Subject: Re: Speed Kills

From: [email-masked] (Todd Mullins)
Date: 1 Nov 1995 17:10:11 GMT

Bennet George ([email-masked]) wrote:

: I'm a little grumpy this morning from missing breakfast to go tend to the 
: wounds of the occupants of two cars involved in a wreck. I'm a volunteer 
: firefighter and EMR. [ ... ]

[ detailed stories excised ]

: My proposal is to let neither the lawyers nor the engineers set the speed 
: limits. Let's let the firefighters and EMTs do it. And the family members 
: of fatal wreck victims.

: Please, friends, slow down and buckle up. I don't want my face to be the 
: last one you see.

Point taken.

But, and naturally I have no scientific data to back this, I submit that
speed limits have nothing to do with accident rates.  A tire will blow
out whether the little sign says 55 or 70.  A sleepy driver is a hazard
both above and below the speed limit.

Accidents are caused by something or somebody operating beyond capacity,
whether it's the capacity of the tire to adhere to the road, or the
capacity of the inebriated (or fatigued) brain to relay instructions to
the hands and feet, or the capacity of the vehicle's safety engineering
to protect its occupants from serious harm.  There are lots of factors
involved, including the speed of the vehicle, and the interplay of the
factors is different for each particular vehicle/driver combination.
These, coupled with the driver's familiarity with hir own capacities as
well as hir vehicle's, are what gives you grumpy mornings.

Not speed limits.

Drivers must learn to operate their vehicles at safe speeds.  This
probably means no more than 50mph for the nearsighted lady in the
Chevette, or it may mean 95mph for the physicist in the Benz.  Abnormally
low speed limits have conditioned most American drivers, much like
children at a slumber party, to see what they can get away with.  That's
idiocy.  I am not completely opposed to the idea of abolishing all speed
limits and letting St. Darwin intervene.

Followups to rec.autos.driving, as this now goes beyond MS.

--

Todd Mullins
[email-masked]	On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast

"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

---

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Atkinson)
Date: 1 Nov 1995 22:53:16 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
>both above and below the speed limit.

I have some.  A well known fact, most accidents accure at LESS THAN 40 
mph and and mostly at intersections.  Not sure if that directly backs you 
point up but it indirectly does.

>well as hir vehicle's, are what gives you grumpy mornings.

True, speed diffrence is the MAIN killer.  If you have't already take a 
look at the study "EFFECTS OF RAISING AND LOWERING SPEED LIMITS" at 
html://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/sl-irrel.html or
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/sl-irrel.txt, a study that showes first 
hand that speed limits set at the 85th percentile speed cause the least 
accidents.

>Chevette, or it may mean 95mph for the physicist in the Benz.  Abnormally

The nearsited lady in my oppion should have a licence.  Or al least 
shouldn't be allowed on anything greather than city streets.

>limits and letting St. Darwin intervene.

Low speeds limits cause drivers to do stupid things and the idea of curtesy 
that use to exist in the 60s totaly disapeared after the 55 mandate.

-- 
* 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: Randy Morobitto <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Nov 1995 17:08:30 GMT

It's not Speed per se' that kills...  It's carelessness.  Doing 75
on a deserted stretch of highway is not dangerous; doing 30 in a school
zone is.  As one poster put it, most accidents occur at intersections.
This is probably due to the number of "drivers" who slam on their brakes
because they almost missed their turn.  How about those millions who
missed the class on what to do with that little lever sticking out of
the left side of their steering column?  Or those who didn't notice
the bright red lights on the back of the car in front of them?

It's common sense to slow down when experiencing weather.  Problem is,
a lot of people don't.  Then of course, there's the group who, upon
noticing a cloud in the sky drop to about 12mph because it might rain
and they "don't want to take the chance" (see speed differential section
of previous post), and thereby cause everyone behind them to (hopefully)
get their speed down in time.

While I can sympathize with the EMT in the earlier message, I can't
really agree with him.  Well, at least there are enough stupid people
around to give him job security...

---

From: Randy Morobitto <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Nov 1995 17:08:30 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (nkibe)
Date: 7 Nov 1995 17:47:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mike Nakagawa) says:

>Does anyone have a reference regarding the dangers of speed differences in
>traffic?

I recall a Dr. Cole (GM Research Center) discussing this in his book on
Highway Safety, which I saw in the Transportation Section of Borders.

He explored the obvious aspect -- high speed differentials and the risk when
low speed traffic pulls into the path of high speed traffic.  However, he lapsed
into socio-babble (teutonic rigour, etc.) when his theory failed to explain how
the autobahns had high speed differentials and were also safe.

I submit that low speed differentials -- common on interstates where traffic
cruises in clumps at 55/65 -- are the less obvious case but almost as
dangerous and perhaps more annoying.

Low speed differentials mean that one car needs an excessively large amount
of time or road space to create a gap with the car alongside, into which it can
merge, exit, yield or pass.  But since time and road space are limited, one
either obstructs the free flow of traffic or runs out of road space.

Worse, if one recognises only high speed differentials as "dangerous", then
"safety" requires that these be either reduced or eliminated.  Hence, the 
treatment of speed limits as limiting speeds (like that of light) and their setting
at overly low levels.

Combined with the collapse of lane discipline (which is then no longer
 required), highways present a bizarre but predictable picture.

With open road ahead, lead cars "do the limit" and refuse to yield, forcing
others to tailgate in clumps; lane usage is unbalanced, right empty, left full;
empty highways feel congested; speeds, capacity, efficiency, safety fall;
annoyance, aggravation, frustration, disputes rise.

I submit that the safety vs. speed differential is a parabola: minimum safety
with very high/low differentials, maximum with moderate differentials.  In
other words, speed differentials are like lubricants: too little and the road
jams up; too much and it is too "slippery".

Personal views, of course.

Nitin Kibe.