
as built for speed as the ones we have here.  Many of the autobahns are 
lacking ANY shoulder area, and those that have a shoulder usually only 
have it ONLY on the right side, and it is not a full lane-width.  Also, 
the center of the autobahn is not a nice grassy zone for cops, but a 
steel guardrail with trees and bushes in the middle.  The lanes 
themselves are generally skinnier than the lanes here, and the road 
twists and turns around so that a straightaway longer than a half mile is 
considered a luxury for the eyes to view.  Naturally, there are 
straighter sections here and there, but no where near as many 
high-visibility runways as we have here (I am thinking of I-80 in PA in 
particular).  The on ramps and off ramps are treacherously sharp compared 
to ours, and more often than not, they require entering and exiting 
traffic to merge through each other rather than sequencially as we have 
here.  Finally, the road service is not necessarily any better than the 
typical highway here== and many times, rivals the potholes I have 
encountered in PA.  So how can they drive so fast and still have a 
highway death rate which is significantly lower than our "55 Saves Lives" 
one?  Seatbelt use is mandatory EVERYWHERE.  Driver training is closer to 
what our Air Force pilots undergo than to what most people get here.  
Vehicle inspections are fiercely technical and unforgiving.  And finally, 
the most important reason, is that everyone is taught the same vocabulary 
of "unwritten" rules of the road, and there is a strict adherence to 
those ideas... every driver is very predictable, lanes are there for 
specific reasons, and the trucks are never going faster than the cars 
they are behind.  That's how you run a system with high speed limits.  
Unfortunately, many of the drivers here are arrogant and undisciplined, 
the cars are poorly maintained, and the police are more concerned with 
making money off tickets and getting to the next Donut stand in time to 
meet their buddies than they are with traffic safety (I can't tell you 
how many times I have been blown off the road by a police car at triple 
digit speeds for no reason... and see them a few minutes later at a 
eatery at some exit where I am getting gas)-- why should I respect laws 
the police don't even obey???  Which prompts another question-- for the 
police package,do most car manufacturers remove the turn signal stalk?  MCS

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 10:16:16 -0500

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

>This is not bull shit. People tell me all the time they will not drive
>MORE than 10 MPH over the SPEED LIMIT in fear of getting cited. Hence,
>speed limits do work to keep MOST traffic from going too fast. I think 75
>MPH on most highways may be more than adequate, but if you make the speed
>limit 75 MPH, you will have people driving 85 MPH. That is why I think 65
>MPH is a good speed limit.

I love your (lack of) reasoning.  The law should allow a maximum of 65
mph, so that people can do 75.  Let's apply this stupid reasoning to
other laws as well... the laws against murdering a person will now
allow you to kill one, just so long as you don't kill a second.  You
will be allowed to break and enter one residence, but we'll throw the
book at you if you try a second one.

Your line of reasoning is just plain stupid.  The law should be the
law, period.  What has happened is that people don't respect speed
limits because "55 means 65" has been practiced (by clowns like you)
too long.  This makes local roads more dangerous, because people don't
respect the speed limits on them either-- places where speed limits
are more in tune with safety, like near parks, schools, and heavily
populated areas.

>Sure I can. 100 MPH is not safe! PERIOD! Unless you are on an oval track
>with other race car drivers. Even then the get into accidents. And they
>are pros with the best equipment. But the difference between going 55 MPH,
>and 155 MPH is the amount of distance you travel when switching your foot
>from the gas to the brake, the distance it takes you to stop that vehicle,
>and the amount of force when you hit the object.

Physics is physics.  That is not debatable.  Then again, that isn't
the point.  There is nothing to say that you WILL hit an object.
That's the problem with people like you-- you always say "yeah, but
when you hit something...".  The solution is simple-- don't hit
anything.  You act like it's inevitable that someone driving faster
than you would like will hit something.  Prediction of doom and gloom.
All the while, there is no proof that the driver will hit anything.

>Or travel 10 MPH over the 75 MPH limit to do 85 MPH.

Once again, you are pitting anecdotal evidence which flys in the face
of almost all known research on the subject.  You can't prove your
point, or disprove the research, using your evidence.

>There will always be people out there who break the speed limit law
>regardless of what it is set at. Go sit at any school zone. Watch how
>people blow through without care of a kid running out into traffic.
>Happens everyday in the good old USA.

That's YOUR fault.  Your "55 means 65" bullshit has led to a complete
disregard for speed limits.  People know that 55 is unreasonably slow,
and the fact that your "speed limit + 10" rule is pretty much given
hard and fast by every police agency in the country, is it any wonder?

>I think most people can determine what is safe for them. But not everyone
>can agree on the same speed. Ever get behind someone driving so slow it
>pissed you off? This was comfortable for them.

So we set the speed limit based on the lowest speed on the road?  We
don't want to piss off old farts who can't see very well, so let's
make the maximum speed limit 55 on the highway.  Let's inconvenience
94% of the public to coddle the other 6%.  That's really sensible!

>> If they aren't capable of determining
>> this, you're saying that the bureaucrats that make the speed limits up
>> (by pulling them from their assholes) *are* capable?  
>
>Most speed limits are determined by traffic studies. People still break
>those speed limits.

Bullshit.  The 55 limit was done for energy savings alone.  It has
been kept for political reasons.  The move to repeal of the NMSL has
politicians uptight, since they won't be able to control people's
actions any more (all Democrats shudder at the thought!).

>Forget about the inclement weather point. You are trying to argue that 55
>MPH speed limits are too slow. I can agree. You argue that 85 MPH is a
>good speed limit. I disagree. When weather is inclement, drive slower. The
>speed limits posted are for good weather, not inclement weather.

No shit Dick Tracy.  Every state in the US has a "reasonable and
prudent" clause which makes speed limits non-absolute.  Each and every
state realizes that speed limits are subject to "conditions
permitting."  You cannot argue that 85 wouldn't be a good limit based
on the fact that there can be inclement weather-- it is baseless.

>> The Germans do just fine with their speed 
>> limits because they have a more educated driving population, and they
>> also have some engineering in their roads that we don't have everywhere.
>
>This isn't Germany, and we do not have the Autobahn. 

No, instead we have many wide-open, straight highways that make the
autobahns look like goat trails.  And we have just about the lowest
speed limit in the world.

>> There are State Troupers travelling the roads constantly,
>> so any debris will be spotted and taken care of promptly. 

>WRONG! The debris may be taken care, but not always promptly. In some
>areas, it may be as short/long as an hour before a Trooper drives down a
>stretch of road. You think there are Troopers every mile? I am a Trooper
>and can honestly say that it can take a long time before debris is
>removed. I am sure you have seen rubber from a blown tire on the road
>before. Most people have. The rubber usually comes from a truck tractor.
>Not only that, but you may be driving behind the truck tractor when the
>tire blows. No Trooper in the world could clean up that debris before you
>hit it.

This is not suprising-- they most often are too busy shooting radar to
worry about highway safety.

>Sure they did. But the point is, the chances of losing control of your
>vehicle is less at lower speeds. I know when I drive over a pothole at
>higher speeds, my car has a tendecy to bounce, shake, swerve, etc... more
>than at lower speeds. Again, common sense.

Extrapolating your point, we find that not travelling at all reduces
the chances of losing control.  There is always a risk, but you seem
to think that there is a magic number somewhere, based on how you
feel.  Traffic engineers attempt to find that point using sound
engineering principles, and you say they are wrong.

>It is not a tax. You do not have to pay a speeding fine unless you speed.
>If you don't speed, you don't get fined. Nice try. 

Unreasonably low limits caused 94% of all New Yorkers to exceed the
speed limit.  It may not be a tax, but speed limits are, without a
doubt, set with revenue enhancement in mind, not safety.

-JPC

-- 
=============================================================================
John P. Curcio  [email-masked]  Philips Labs  Briarcliff Manor, NY
                "FOSTERS:  Australian for Bud, mate!!"
   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 10:16:16 -0500

-JPC

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 10:16:16 -0500

-JPC

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 10:16:16 -0500

-JPC

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:34:21 -0500

In article <bpita.815072918@toon>, [email-masked] (Bob Pitas) wrote:

> [email-masked] (Randy) writes:
> 
> >In article <[email-masked]>,
> >[email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:
> 
> >> >highway, and would count the cars coming through the radar screen. Even
> >> >though motorists were warned by other motorists going the opposite
> >> >direction, or even by radar detectors, the average speed on the 55 MPH
> >> >highway was 65. 
> >> >
> >> >People tend to do approx. 10 MPH over the speed limit. Regardless wether
> >> >it is a 35 MPH, 45 MPH, or 55MPH zone. I have seen this first hand.
> >> 
> >> No, that is wrong.  People will drive at whatever speed they feel
comfortable
> >> for the conditions.  If the speedlimit were 100MPH people would not drive
> >> 110.  All you have to do is look at any highway during a snow storm
and even
> >> though it is legal to drive 55, very few if any are going that fast. 
People
> >> do slow down when the conditions warrant it.  Not all people are as stupid
> >> as you make them out to be.  Almost every single highway has a speed limit
> >> that is well below the speeds it was designed to handle.  That is why your
> >> idea of a study is flawed to begin with.
> 
> >No, you are wrong. People will drive at what they think they can get away
> >with. This is usually 10 MPH over the speed limit as long as it is safe.
> 
> This is bullshit.  There are particular situations that make 10MPH over the
> limit a "magic number", but it only applies *up to* the speed that people
> would travel if there weren't any speed limits at all.

> For instance, in alot of places (like Massachusetts) you get $50 for the first
> 10MPH over the limit, and $1/MPH over that.  Up until 10MPH over, it's not
> that expensive, but it gets expensive FAST after that.  In addition, alot
> of LEOs will not pull someone over on a highway unless they're going >10MPH
> over the limit.  In fact on the Mass Pike, someone high up in the State
> Police hierarchy once stated outright that officers will not pull anyone over
> if they are going <10MPH over the limit...

In this paragraph you just proved my point. You agree that people will not
do more than 10 MPH due to officers not pulling them over. So what is your
argument?

> But, if there were no limits, people would travel at whatever speed they 
> were comfortable.  

And if they are comfortable at 55 MPH, this makes for a dangerous
situation when others drive faster.

> If the limit were 75MPH, people who are comfortable 
> going 65 would not go 75MPH, which is faster then they are
> comfortable.

Mostly, but in high volume situations where the flow is about 75 MPH, the
person may feel that s/he needs to drive faster.

> That makes no sense.  I think the problem is that we still
> haven't raised the limit high enough to get to the point where people
> are comfortable.  

Some people are comfortable with the 55 MPH, some are comfortable with 65 MPH. 

> I think somewhere around 85MPH would be nice...  

You would. That is too fast. 65 MPH speed limits are good.
> That's
> the speed that I travel when the conditions are perfect.  

Until you get into that unavoidable accident and kill yourself or someone else.

> When it rains
> or snows, I slow way down, usually slower than prevailing traffic, just
> because I know that my car (with wide tires and crappy brakes) doesn't
> handle well in either of these conditions.  

Even cars with the best tires and brakes can have a bad driver behind the
wheel. If you are driving on ice, 1 MPH could be too fast. Ever see how
far a car slides when you lock the brakes up on ice at 1 MPH?

> Of course when I slow down,
> I stay in the rightmost lane 

All traffic should stay in the right lane except when PASSING. That is
what the left lane is for. PASSING.
> except to pass (which I always do anyways,
> even if I'm going 85MPH) 

Glad you stay in the left lane.

> and make sure that I don't impede anyone else's
> progress.  

I seriously doubt you are impeding anyone else's progress when you are
driving 85 MPH.

> It would be nice if people would extend the same courtesy
> to me when conditions are perfect!

Wishful thinking.
> >100 MPH is not safe. 
> 
> You cannot make a generalization like this.  100MPH is most definitely safe
> on certain roads in the US.  Hell, there were no night-time speed limits
> in certain places in the western US for years, since it was so flat and
> straight that it was *really* hard to be suprised by anything, short of
> a mechanical failure, which will probably screw you up whether you're 
> going 55MPH or 155MPH...

I forget what state it was in, but there was multiple accidents with
multiple fatalities due to sudden fog. I think 11 people died. You cannot
predict what will happen. Due to the original accident, more accidents
occurred due to motorists not being able to stop in time. This was on a 55
MPH highway in which most cars were travelling 65 MPH. What do you think
your car bolting at 100 MPH would have done? Don't forget, you may be able
to drive 100 MPH, but there are other people on the road that can't/won't
drive 100 MPH. Don't jeopardize their lives just because you want to shave
some travel time off of your trip. Slow down and enjoy the scenery. 

> >                       Most people will never break the 100 MPH mark. I am
> >referring to the 55 and 65 MPH speed limits that most people drive 10
> >over. 
> 
> As I said above, that's only because the 55MPH and 65MPH limits still haven't
> gotten us into a comfort zone.  

Who's comfort zone? Yours? 

> Maybe if they were 75MPH, then people would
> be comfortable and stop breaking the (ludicrous) speed limit laws.  

> Until
> people can travel at a speed at which they're comfortable, though, they
> will never observe the law 100% of the time...

> >        As far as driving in inclement weather, most drivers slow down for
> >conditions. That is plain common sense. But we are not talking about
> >inclement weather, so why did you even bring this up? 
> 
> And going 85MPH is just as much a matter of common sense when the conditions
> are perfect as slowing down is when conditions aren't perfect.  The other
> person was trying to make a point with the inclement weather point, which
> you evidently don't comprehend.  

No, I comprehend just fine what he was trying to convey. The fact is, we
were talking about reasonable speed limits during inclement weather. Speed
limits in bad weather would be a whole new thread.

> If you trust motorists to use their "common
> sense" (your words here) to slow down in inclement weather, which I agree
> with, why do you suddenly not trust them when conditions are perfect???

I trust MOST motorists to use common sense. But even though they slow
down, they are not necessarily driving slow enough for existing
conditions.

> Are people not qualified to determine what speed their cars are capable of
> safely travelling in perfect conditions, which I would say they drive far
> more often than inclement conditions?  

> Do you see why the
> writer made the inclement weather point now???

> >                                                       As far as every
> >single highway having a speed limit lower than what it was designed for,
> >where did you get this? Did you go to every department and ask them what
> >speed each of the millions of roads were designed for? And how do you know
> >the speed limits are "well below the speeds it was designed to handle"? 
> 
> Maybe you're not aware of this, but the highway infrastructure of the
> United States was a very carefully planned, nationally standardized
> project to meet certain criteria.  

Find this and show it to me.

> I'm not sure of the exact specifications,
> but one of them was for 50's technology military vehicles to be able to
> safely travel non-stop at some speed, which I'm pretty sure was around
> 80MPH for vehicles that were capable of achieving that speed.  
> All the
> highways were designed and built with these guidelines in mind.  
> If you
> do a strict engineering study on the roads, they are actually designed
> (as far as turn radius, rate of climb/descent, width, smoothness, etc)
> for 50's technology vehicles to go between 75MPH and 90MPH.  These
> are vehicles with drum brakes, bias-ply tires, old-tech suspensions, no
> anti-lock brakes or traction control, and in most cases not even
> *seat belts*!  Don't you think that even if the people driving the
> cars didn't change (which is not, in itself, a given) the performance
> of the cars has improved enough to warrant even higher speed limits???
> I'm saying limits higher then the were in the 60s, not higher then
> they are now, since they are now *far* to low...

Are you talking about interstate/intrastate highways? State highways? Many
highways have curves with a critical speed less than 80 MPH now.

> >                                                                         My
> >idea of a study was not flawed. My study was to determing what speeds
> >people were travelling at in my jurisdiction. How is that flawed?
> 
> >> What you see is not always the way things are.  Remember the first time
> >> you saw a magician and were so impressed.  After all the tricks were
pointed
> >> out you weren't wquite as impressed.  I think you are missing alot.  What
> >> do you know about road design and safety?  Are you a traffic engineer?
> 
> >I know more about road design and safety than you obviously do. But of
> >course what I was taught must be wrong since it contradicts you. You the
> >all knowing traffic guru. Why bring magic into this? Magic is based on
> >illusion, traffic accidents are not illusions. 
> 
> I wouldn't say you know *that* much about road design considering the fact
> that you made such a blanket statement about safety, which you don't seem
> to know much about either...  

Talk about making a blanket statement. You do not know what my
qualifications are. I may or may not know more about traffic safety than
you, but I am willing to be that my training and experience makes me more
knowledgeable than you.

> Some major highways in New England (like I95) have fences on the sides
> of the roads to keep animals off the roads, so you don't have to worry
> about that.  

If the fences are high enough, then no worries. But remember that animals
can get on the highway at the same location that vehicles enter.

> failures happen, to be sure, but there's really no way to minimize that
> besides not driving at all.  If you snap an axle and a wheel comes off,
> the wreck is going to be just as bad whether you're going 65 or 85MPH...

WRONG! The wreck is going to be far worse at a faster speed. Common sense
(my words) here.

> >> Reasonable is what is determined after a study by road and traffic
engineers.
> >> As a starting point most of the interstates that were around before 1974
> >> were posted at 75mph.  That should be a minimum starting point.  In the
> >> 20 year that have gone by both roads and cars have improved alot so the 
> >> more realistic limit would be higher than that.  You don't have to have all
> >> the answers as long as you know how get the right answers the right way
> >> based on unbiased facts.
> 
> >75 MPH as a minimum starting point? Why not just go all out and make it
> >125 MPH? Just because roads and cars have improved, does not mean that
> >drivers have improved. Not to mention the unexpected pot hole, deer
> >jumping out in front of you, disabled motorist in the road, rubber from a
> >truck tractor trailer laying in the road, etc... Technically, all roads
> >could handle a car doing 150 MPH, but how long to stop that car? How far
> >does the car travel during the reaction time? 
> 
> And they didn't have pot holes, deer, disabled motorists and retreads back
> before '74?

> Back before '74 it was scientifically determined that the cars of that
> time (with their drum brakes, shitty tires, sub-standard lighting systems)
> could handle 75MPH.  

I would love to see this study. I have yet to see how a lighting system
effects the speed of a vehicle.

> It should be obvious to anyone that far more 
> technologically advanced cars will be able to safely travel faster then
> that, so why are the speed limits still way below what they were 25 years
> ago? 

Because not everyone can drive at faster speeds. COMMON SENSE! It does not
matter how fast the car can go when you have someone that can not drive it
safely.

> This is a retorical question, obviously, because the reason is so
> that the insurance companies can get rich and certain municipalities can
> use speed limits as a road-use tax.

-----------------                                                            

> >> Alex     __O    '86 Dodge Omni GLH
Turbo                                    
> >>        _-\<,_   '87 Alfa Romeo
Milano                                       
> >>       (_)/ (_)  '88 Vitus/Dura-Ace
> >-- 
> >Randy
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        / _ \         "Now I've found some understanding            Bob Pitas
>       /    /USH       of the only world that we see"           [email-masked]
>      / /| \                             - Neil Peart         (Cambridge, MA)
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Pitas)
Date: 1 Nov 1995 16:56:28 -0500

>MPH is a good speed limit.

If you put the speed up to 75MPH then people who are comfortable at 75MPH will
drive 75MPH and people that are comfortable at 85MPH will drive 85MPH.  But
people who are comfortable driving 90MPH will drive 85MPH too, because it's
too expensive to drive at the speed they should be allowed to drive, so they
limit their losses by driving 85MPH.

>do more than 10 MPH due to officers not pulling them over. So what is your

Your point, as I understood it, was that no matter what speed you set as the
limit, people would go 10MPH over it.  That's *still* bullshit, whether you
accept it or not.  People will go whatever speed their comfortable driving,
but if that's more than 10MPH over the limit, then they will go 10MPH over
the limit to avoid excessive speed inforcement.

>situation when others drive faster.

Not if people are taught proper lane discipline.  The problem now is that
there are some people who will drive 55MPH *only* because they are afraid
of getting a ticket, not because they are comfortable at that speed.  They
are the ones who create the accident-causing traffic-speed deltas that make
the roads dangerous, not the other 80% of the population who are all going
75MPH.  Speed doesn't cause accidents, relative speed does, and since the
speed limits are so artificially low, there is a big speed delta between
the fastest 10% (who are travelling at a reasonable and comfortable speed
for the conditions) and the slowest 10% (who are toodling along in a 
daze because they are bored out of their minds and are only going that
slow because their afraid of getting a ticket).

>person may feel that s/he needs to drive faster.

There is no research that I've seen to support this.  If you can find some,
I'd love to see it.  People will sometimes increase their speed to where
they are comfortable (from the speed where they think they won't get a 
ticket) if they perceive a lower chance of getting a ticket due to the
faster car in front of them flushing out any revenue-enhancement officers
waiting in speed traps.

>Some people are comfortable with the 55 MPH, some are comfortable with 65 MPH. 

And some people are comfortable with 120MPH.  I'm not, but some people may be.
If that person is alone on a deserted, smooth, well-maintained road at 2am,
why should they have to travel at 85MPH, which is where I'm comfortable???
Or, even worse, at 55MPH where just about anyone is lulled into inattentiveness!

>You would. That is too fast. 65 MPH speed limits are good.

Do you realize how childish your argument sounds?  "That is too fast."???
Would you care to back that up at all?  Has it ever occurred to you that
if that's too fast for you then you can just *not go that fast*?  Why do
you insist on making the speed *limits* be catered to the lowest
denominator???  That's ridiculous!  "65 MPH speed limits are good."???
That is just some arbitrary number, which people ignore anyway.

>Until you get into that unavoidable accident and kill yourself or someone else.

If I'm in an accident that is unavoidable at 85MPH, then more than likely
it would have been unavoidable at 65MPH too.  And I think the fact that
I'm comfortable at 85MPH *means* that I think I can see possible threats
in time to react to them, which means such things as not outrunning your
own headlights, not flying around blind corners, not flying over hills,
not following to closely, etc...  If you're only comfortable at 65MPH
then fucking fantastic - you go that fast.  What's that got to do with
me though???

>far a car slides when you lock the brakes up on ice at 1 MPH?

So you've just proven my point exactly - each driver knows their own car,
so they should be empowered to choose their own speed, based upon the 
current conditions.  If you're in a hot car and are a shitty driver,
then you drive slower than a hot driver in a hot car.  What's so
difficult about this concept?  I don't see why you keep dwelling on the
bad-driver thing.  If you're a bad driver then you drive slower.  If
you're a bad driver, then you've probably already seen situations where
you did something that made you uncomfortable, so you drove slower, until
you found a speed you were comfortable at.  It's that simple.  It's
kinda like Driver Darwinism or something...

>what the left lane is for. PASSING.

That's what we need to teach - lane discipline.  I would hazard a guess
that if for one month cops stopped enforcing speed limits and instead
pulled people over for "failure to stay right" or "failure to properly
signal" that the accident statistics would show decrease at an even
sharper rate then they are due to improved automobile technology...

You do realize, don't you, that accident statistics have shown a steady
decrease over the entire history of automobiles.  To me this statistic
shows that automobile technology has increased while driver ability has
stayed the same or slightly improved, and conditions (notably congestion
and #miles travelled) have gotten slightly worse.  I'm sure you can interprete
this fact a million different ways, but the fact is that there has never
been an increase in the number of accidents connected to raising speed
limits, which to me experimentally disproves your hypothesis that 
faster is automatically more dangerous.

>Glad you stay in the left lane.

???  I said (and I quote) "Of course when I slow down, I stay in the 
rightmost lane except to pass (which I always do anyways, even if 
I'm going 85MPH)"  Maybe this sentence isn't clear but what I said
was that I stay in the right lane except to pass regardless of my
speed, because there is always the possibility of someone going 
faster then I am...

>I seriously doubt you are impeding anyone else's progress when you are

You'd be suprised.  On Rt 95 southbound during the afternoon rush hour,
traffic routinely flows at 75-85, and there are some people who take
advantage of the lack of speed-traps to go slightly faster.  If I were
one of those assholes who goes 85MPH in the left lane and figures that
it's "fast enough", then I'd be impeding their progress, which I have
no business doing...

>Wishful thinking.

Yeah well, that's because we have shitty driver education and shitty
law enforcement that only pay attention to the high-income offenses
like speeding which have little correlation with safety.

>and the amount of force when you hit the object.

Obviously, and if you hit a brick wall at 65MPH you're a pancake just as
much as if you were going 85MPH.  If you're talking about hitting debris
in the road that this is completely dependant on the car, the driver,
and the conditions - you can't make any generalizations about this at
all.  The driver knows what type of distance they need to stop their
particular car, and they're the only people who can make this 
determination.  If you have a car that can't stop well, you don't go
as fast.  Believe it or not, most people have a decent idea how long it
takes their car to stop, and drive accordingly.
As far as hitting other cars on the road, it's the relative speed
that causes dangerous situations.  A road where all cars are going
75MPH is safer than a road where 20% of the cars are going 55MPH and
80% of the cars are going 65MPH...

>your car bolting at 100 MPH would have done? 

???  It doesn't matter how fast the people were travelling - they obviously
weren't paying attention.  If the person travelling 100MPH was paying attention
and not out-driving his headlights or field of vision, then he would
have stopped before even hitting the fog, and would have been *safer*
then the people going 55MPH, because at 100MPH, you're attention is
on the road, not looking around enjoying the scenery...

>                                              Don't forget, you may be able

It's exactly this "enjoy the scenery" attitude that makes driving dangerous!
If people are forced to "enjoy the scenery" because their attention is
flawed due to boredom caused by travelling slower then they are comfortable,
they they are being more dangerous then an attentive driver going faster!
If you want to be safer, drive at a speed where your attention is on the
road!  I'd rather be on the road with a driver going 100MPH and paying
attention then someone going 55MPH with their head in the clouds because
55MPH bores them to sleep...

>Who's comfort zone? Yours? 

Well, obviously almost everyone's comfort zone.  If people's comfort zones were
55MPH or 65MPH as you keep saying, then people wouldn't break the limits, now
would they?  But they do.  As a matter of fact, almost everyone does.  There's
a reason for that - the limits are wrong.

>Or travel 10 MPH over the 75 MPH limit to do 85 MPH.

If there is a large segment of the driving population that is comfortable
driving 85MPH, then the damn limit should be 85MPH.  Basically it should
be whatever allows the majority of drivers to drive in their comfort zones
without breaking the law.  The "85% rule" for setting speed limits would
be a fair way to figure out what the limits would be, as long as the
drivers participating in the 85th percentile analysis were told that
they can drive at whatever speed they are comfortable.  You can't do
a study on a public road where the speed limit is 65MPH to see how fast
people would normally drive, because the majority of drivers are driving
slower then they'd like to for fear of getting a ticket.

>Happens everyday in the good old USA.

That's true that you will always find someone to break the law, but if
90% of the population is breaking it, then the law is wrong, not the
population.  Laws are made to benefit the majority of the population.
The majority of the population wants higher speed limits, otherwise
they wouldn't break the current limits...

>limits in bad weather would be a whole new thread.

You *didn't* understand why the other person brought up inclement weather.
"Perfect" is just another condition in a list of conditions which drivers 
must deal with.  A speed limit is the upper limit, the maximum speed at
which you can travel, if you're comfortable at that speed, when the
conditions are perfect.  The reason the other person brought up inclement
weather is to point out that people are able to make the decision to travel
at a reasonable speed during inclement weather, even if that speed happens
to be under the posted speed limit.  This leads to the assertion that
people would travel under the posted limit even in perfect conditions, if
they weren't comfortable at that limit.  But if people were comfortable
at that limit, then they should be able to drive at the speed that they
are comfortable!

>down, they are not necessarily driving slow enough for existing

So what?  This is going to be true no matter what the *maximum* speed limit
is...  If you're on a sheet of black ice, who cares if the limit is 55MPH
or 155MPH?  Are you saying that if the limit were 155MPH that people would
go faster on black ice???  I hope not!  Now carry this into the condition
"Perfect".  If a person is comfortable at 65MPH in "Perfect" conditions,
and the speed limit becomes 155MPH, are they going to go 155MPH?  Obviously
not!  There are always going to be people that should be going 5MPH slower
then they are, but there aren't going to be more of them if the speed limit
goes up...

>pissed you off? This was comfortable for them.

Then that's fine, that doesn't piss me off when people are going slow in
front of me on a one lane road, because I realize that there's nothing they
can do.  I can just pass them in the first passing zone we get to.  On
the other hand, if someone is in the left lane going the same speed as
the person next to them in the right lane, you're damn right that pisses
me off!
This discussion is getting off-subject here, because we were talking about
speed limits on multi-lane highways - at least I thought we were!  :^)
On a multi-lane highway, in a perfect world, you'd never have to wait
behind anyone, because people would only come left to pass when they could
do so without slowing the person behind them down, so people could travel
at whatever speed they wanted to without impeding others or being pressured
into going faster then they were comfortable.  Of course this perfect world
would require different driver's education and a major overhaul of the way
LEOs enforce traffic laws, but these things would come naturally if the
speed limits were changed over time...

>Most speed limits are determined by traffic studies. People still break

That is complete and utter bullshit.  If you look at the actual traffic
studies of most highways, the limits put forth by the engineers are *not*
the speed limits posted on the roads.  In most cases, they aren't even
close.  The bureaucrats put artificially low speed limits on highways
that are engineered for speeds 10-20MPH over the posted limits...
AND, the "traffic studies" are taken with artificially low limits already
on the roads, so you get an extremely biased study, which supports
the lower speed limits.

>Find this and show it to me.

Hmmm.  That would be tough since I don't remember the exact reference.
I submit, I won't be able to find an exact quotation for this since
I think it was something I read in Popular Science or something when
they were talking about the engineering that went into the highway
system, and the incredible design issues that are addressed which we
most people would never even think twice about.  I suppose I could go
check the Library of Congress WWW site to look for a bill in the
50s (if that much history is on line) that dealt with highway 
infrastructure...  I'll try to find it...

>highways have curves with a critical speed less than 80 MPH now.

And on many there are straights that go for 50 miles without a single curve,
so what's your point?  If there is a engineering limit, then obviously the
speed limits should reflect that.  But the engineering limits back then were
for something like .5 lateral Gs, which is pretty low for current technology
vehicles.  And remember, if you don't feel comfortable going around a corner
at a particular speed, then slow down.  It's as simple as that.

>you, but I am willing to be that my training and experience makes me more

Well, my dad can beat up your dad.  This isn't going to get us anywhere.
I can only give my opinions based on facts that I have been exposed to,
and the same goes for you.  I think that sometimes people are exposed to
biased facts, though, and don't have the right information to formulate
a reasonable opinion.  For instance, LEOs are given information that
is slanted towards the safety-nazi side of the house, since that's what
produces the most revenue for the local municipality...

>can get on the highway at the same location that vehicles enter.

That is true, but I wouldn't expect this to happen very often.  Still,
good point.

>tire blows. No Trooper in the world could clean up that debris before you

That may be true, but if you can't see something in the road big enough
to do damage to your car in time to either change lanes to avoid it
or brake, then you're going to fast for conditions.  There have been
literally dozens of times when I've been going 85MPH or more and seen
retreads in the road, and changed lanes safely with time to spare.  
This is possible because my attention was on nothing but the road 
(because I was driving at a speed that challenged my senses enough to
avoid boredom) and because I wasn't out-driving my headlights.  I can't
think of a single situation where something has been in the road
and I haven't seen it in time to avoid it...  Maybe I'm just lucky, but
as person who used to commute 50+ miles per day each way, once in
the early morning and once late at night, I think I've had a bit of
experience driving on highways.

>WRONG! The wreck is going to be far worse at a faster speed. Common sense

Why?  Like I said before, hitting a wall at 65MPH or 85MPH you're toast.
If you can't recover control of the car from a mechanical failure at 85MPH,
you probably wouldn't be able to do it at 65 either...  Or maybe it's
more accurate to say that a person who is actually comfortable travelling
at 85MPH has as good a chance of recovering control of the vehicle after
a failure while going 85MPH as a person who's comfortable at 65MPH having
a failure at 65MPH...

>than at lower speeds. Again, common sense.

So you know the limits of your vehicle, so just drive at that speed.  I
know the limits of mine, so I'll drive at the speed that I'm comfortable.
My car doesn't go nuts when I hit a pothole at higher speed.  It actually
feels more stable at 85MPH then 65MPH because of the aerodynamics involved.
I usually don't *hit* potholes on the highway, because I'm always looking 
for them and try to avoid them, since my suspension is so stiff that
the screws will unscrew themselves if I hit too many potholes!  :^)

>effects the speed of a vehicle.

???  You can't tell me that you are a trouper and have never heard of
"out-driving your headlights"!  OK, here's a little experiment for you -
let's both get out on the highway at night and start driving at 55MPH.
I'll have my halogen high-beams and driving lights on, and you get to
stick your arm out the window and shine a flashlight down the road.
Who's going to be able to react quicker to an obsticle in the road?
Now do you understand why lighting-system improvements have increased
the safety of cars?

>matter how fast the car can go when you have someone that can not drive it

Argh!  So if you're not comfortable driving at a certain speed, then go
*slower*!!!  Having an 85MPH speed limit DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE HAS TO
DRIVE 85MPH!!!  Why can't you understand that?  If you're driving on black
ice, do you feel that you have to drive 55MPH because the rectangular white
sign tells you to?

>If you don't speed, you don't get fined. Nice try. 

I won't even get into the tickets I've gotten by asshole cops who have
literally told me "You're a kid in a Mustang, I'll give you any ticket
I want and who is the judge going to believe?".  And that's with
me being polite to the slimey bastard....

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 3 Nov 1995 17:09:13 GMT

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

>Not everyone has a radar detector. In fact. the majority of the people I
>stop, do not have one. 

The reason being that if they had a radar detector, they probably wouldn't
have been stopped.

>> >100 MPH is not safe. 
>> Under some conditions 100 MPH is safe.
>Such as?

Any Interstates straight section of road when the weather is good and the
traffic is light.  

>> >over. As far as driving in inclement weather, most drivers slow down for
>> >conditions. That is plain common sense. 
>> 
>> You seem to be saying that drivers have common sense and can recognize
>> when it is smart to slow down 
>
>Most.
>

We agree then.  Since most are smart we should make laws that apply to most.
The current NMSL does not apply to most, or even close to being most.  The
number of people who regularly ignore the law is well over 3/4 of the people
on the road.

>I am not pushing 55 MPH speed limits. That is too slow. But I do believe
>there should be speed limits to keep the faster traffic from going too
>fast. Not everyone can or wants to drive 85 MPH.

So what SL do you propose and why?  Most people will not drive faster than 
they feel comfortable at, so why impose artificial limits?  If there is
someone who is obviously driving above the limits of their driving skills
of their car they can easily be pulled over for driving in an unsafe manner.
If safety is the main concern, and it obviously isn't because of the way 
the systme currently works, then upping the limits substantially should not
be of any real concern.

>
>> These same drivers who have enough common
>> sense to slow down when the weather warrants it can also slow down when 
>> other conditions require it too.  They don't suddenly acqure and loose 
>> common sense with the weather.
>
>Take the weather factor out. If you have people that feel comfortable
>driving at 65 MPH, and you have people who feel comfortable driving at 100
>MPH, what should the speed limit be? That is a 35 MPH hour difference. 

How many people are going 100 and how many are going 65?  That information
is necessary before making any kind of suggestion.  It is possible to have
a 35mph difference safely as long as people are paying attention.  I wouldn't
want there being such a large speed difference initially.  After people have
gotten use to the higher speeds then the speed limits could be raised.  If
there is no lane discipline, and the necessary enforcement that goes with it
then you cannot safely have such large speed differentials.  I don't think 
that 100mph would be a good starting point, but 85mph sounds reasonable
considering the actual speed I have observed on the road. 

>
>> >But we are not talking about
>> We are discussing whether drivers know when they need to slow down.  
>
>Most drivers do.
>

If you agree that most drivers do then why do you think drivers will always
go SL + 10 .  There is a point at which the SL will actually be the limit
for most drivers if it is set properly.

>> Because
>> the current artificially low speed limits do not allow a realistic chance 
>> at letting a driver use his judgment to adjust his speed as conditions 
>> change we need to use circumstances that do allow the average driver to
>> demonstrate their prudent judgement.  Inclement weather provides those 
>> conditions.  That is why I brought it up.
>
>But we are talking about speed limits that were not set for bad weather.

It doesn't matter like I said people don't suddenly lose their good 
judgement as soon as the weather gets better.  It's not a matter of bad
weather limits but wether people can demonstrate good judgement.  Poor
weather conditions are the only time this can be demonstrated under the
current laws.

>> Very simple.  The highway system was designed back way back when in ancient
>> times, before 1970.  Back then the roads were posted at 75mph and this 
>> was based on the design of the road and the cars in use then.  
>
>I must research this, but it still does not change the fact that the
>faster you, the more dangerous it is.

Really is that a fact.  Where did you get this from.  All of a sudden when I
exceed a certain speed I will automatically blow up and die???

>> You don't have to go to every department to ask them.  Roads have to be
>> built to certain standards.  Assuming the roads meets those minimum 
>> standards then you can make an accurate generalization.
>
>Not all roads are built to those standards. And even if they are, they are
>not all kept to those standards. Pennsylvania has the worst roads in the
>country.

No, not all roads, but most are.  Also any road that requires any kind of
federal govenrment funding, which is almost everysingle project, must meet
those minimum standards.  I live in NYC, and I've been in Penn too, so I
have to disagree that Penn has the worst roads.  I think NYC would be at 
least one notch lower than Penn.

>> It is flawed because you are saying that people will always travel the 
>> speed limit plus 10mph. 
>
>This is based on what people tell me, and what I have observed. Not
>everyone will do > 10 MPH over the speed limit.

Objection.  Hearsay! :)  Right now the majority of people will do over
10+ on interstates posted at 55.  Drive around in a civilian type car and
see what most people drive at.

>> Unless you vary the speed limit enough to check 
>> the extremes, or close to the extremes, your study is flawed.  
>
>I have performed my study in 35, 45, and 55 MPH zones. I did not perform
>any in a school zone.

What about higher speeds?  Those are the ones we are interested in.  I happen
to think that most roads posted at less than 55 are usually fairly posted
because the conditions warrant it.  That is why for the lower speeds your
observations may be right, but for the roads posted 55 and higher your 
observations do not apply.  Until you do test at higher speeds then your
observations do not apply to those higher speeds.  

>
>> In order to
>> prove your point you should have data that supports your hypothesis.  You 
>> only have data that is centered around 55mph. 
>
>Read above.

Read my above reply.  You still haven't got any data to prove that your 
hypothesis applies to speeds above 55, that is what we are discussing here.

>I have no second thoughts as I do not write speeding violations. Unless
>they are travelling way over the speed limit. I never take a radar set
>out.  If I am driving and observe someone too fast, I clock him with my
>vehicle. Most times they are just given a warning. Then I tell them that,
>all that time they saved by speeding, was just lost when I stopped them.
>Then I tell them they got off easy by not getting cited. This usually
>slows them down. Because now they know how easy it would be for them to
>get caught. The next Trooper might not let them go with a warning.

This is exactly what is wrong with the law.  The speed limit is so low that
the trooper can pretty much stop anybody on the road and at their 
discretion decide to let them go or not.  As everyone knows from what we
have seen on TV and read in the papers not all policeman are unbiased when
using this discretion.  There should be a reasonable limit and then it 
should be uniformly enforced.  

>So regardless of which course I was taught, you automatically know whether
>it is right or wrong? How do you know what is right and wrong?

No, I won't know that, but I can get an idea if it was biased or not.

>> Accidents are not illusions, but manipulating statistics to prove your point
>> is an act of illusion.  
>
>I have no reason to manipulate anything. I benefit nothing from it.

I think you do benefit.  Since the limit is so low and uniformly ignored
this allows you to pretty much write tickets whenever you feel the need to
write more tickets.  I'm sure that there is a point that if you don't write
enough tickets someone whill start to wonder what is wrong.  Conversely if
you write alot of tickets one of the revenue guys will come around praising
you very highly.  If your department raises a substantial amount of money
at some point someone in your department will get the bright idea to ask 
that their budget be raised so that they can improve "safety" on the road
which in turn usually translates to more revenue generating equpment, read
radar equipment.  That is how you benefit.

>> >125 MPH? 
>> I have no problem with a 125MPH limit, as long as the rules of the road are
>> followed.  
>
>The rules of the road are not followed now.

Which ones are you refering to?  All the non-speed related laws are not 
followed as closely as they should because they are not being enforced as
well as they should be.  More effort is put on speed enforcement than on 
other more safety related offenses like passing on the right, not signaling
lane changes and using the left lane as a lane of travel as opposed to a
passing lane which is what it was designed for.

>
>> It is a limit, not a recommended speed.  
>
>Far too high of a limit.

How did you come to this conclusion.  Its an upper LIMIT, not a recommendation.
As a limit is is a speed which under SOME conditions SOME people can safely
travel at.

>
>> Some drivers and their
>> cars can handle that speed, others can't.  
>
>I agree.

If you agree then why not use that as a limit?

>
>> I personally would not feel 
>> comfortable travelling at 125MPH in my Omni, but I might in the Alfa.
>
>But imagine if you are in your Omni putting along when someone in an Alfa
>is doing 125 MPH. Not everyone has an Alfa. Not all Alfa's are in prime
>condition.

I don't cruise in the left lane, so if an Alfa, or any other car for that 
matter, wants to cruise by they can safely do so.  I pay attention to what
is happening on the road at all times regardless of the car I am driving.
There are quite a few cars on the road nowadays that will safely cruise at
those really high speeds.

>I don't recommend penalizing anyone that does not deserve it. A happy
>medium should be met for ALL drivers. The drivers that are slow, and the
>drivers that are fast. The good drivers, the bad drivers. As I said
>before, 55 MPH is a bit slow, but 100 MPH is too fast.

I agree there should be a happy medium, but you haven't recommended one yet.
Use sound engineering principles to reach this medium and you will make 
most people happy.  I think 100mph, initially, would be high too, but 85mph
would be about right.

>> If your car crashes after hitting a pothole then there is a serious problem
>> with your car or your definition of a pot hole.  
>
>It happens. If your front tire hits a pot hole at a higher speed, the car
>tends to rotate and the tires lose traction. I can show you accident

Like I said you have some serious suspension problems.  The suspension on
my Omni is pretty primitive and my car just makes a loud thunk, which can be
heard and felt, but it keeps going where I point it.  My car does not rotate
or deviate much from where it was going before the pothole encounter.   

>reports with statements from the drivers stating same. I can show you

I doubt you can trust the statement of a driver who just had an accident
because they hit a pothole.  They obviously were not paying attention and
were startled by the noise and panicked.

>pictures of the skid marks from point of impact (pothole). Not to mention,
>that blow outs are more common after hitting a pot hole at a higher speed.

Once again if your tire blows because of a pothole there was a problem with
your tires or it was something much bigger than a pothole.

>
>So what about other vehicles?
>

My car is pretty much bottom of the line suspension wise so I don't think 
there are cars much worse, unless they have been neglected and thats a
different unrelated matter.

>> If a deer jumps out in front of you there is not much you can do. 
>
>Even less you can do at higher speeds.

Doing nothing at 55 and doing nothing at 85 is still doing nothing.

>
>> Every decent driver knows to drive carefully enough to allow a certain
>> cushion for the unknown on public roads.  
>
>But you can't know the condition of the all the roads all the time. The
>road you drove on yesterday, may have changed since then.

No you can't know the condition of all roads, but you make certain 
assumptions.  Sink holes big enough to swallow a truck happen, but you don't
drive around expecting them.  Trucks flip, swerve, and jackknife enough 
that you should keep a watchful eye on trucks.  I personally try never to 
avoid being near trucks on the road.  I like to keep them well behind me 
so that if something does happen it will all be behind me.

>
>Now what if they truck is driving 55 MPH and jack knifes in front of you
>as you are travelling 100 MPH? Think you can stop in time? You are going
>45 MPH faster than the truck.

I don't drive 100mph behind trucks.  I approach with caution and then try 
to pass them as quickly as I can.  If I were traveling at that speed then 
I wouldn't be in the same lane and I would keep an eye out for a shoulder 
or other lane to avoid the truck.  A 45 mph speed differential is quite
high and I almost never encounter it.  Also depending on the incident, 
stopping may not be the best thing to do.  Speeding up to get around the
truck might be the safer option.  If the incident occurs when I am really 
close to the truck and he doesn't hit me right at the point of jacknifin then
speeding up is probably the better option.  Truck don't jacknife for no
reason.  Usually something, that can be spotted in advance, happens and 
then they jacknife.  It is not a spontaneous thing that just happens out 
of the blue to trucks.

>> I look far down the road, a truck on its side is hard to miss.  All the 
>> things you mention are easily avoided.
>
>You may be able to avoid it, but what about the car behind you that is
>going too fast when you apply your brakes?

The car behind me is not really not one I can control.  I try to force a
safe driving distance between us by speeding up, assuming he does not want
to pass because if he did then I would not be in front of him.  It's nice
having a car that can accelerate at highway speeds. :)

>I should have stated that in a straight line, all roads could handle that
>great a speed. Unless the road is made of dirt.

Agreed.  The more you write the more it seems we agree on more things.

-----------------                                                             
Alex     __O    '86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo                                    
       _-\<,_   '87 Alfa Romeo Milano                                       
      (_)/ (_)  '88 Vitus/Dura-Ace

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian varine)
Date: 24 Oct 1995 14:44:44 +0000

> > > matter what the speed limit is, people are still going to speed.
> > > Limits just help keep the people at a safer speed.
> > 
> > That is patently FALSE.  I challenge you to produce even a single
> > unbiased study that backs up your mistaken opinion.
> 
> How about the fact that when I am running radar I see it happening first
> hand? We have done studies at my barracks. We have picked any day, any

Yeah, because you were running radar. Shut off the radar and people will 
do 75! 55 is the most moronic law around, who does 55 on a freeway? 
You're crazy to, you'll get shot in some parts. But, hey, you'll be 
obeying the law.

> > I direct you to the 1992 US Department of Transportation study
> > (#FHWA-RD-92-084) entitled, "Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed
> > Limits."  Their findings revealed that not only do higher speed limits
> > *not* have a significant effect on average driver speeds, but they led
> > to fewer accidents (albeit with a high margin of error.)  Furthermore,
> > lowering speed limits did not reduce average driver speed, and led to
> > slightly more accidents (again, with a high margin of error.)  Quite
> > simply, whether speed limits went up or down, drivers did not change
> > their speeds.
> 
> > Before you make more unsupported claims, I hope you'll do a little
> > research.
> 
> My research is based on me actually performing the traffic test. If I am
> running radar and seeing it first hand, I am inclined to believe what I
> see.

My research indicates that a speed of 85 MPH is a safe and reasonable 
speed. I base this on the fact that I've driven over 10 years and across 
the country many times without an accident (knocking on a nice piece of 
wood as you read). I've seen other people drive at 75+ for years with out 
accidents. I am also inclined to believe what I see.

> > > The question is, what is safe? 
> > 
> > If you ask the US DOT (or the Massachusetts State Police, who did a
> > similar experiment), the answer is reasonable speed limits.
> 
> OK, what is reasonable? You seem to have all the answers.

Reasonable is the speed at which your not pushing the limits of a) your 
body b) the car c) the road. Why not an inspection every year or two to 
see if a) your reflexes and senses permit you to drive safely b) your car 
is in safe working condition?? I know of no state that actually does 
this. Yes, I know a few states do "inspections" but they really don't do 
a great job of making sure your car is safe, they check for absolute 
minimums, I know I used to do Virginias every year. If you or your car 
doesn't pass, you don't drive. Make rural freeways speed limit free. Have 
LEO's enforce driving "safely". There is no set number. A Yugo is unsafe 
at 55, but a Porsche 928S4 is safer at 100 MPH than the Yugo at 55.

---

From: "Antonio S. Esporma" <tony>
Date: 7 Nov 1995 21:44:38 GMT

[email-masked] (Randy) wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>
<snip>

>
>Look, let us end this thread now. I believe 55 MPH is slow on some
>highways. BUt I also believe that when you go above 70, it gets too
>dangerous. You may be the perfect driver, alert, quick reflexes, etc...
>But you can not expect the unexpected such as a deer running in front of
>your vehicle. Or cows/horses on the roadway. I have investigated many of
>these types of accidents. The faster you travel, the more distance you
>travel during reaction time, and stopping distance. You want to speed, go
>ahead. There will always be a chance of you getting caught and ticketed.
>Just show some courtesy to the other drivers on the road.
>-- 

Oh Come On!

You are making an absolute statement and ignoring the fact that cars, drivers,
roads and conditions vary.  Let me state for the record that I have never
seen wondering cows nor deer across the Mohave Desert, nor on I15 across 
the desert, nor on I70 in Eastern Utah... Maybe just the odd wandering tumble 
weed but they don't freeze in front of your headlights.

Randy, if you are telling me that 70mph is too fast for nightime conditions
on a narrow, rural two way county road in Michigan, I may just agree with
you.  But if you really expect to believe that 70 is too fast for most of
the freeways in the Western and Mountain states (and probably the midwest too)
-even at night- then I disagree with you.  

There are also some damn fast and straight two lane roads hereabouts with
mile long lines of sight that can easily and safely be driven at 80mph+.

Lastly, lets not forget the _fact_ that different cars and drivers have 
different capabilities.  An old man, with feeble eyesight and slow responses,
travelling in an Old Cadillac with bold tires after six hours of playing bingo
can not be compared with a middle age woman in a Porsche 944 going to 
work in the morning.

That's the fundamental fallacy of american speed laws: In their quest to
apply a uniform speed limit applicable to as many possible conditions, they
pander to the lowest common denominator and promulgate a culture of 
driving mediocrity and disrespect for the law.

I have cruised at speeds well over the speed limit on thousands of miles 
of roadway with far more security and safety than many careless drivers
in ill maintained, ill designed road hogs being driven within an inch
of their lives.

The point is that a caring, aware driver in a well designed, well maintained
road car can easily operate a vehicle well above the speed laws.  So why
is it that cops and the safety nazis just keep harping that this is unsafe
when millions of americans know this not to be?

Amen!

tony

---

From: "Antonio S. Esporma" <tony>
Date: 7 Nov 1995 21:55:20 GMT

[email-masked] (Randy) wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Gumby)
>wrote:
>
>[email-masked] (Randy) writes...
>> 
>> >People tell me all the time they will not drive
>> Let me get this straight.  You advocate breaking the law.  You think people
>> should go faster than the speed limit, and you want the limit set low to
>> force people to speed.
>
>No where in my post do I advocate breaking the law. I do not think people
>should go faster than a legitimate speed limit. My point is, that 
>no matter what the speed limit is, people will exceed it by 10 MPH because
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they know/think they can get away with it. If the speed limit is 10 MPH
>under what a safe speed limit would be, the majority of the people
>breaking the law by 10 MPH would actually be doing a safe speed limit.
>

<snip the rest>

Sorry, but the bullshit meter just hit the top of the scale!

PEOPLE DRIVE AT SPEEDS THAT THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH, REGARDLESS OF 
THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT.  

This is just no my observation, but also that of a recently released
federal study on speed laws. It is true that when speed laws are politically
motivated and regulated below the natural flow for a given roadway, drivers
may feel that if cops are around they must not exceed the limit by more 
than 10 mph.  Yet, when cops are not around, the flow are usually quite 
higher.

Lets do a thought problem: set the speed limit to 85 mph on a rural
freeway (say the I5 north of LA).  Do you think that people driving
minivans and UTEs are gonna cruise at 95mph?  Do you think that
people in Hunday's (other than Rodney King) will do 95?.

I might probably cruise at 90 or 95 in my cars, but then I usually do
drive that road at that speed anyhow because my cars feel good between
85 and 100.  But most folks will cruise at speeds that they are comfortable
with.  I would dare say that Porsches, NSXs and Ferraris might do 105, but 
then I'm comfortable about having such cars about me doing those speeds
because as a general rule they are being operated well below their 
performance envelopes even at a 100 and can react quite quickly to
adverse circumstances.

tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 00:05:31 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Gumby)
wrote:

> >[email-masked] (Gumby) wrote:
> >should go faster than a legitimate speed limit.
> 
> You advocate a speed limit of 65 to let people go 75.  This implies you know,
> and accept people speeding.

I advocate speed limits that are reasonable. I do not advocate people
breaking those reasonable speed limits. I know people speed, and can
accept them doing a reasonable speed on a given highway. But the majority
of the people will get try to get away with 10 MPH over the speed limit.
So if 75 MPH is a good speed for a particular highway, then set it to 65
MPH. My reason for this is that most people will do 10 MPH over.

> >My point is, that no
> >matter what the speed limit is, people will exceed it by 10 MPH because
> My point is that no matter what the speed limit is, if it was strictly
> enforced, people would abide by it.  If the speed limit were set to the
> proper speed, people would not be forced to speed in order to go a reasonable 
> speed.

Wrong. Speed limits are strictly enforced on many highways, but people
still choose to speed. If the speed limit were set to the proper speed,
which some people say would be around 85 MPH, people would still speed.

> >> Why not just set the speed at 10 over, and enforce the law?
> 
> >The speed limit is enforced now at 10 over. But the 55 MPH speed limit is
> >too slow.
> 
> I was trying to say "set the speed at 10 more than you you would set the
> speed at, and enforce that speed."  I am saying that the law should be 
> reasonable, and enforced, not unreasonable and (at least partially)
> ignored.

I agree that the speed limit should be reasonable, but what is reasonable?
You have good cars, and bad cars, as well as good drivers, and bad
drivers. Different tires, different road conditions, etc... play into
determining a speed limit. 

> >> Law is like sin, you can't almost break the law, it is an absolute.
> 
> >Please don't compare religion and law.
> 
> Why not?  They used to be the same thing.

I don't recall seeing anything about speed limits in the 10 commandments. 

> >> The judge is there to hear the sob stories, and grant exceptions.  The
> >> police are there to enforce the law.  If 55/65 waas rigerously enforced,
> >> this country would be better off (people would get sick of the tickets,
> >> and the speed limit repeal would have gone through years ago).
> 
> >The judge does not "grant exceptions". He hears the case and determines
> >whether there is enough evidence to convict. The judge has heard every sob
> >story in the book. Sob stories are no excuse for justifying ignorance to
> >the law.
> 
> The judge can take into account extenuating circumstances.  The judge can
> dismiss a case for a variety of reasons.  I don't think anyone can claim
> ignorance of the law against speeding.  Plus it is not the job of the
> judge to hear sob stories.  That is the job of the cop :-)

Based on what the defendant tells him. Most people tend to lie to get away
with it. I hear many sob stories. Not just for traffic violations. I wish
I had a quarter for everytime a woman tried the crying routine on me. I
had one girl tell me that she was bleeding and needed to get to the
hospital right away. It was kind of funny hearing her tell me the story.
Especially after she passed two exits that were clearly posted for a local
hospital. 

> >> The speed limit is not used as a limit, 
> 
> >Then what is it used as?
> 
> Some sort of a recommended speed set artifically low that is neither
> followed nor respected.

And if it was not set artificially low?

> >> and it lowers all of the traffic 
> >> violations to a "they are ok to break, just don't get caught" level.
> 
> >By your thinking.
> 
> Not by yours?  Most people I know extrapolate the "it is ok to break the
> law a little" philosophy to all of the traffic regulations.

Thanks for proving my point again. Which is that Most people will "break
the law a little".

> >> They are there for safety.  
> 
> >Ah, we can agree here.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm inside.

Isn't that special.

> >> I don't want the idiot running a red light
> >> in front of me to turn right and cut me off.  
> 
> >Who does?
> 
> Everyone.  If you send me a video camera with a tape in it, I will return
> to you a tape of traffic violations, including someone running a red light
> to pull infront of me at a distance small enough to cause me to adjust
> my speed (i.e. someone cutting me off).  It happens about once per time
> I get in the car.  (notice, I didn't say I'd return the camera, just the
> tape :-)

I'm sorry. You lost me here. Are you saying everyone wants someone to run
a red light and cut in front of them to turn right and cut them off? As
far as sending you a video camera with a tape in it, and you only sending
back the tape. Does that mean you are dishonest enough to steal the
camera? Hmm... Thanks for letting me know how credible a person you are.

> >> I don't want the jerk in
> >> the left lane to drive there for hours.  I want those enforced.  
> 
> >You want, but you cannot always have. If the people are in the left lane
> >doing faster than the speed limit, they cannot be cited for being in the
> >left lane.
> 
> Depends on where you are.  Here they can.  It is "keep right unless
> passing" not "keep right unless you think you are going fast."
> 
> >> The
> >> cops never enforce those because it is easier to catch speeders when
> >> 85% of the people on a road are speeding.
> 
> >If 85% of the people on the roadways are speeding, then there must not be
> >much slow traffic. It is a lot easier to catch speeders, yes. But even if
> >someone is in the left lane doing 55 MPH, they are allowed to be there
> >when passing. I think you are just referring to people that are in the
> >left lane travelling slower than you. How fast do you go?
> 
> I read about an interstate in NY where more than 90% of the traffic was
> above the speed limit.  I would estimate about the same percentage on the
> interstates I travel on.  I was referring, in particular, to a minivan
> that went 10 under the speed limit on an interstate for more than 100 miles
> in the left lane.  This is the greatest violation I have seen, but is 
> representative of a general driving style that exists.

Driving 10 MPH under the speed limit in the left lane would surely get
that person cited. I would cite him. The speed limits are too slow as it
is. Don't need drivers like that making matters worse. BTW, we do have a
law that states you must stay in the right lane at all times except when
passing. Drivers can be cited for driving too slow also.

> >> No, I am not some disgrinted person who accrues speeding tickets; I
> >> have never gotten a ticket.  I speed every time I get in my car.
> 
> >And you will probably still speed even after getting a ticket.
> 
> Yes.  And to answer your question as to how fast I go: 22-23 over the
> limit, up to the point which I feel is the fastest safe speed I
> can travel, unless I know there is no enforcement in the area, at
> which tome my speed is only limited by safety.  I can take defensive
> driving to take care of any ticket up to 25 over and not have it appear
> on my record.  I've gone 130.  I usually go 75-80 on interstates,
> 70-75 if marked at 55.  I go 75-85 on non-patroled 55 state highways.
> This is not a brag, not a flaunt of the law, just an honest answer
> to your question.

Glad to see you are honest, but I doubt it. You said earlier you would
steal my video camera. But it also tells me that know matter what the
speed limit is, you are not going to obey it. I just hope you don't kill
anyone. And if you do, I hope they prosecute for Homicide. 

> Marc
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 23:42:24 -0500

> >no matter what the speed limit is, people will exceed it by 10 MPH because

So you are telling me that everyone that feels comfortable driving at 100
MPH are doing it? I don't think so.

> than 10 mph.  Yet, when cops are not around, the flow are usually quite 

But how do people know when cops are or are not around? Nice observation.

> people in Hunday's (other than Rodney King) will do 95?.

It does not matter what the vehicle is, (although a Hundai will not go
that fast) people will try to get away with what they can. It is human
nature.

> 85 and 100.  

So you prove my point. If the limit as you say was "85 MPH on a rural
freeway (say the I5 north of LA), you would "probably cruise at 90 or 95
in my cars". That is 5 to 10 MPH OVER the limit. Thank you for making my
point. :-)

> But most folks will cruise at speeds that they are comfortable
> with.  

Some people argue that 100 MPH is comfortable for them. 

> I would dare say that Porsches, NSXs and Ferraris might do 105, but 

The cars might be operated well below their envelope speed, and can react
quickly, but put a driver that cannot handle the vehicle well, and what do
you have? 

-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 8 Nov 1995 10:24 CST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Randy) writes...

>MPH are doing it? I don't think so.

Then they don't go 100.

>But how do people know when cops are or are not around? Nice observation.

I drive on a number of unpatroled roads.  How do I know they are unpatroled?
State Troopers are found only on interstates, and selected state highways.
I travel on state highways that are unpatroled.  I also travel on farm
roads.  Neither of these have cops on them.

>Some people argue that 100 MPH is comfortable for them. 

*Marc raises his hand*

>quickly, but put a driver that cannot handle the vehicle well, and what do

A dead driver, and a nice piece of machinery destroyed.  I would say that
anyone who buys those cars will go fast anyway, and the speed limit is
not the limiting factor, but their perception of safe.  If they can't
handle the car, they will die, no matter what the speed limit is, or how
good the car is.  The Corvette and Mustang are some of the most deadly
vehicles, not because they are inherently unsafe, but because the people
who drive them are idiots.

Marc

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:49:14 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, "NMA [Bob M]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Check out the study that says low speed limits do not save lives or 
> reduce accidents at http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/report.htm
> 
> -- 
> National Motorists Association          Join the NMA!
> [email-masked]                      $29 a year.
> http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/        Sign up online.

Tis interesting that the NMA has this report, but the DOT does not. Not to
mention that the NMA is "SELLING" this report. I could not find this
report from the DOT. It does not mean it does not exist, just that I was
unable to locate it. If it does exist, how can you sell a report that is
available for free to the public?
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:43:57 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (eliot) wrote:

> In article <[email-masked]>,
> i don't agree.  if the highway is good for 75, set the true limit to
> 75 and enforce it with zero tolerance.  no talking one's way out of
> it, no professional courtesy, no off duty cops excused.  in short
> 75 means 75, no exceptions.  send a clear message what the real
> limit is and people will comply.  the message being sent right now
> is that 10 over is the accepted limit, and what you are seeing
> is compliance with the perceived true limit.

Given the amount of people driving, and given the amount of police
officers, it is impossible to enforce the limit as such. 

> change people's perceptions of what the true limit is and you
> will see compliance with that true limit.  of course if you
> made 55 really mean 55, you are going to have politicians and the
> police chief burned at the stake.  :)

I can agree with this. 

> but i can see how this would be difficult..  pulling someone over for
> 1 over.. and collecting $10 in fines?  the economics don't add up.  i
> think that the fact that most people can drive at precisely 10 over
> means that they can also precisely drive 1 or 2 *under*, so 1 over
> doesn't necessarily mean being harsh, especially if the limit is
> set high enough for the highway in question.

Very difficult. 

> we just had elections and the voters here, myself included, voted
> to give the cops better finger printing computers.  it passed.
> now, if only someone can come up with a way to fund the cops without
> having them be highway tax collectors i would happily cast my
> vote for it. 

Thanks for assisting law enforcement efforts! :-) If you come up with
ideas for funding, be sure to share them. 

> eliot
-- 
Randy

---

From: "NMA [Bob M]" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Nov 1995 21:16:16 GMT

It's interesting to read how many people don't support raising the speed 
limit because of the increased deaths they think will follow.  They are 
probably not aware that only about 2% of all fatal accidents happen on 
Interstates, nor are they aware that most accidents happen at speeds of 
less than 40 mph and within 25 miles of home.  Note that the speed limit 
repeal will make not a bit of difference on those roads.

Of course, some people say that no matter what the limit is, everyone 
will automatically go 10 over.  This is a good example of what happens 
when limits are set too low; 55 on interstates designed for a minimum 
speed of 70 is the best example of this (and perhaps the origin of the 
statement). It's also a good example of what happens when people hear a 
statement and don't bother to think about it.  Is it rational to say that 
if the limit were 100, everyone would go 110?  Of course not.  The 
drivers in New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland who just got 65 mph limits 
this year probably noticed little, if any change in actual travel speeds 
when the limit went up.  In my travels back to 65mph New York, I haven't 
seen any difference.  People still travel 65-70.  In the 55 mph zones, 
people go 65-70 just like they always did.

---

From: "NMA [Bob M]" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 17:53:01 GMT

>available for free to the public?

The government does not give away reports.  We've bought two from 
them recently, the minimum standards for police radar and laser guns, 
about $18 each.

And, why can't we sell it?  The Gov't is not selling it because it's 
undergoing a "review" at the behest of the IIHS and other speed-kills 
groups.  They wanted it to undergo a peer review because they felt the 
authors put too much of their personal views into the subject.  And, no 
doubt, they didn't want people to find out that speed doesn't kill.  It 
would expose their profit-padding methods known as "speeding ticket 
surcharges"

---

From: [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 15:02:32 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, The Highlander <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Alex D Rodriguez) writes:
>>This sounds pretty good except that the margin of error of radar is very 
>>small, less than 1 mph, when properly use and the results are properly 
>>interpreted.  It is quite possible for an inattentive person to misuse the 
>>radar or to get misleading readings from it.  Radar is extrmely acurate, its
>>the operators that aren't always that good at interpreting the results.

>Are you saying that the officers who are paid to do traffic patrol aren't 
>correctly trained to use the equipment available to them? Instead of having 
>all these margins of doubt, why aren't the people who are trained and paid to 
>use these radars actually throughly trained to use them? I was told in PA that 
>the radar is only required by law to be calibrated every 90 days. I find this 
>ridiculous. I'd much rather have the radar calibrated much more often, and 
>that way there is less of a doubt. But, I think the speed limit should 
>definitely be raised on most highways.

There are no nationwide standards on how much training an officer needs to
operate radar.  A while back the government mades some recommendations, but
thats all they are recommendations.  Some  departments have very good 
training programs, others have very poor programs.  It's a crapshot for the
motorist.  While the radar units only have to be calibrated every 90 days
they must be checked for accuracy mutiple times a day by using calibrated
tuning forks.  For something that is used to convict so many people the 
standards are very lax and this allows municipalities to abuse this to 
generate huge amounts of cash.

-----------------