Subject: Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 01:02:55 -0500

Was this flamebait?
NMA, your presence is needed badly to educate this guy.

In article <[email-masked]>, Mark Spencer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>        Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
>to drive at dangerous speeds.

Well, if nothing else, people like to race their cars in racing events
(SCCA, PCA, other car clubs).

>
>        Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
>majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

SAFE?!!!!! 
I know, why don't we all just drive 5 mph?!

>
>        What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
>
 
If you feel that anything over 65 is unsafe, one has to wonder about your
driving skills. Get off the road.

Tigress (sheesh, the insurance comanies sure can brainwash some people)

-- 
    |\      _,,,---,,_
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_        Tigress
  |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'       [email-masked]
 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            Cat drawn by Felix Lee

---

From: Brad Cuppy <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 17:57:51 GMT

> NMA, your presence is needed badly to educate this guy.

[ snipped ]

Sounds like aka. Our great pal, Dave Harvey! (Not)

           Brad
           http://www.rmii.com/~bpc/

---

From: [email-masked] (Sunny Yum)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 07:53:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Mark Spencer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>exceeded...

Try the race track.

>I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.

"Dangerous speeds" seems to be your opinion, not mine.

>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?

There ARE places where you can drive over 65 MPH, see my previous answers.

>The majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would
>be saved every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

I thought it was drunk driving?  Maybe not, but why not ban alcohol while
we're at it so that people won't be enticed to drink and drive?

>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

Yeah, the our government sucks.  I say ban guns too, I mean it would
save lives if nobody had access to guns, right?  Also, while we're at
it, why don't we ban alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods (McDonalds would
be run out of buisness, of course!), bungee jumping, and couch
potatoes as well!

BTW, for the sarcasm impaird:  ;)

sdy

---

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 10:31:25 -0500

Gee, not only do you post dumb stuff (learn that only insurance companies
and cops who get money from speeding like the limit), but you post one
post at least four times so far.

>Your vocal chords have legitimate uses. Slander is not all it is capable of.
>Your penis has legitimate uses. Rape is not all it is capable of. A tracking

Rape isn't all it is capable of? Can you explain? It can totally ruin some
one mentally, it is degrading, and sometimes the woman (or man) doesn't
even end up living afterwords. *Stop*being*so*damn*ignorant*. I would like
to see you get raped, and then say that. 

>an intrusion into your body. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to do

There is no reason for the limit except the insurance companies get lots
of money for it.

>it. Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights, and does not
>involve the removal of any body parts. Your analogies are flawed.

It limits my ability to go a reasonable speed.

>Preventing your car from exceeding the maximum speed limit does not affect
>your ability to reason, nor does it affect your ability to use the car
>legally. Although you don't condone rape or slander, you seem to condone
>speeding, otherwise you wouldn't be so sensitive about the issue that you

And I do too, cause the limit is ridiculous. Why follow a rule that is so
obviously just a scam by insurance?

>would compare the prevention of cars that allow speeding to the removal of
>your penis.
>
Cause being forced to go 65 is having something removed, all fun of
driving the car. It would be horrible to have a car like that. Imagine how
much car company's profit would decrease, everyone would be buying old
cars without the limiter (hey, old cars would become worth more!).
Dude, if you feel threatened at speeds over 65, fine, stay in the right.
But there are people more competent at driving than you that don't like 65
and shouldn't be forced to drive a stupid speed.

Tigress

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Lentz)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 09:37:14 PST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Joel Edwards <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) 
writes:
>>> Why aren't cars sold with
>>Hey, cut out my vocal chords so I can't commit slander.  Remove my 
penis so
>>that I could not possibly rape some one.  Make me wear a tracking 
device just
>>in case the government wants to know where I am.
>
>device would infringe on your right to privacy, and would require you to
>wear a device or have one implanted in you. All your examples would 
involve
>it. 

There is a legitimate use for going more than 65.  When passing.  When 
passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed 
superiority.  Making the highest needed speed about 70 to 75mph, because 
if it's 65, then there's more than one lane.  You'll only need to pass in 
a 55 to 60mph zone.  I can also see where speeding up to get out of 
someones way could be useful; for example you're in the left lane of a 
2-lane 65mph zone and there's a car on your right.  Some jerk in a big 
old hot-rod lincoln stars closing on your butt at 90mph.  I'd sure want 
to get out of the way enough to change lanes!

There's also a movement going on now to repeal the national 65mph speed 
limit, and let states set their own again.  What if that passes and then 
there's no longer a speed limit in places like Montana?

What if they did make speed limiters a law.  Would I have to get my older 
car retrofitted?  What about all those hobbyists who like to drag race 
their street cars on the weekends (at a track of course)?  The NHRA is 
probably a pretty powerful lobby.
 
Tom.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Pickerill)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 11:08:29 -0800

>probably a pretty powerful lobby.
Yea, and what about the guys with wire cutters, soldering iron and
a torch in their garage?  I'll have to run out and order some more
acetelene today...

;*****************************************************************************
;*  ___                                                                      *
;* /   \    Mark D. Pickerill      Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute  *
;*|     |   [email-masked]                  (M.B.A.R.I.)                    *
;* \   /                                                                     *
;*__\_/__   Servant of Athena            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
;*   |      Assembly hack extraodinaire  + All opinions are my own, and in  +*
;*   |      Diesel engine nut            + no way reflect opinions of MBARI +*
;*   |      Mercedes-Benz enthusiast     + "Standard disclaimers apply"     +*
;*   |                                   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
;*****************************************************************************

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 19:40:55 GMT

[email-masked] (Tom Lentz) wrote:

>passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed superiority.

Huh?  Do you have a source for this?

>there's no longer a speed limit in places like Montana?

Then I guess I won't complain about the illegal speeders in Montana.  That 
still doesn't do anything about the illegal speeders around DC, however.

-- 
                            _\\|//_
                            ( O-O )
-------------------------o00--(_)--00o---------------------------
   Rick Nakroshis                    [email-masked]

   And remember, another day ends:
       All targets met...
       All systems working and customers satisfied...
       All staff eager and enthusiastic...
       All pigs fed, watered, and ready to fly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeremy Hansen)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 00:08:51 GMT

Tom Lentz ([email-masked]) wrote:
: There is a legitimate use for going more than 65.  When passing.  When 
: passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed 
: superiority.  Making the highest needed speed about 70 to 75mph, because 
: if it's 65, then there's more than one lane.  You'll only need to pass in 
: a 55 to 60mph zone.

Hmmm, everytime I've ever read the little driver's pamphlets the Department
of Motor Vehicles gives out it says that the maximum speed limit is an 
absolute, and that exceeding it, even to pass, is a violation of the law.

I think making cars have speed limiters to match the speed limit is a 
great idea - as long as the speed limit is 130 MPH. :)

--
  Jeremy Hansen                                [email-masked]
  Technology Group
  Applied Micro Circuits Corp.
  AMCC now has a web page: http://www.amcc.com/

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeremy Hansen)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 00:08:51 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Ed Glamkowski)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 23:37:16 GMT

:P >In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) writes:
:P >> Why aren't cars sold with
:P >>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
:P >>        What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
:P >>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

cause there are times when the average citizen does 
have legitimate reason to travel at speeds above the
speed limit - e.g. you are driving to work and someone
in your carpool has a heart attack - wouldn't you like
to be able to get to the hospital as quickly as possible?
same thing with a pregnant woman.  in most cases, even if
you are pulled over by a cop, as soon as they realize what
is happening, they will often escort you, at that higher
speed, to the hospital.

these may be exceptional cases, but they do happen, and
if *you* happen to be the one having the heart attack, 
you won't think the limit to be such a good idea then :P

---

From: Brad Cuppy <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 15:25:33 GMT

> to drive at dangerous speeds.

Only on public roads... Forgot about race tracks, drag strips.
 
> every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

What is defined as a safe speed ? Is it defined by those who are 
unable to balance the nation's checkbook inside the beltway like
Fedrico Pena, who BTW, caused Denver's new airport to go into
excessive cost overruns and increased the cost to fly through
there as well. I rented a Ford Thunderbird witha V-8 and drove 
it at 90 and thought it was safe.
 
> simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
The gov't has no business being there in the first place in such
areas as the National Speed Limit. The last time we heard this
babble was during the Carter years when Joan Clybrook of NHSTA
tried to get speed governors on cars (cannot drive faster
then 58 mph), ban the production of cruise controls that worked
beyond 58 mph. Those proposals did not make it far but the porposal
for speedometers cannot display any speed beyond 85 mph made it but
got repealed under Reagan.

A lot of Americans do not want to go back to a paternalistic
gov't that we had like under Jimmy Carter and in fact want to
have paternilistic laws repeal like federal speed limits.

             Brad

---

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 22:27:47 -0500

>got repealed under Reagan.

Yeah, they thought it would make people drive slower cause the people
were supposed to think that their car didn't go any faster. Instead,
people used that as an excuse ("But how am I supposed to know I was going
100, my speedometer only goes to 85") and getting away with it. I thought
this was nifty cause my first car, an 82 model, speedometer was made under
this law.

Tigress

---

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 13 Nov 1995 22:27:47 -0500

Tigress

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 19:37:03 GMT

[email-masked] (BadBlast41) wrote:
..
>I've wondered the same thing. The automakers obviously want to appeal to the
>people who want fast cars, which is why we're seeing so many absurdly
>powerful sports cars (who really needs to get to 60 mph in 5 seconds?). But
>even though they have a lot of money and influence, the government has
>passed many laws that affect them (fuel economy, pollution, safety). Yet,
>they won't pass a law mandating that they stop making cars that easily allow
>people to break the law!

I have a friend whose wife went into labor early.  There was some problem with 
the baby, I don't remember the specifics, but the kid was in serious trouble.  
For some reason an ambulance was not available and the hospital told him to 
drive her in NOW.  It was a 30 or 40 mile drive, he maintained speeds of 100 
to 130 the entire way (so says he).  When he arrived at the hospital they 
managed to save the baby.  The doctor said the kid had no more than 2 or 3 
minutes to live when he arrived.

Some things are more important than arbitrary speed limits set by revenue 
agents.  While that was a once in a lifetime emergency (hopefully) I would 
sure hate for my kid to die because some control freak put a speed limiter 
on my car.

Bob

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 19:37:03 GMT

Bob

---

From: [email-masked] (michael w. geitner)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 00:59:32 GMT

>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
Because our country was formed to escape tyranny and to create
freedom. 

Mike

DLFA - here to help
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (John Caradimas)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:12:45 GMT

>>        Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally

You must be joking!!!! You are lucky enough to have one of the best
road networks on earth. Highways, where one can safely do 100 or even
150 mph in some cases. Where do you live in USA? 

>>I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.

For one simple reason. Someday, some idiot will misscalculate passing
a track, and another track will be heading his way. If you were in his
shoes, would you like such a stupid speed limiter?

>>to drive at dangerous speeds.

Oh, yeah? So 70 or 80 mph is dangerous speed? How old are you? Your
reaction time should be VEEEERY large, if you think that anything
above 65 is unsafe.

>>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension.

And I thought they were there to stop you from over-revving your
engine. Silly me! But then again, over-revving your engine is not your
cap of tea, unless you are in neutral.

>>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?

Because there are people who can safely drive above that speed, no
matter what your personal opinion is. And industries sell what the
consumer wants, not what some stupid politically-based governement
decision mandates.

>>be saved every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

This is the most silly thing I've ever heard, and unfortunately it is
said by several ignorant persons. SPEED DOES NOT KILL.

Speed is a driver-controlled parameter. It is bad drivers (that speed
where you cannot or should not speed) that kill people. For God sake,
can't you make that simple distinction? If you are fool enough to do
100 mph in a road where anyone in his right mind will do 50, it isn't
the excessive speed that killed you, it is your lack of understanding
simple things. In Germany, there are no speed limits on the autobahns,
yet they do have less accidents (percentage-wise) with other
countries, where speed limits exist. The difference is that they have
been properly trained to drive at these speeds.

Educating drivers better is a more sure way of decreasing car
accidents.

>>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

Why don't they simply ban cars? It would be safer!

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Nov 1995 01:03:08 GMT

>to be able to get to the hospital as quickly as possible?

The original poster's point was that the law clearly says that you must
never go above the speed limit.  Of course there are hardship cases,
but the THE LAW IS THE LAW!!!  Having a heart attack does not justify
breaking the law.  The guy should have eaten fewer french fries etc.,
and avoided the whole mess in the first place.

Or, if you think that heart attacks are really that serious, then you
should get organized and change the law, so the speed limit is high
enough to take people to the hospital.  Or we could have two posted
speed limits, e.g., 'normal 55, heart attack victims 65'.  (In some
places three, because there would be a third one for trucks.  And maybe
a fourth one for trucks with heart attack victims.)

But until the law is changed we are supposed to strictly obey it!
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark.O.Wilson)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 05:51:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Mark Spencer says...

>Your vocal chords have legitimate uses.

So does driving fast.

>Slander is not all it is capable of.

The same for fast cars.

>There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit,

Ever try passing a car that is doing say 60mph, when you are not able
to exceed 65mph? That's going to end up in a lot of extra dead bodies.
What happens if you need to get to the hospital real fast?
What happens when your livelyhood depends on making as many
deliveries in as short a time as possible?

>and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
>it.

Just because you can't be bothered to think of any, doesn't mean there
aren't any.

>Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights

Except for my right to use my property as I see fit, so long as I don't
put anyone else in danger. And please tell me how speeding along
an Arizona highway, with no one else in sight puts others at danger.

>Although you don't condone rape or slander, you seem to condone
>speeding,

Because speeding laws are just one more of the useless, sensless laws,
that the government passes, because it believes it knows better then
we do, how to run our lives.

-- 
[email-masked]
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Szymczak)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:04:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
ynot  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]> Rahul Dhesi, [email-masked]
>writes:
>>Subject: Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
>>From: Rahul Dhesi, [email-masked]
>>Date: 13 Nov 1995 09:06:39 GMT
>>>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) writes:
>>
>>>The
>>>majority of all accidents are due to speed.
>>
>>Evidence, please.
>>
>>I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
>
>
>Actually most auto deaths are due to deceleration.  It's that sudden stop
>that kills you.

Well, lets get even more technical. It's not even the deceleration that 
causes auto deaths, it is the car making contact with another object, be 
it a car, truck, concrete wall/abutment, a rather large tree, light pole, 
and so on. To get even more technical and specific, it it the person 
being crushed inside the car, it is thier head slamming into the 
windshield, it is some part of the car piercing the body, it is the drive 
being thrown out of the car and being run over by another vehicle.

Point is, that less accidents happen on Interstates (controlled-access 
highways) than on rural roads and city streets. Speeding doesn't kill.

-- 
Yours truly,

Adam Szymczak, BA		Master of Arts in Geography (Urban Planning)
[email-masked]	University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Goudreau)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 16:27:08 GMT

Tom Martens ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Ok,ok, I am talking for Germany - the one and only country in the
: world where you can speed up ...

Really?  Aren't there other countries with unlimited-speed roads?  A
Chilean acquaintance of mine told me that there are no limits on the
superhighways outside urban areas.  I've also heard that there's no
limit in the Northern Territory in Australia, or on the roads crossing
the vast deserts of Saudi Arabia.  There are probably other examples as
well.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Sol)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 13:56:41 GMT

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

> In article <[email-masked]>,
>         kevintap@   (Kevin Tapperson) writes:
> 
> :: Besides, if you limit cars to 65mph, you could still speed through
> :: neighborhoods.
> 
> Then, by God, we'll ban NEIGHBORHOODS! We'll make this world safe if we
> have to *shoot* everybody to do it!
> 
>         >> dan -- Ignorant Yank (tm) #1, none-%er #7 <<

By Ged Dan you are on to something here!!! 

Why not issue everyone with ICBM's (Inter Car Ballistic Missiles) ... then if 
someone so much as try's to move across onto your lane without indicating
.. a flick o' the red button and KABBOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!! He/She'll never do
it again. Pretty soon everyone on the roads will be driving with
consideration and safety in mind, under threat of death!!! 

Just think no more will the prat hog the middle lane at 55mph on the M25 .
No more will that idiot make a last sec dive for the exit on the motorway.
No more will the old git in the vulva pull out on you from the side street.
No more will that dimwit tailgate you, or the thicko cut you up, or that
lorry pour diesel on that roundabout!!! POWER TO THE MOTORIST... FREEDOM
TO THE ROADS!.

-- 
 \\||/  DoD#50117     I'd like to make a positive contribution to
   ^ ~  SI:99.9%      this conversation .... but too many posts,  
(` @ @) UKMC#501      and not enough time!!   
 `  ..  KRC#11208           
  \  ~  PKS#844    _________ Non Illigitimum Carburundum _______  Sol
    "'

---

From: John Paramore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:02:05 GMT

> to drive at dangerous speeds.

Since congress seems about to remove the federal thumbscrew from the 
States' regulation of speeds on their own turf... And since at least two 
states have never seriously enforced the 55mph joke your first sentence 
is invalid nonesense.

And, just because a car has a 100 mph speedometer doesn't make it a 100 
mph car...And even it that were the case, big numbers on a guage do not 
initiate a speed lust in drivers.

> speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?

Great! just like France about 1960. People in Deux Chevaux trying to use 
their 1 mph advantage to pass a line of trucks, only to get pasted onto 
the front of an oncoming truck like a bug on a windshield. When you have 
to pass it's a good idea to spend as little time as possible in the 
oncoming lane...the same way you wouldn't stand around naked in a 
shooting gallery.

>	 The majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives 
>would be saved every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed. 

There's a statement *straight* out of the back end of the bull. That's an 
old whine that's been around longer than dirt with absolutely no 
corroborative evidence. Sure speed may be a factor, but only in 
relativity to the total picture. What were the driving conditions? what 
was the traffic density? what condition was the vehicle in? were alcohol 
or drugs involved? Those are the things that cause accidents. Speed is 
simply a relative factor, and most times of little actual consequence.

I drive well over 50,000 miles per year in the U.S. and Canada. Speeders 
are the *least* of my worries. Oh sure there's the occasional weenie who 
drives way above his abilities, or gunshots and darts through heavy 
traffic, but idiots like that would do the same if you restricted them to 
a tricycle. The real troublemakers drive 35/40 mph on the freeway. They 
pace other slowpokes to build huge packs so that a moment of innatention 
or frustration can take out 20 cars. They're the guys that make non-stop, 
non-look free right turns as you bear down on them at mid-intersection. 
They're the jerks who think the yellow light means accelerate. They're 
the folks who don't signal for turns...or who drive for miles with them 
on. they're the ones who won't stay out of the car when they've been 
drinking.

Friends in the State Patrol and RCMP tell me that they target speeders 
more because most are highly focused, paying attention to the road ahead, 
and are much easier to slip up on.

>What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a simple 
>way to enforce a law and save lives?

I think your use of the adjective *simple* is probably the answer to the
question you ask here.The world is full of people who toss simple 
solutions up to fix complex problems...Usually the solutions are aimed at 
problems the proposee is completely unqualified to address, kinda like 
what happened here.

But I'll tell you what Mark. Since you like concepts that have no 
particular bearing on reality let's try this Idea. Leave your parents' 
names and address at the front desk and as soon as the retroactive birth 
control pill is developed we'll see that they get a good supply

John

---

From: [email-masked] (Death of The Gods)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:58:28 GMT

Mark Spencer ([email-masked]) wrote:
:         Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
...
:         What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
: simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

   Lots of folks have pointed out instances where 65 may be legally 
exceeded, so I won't go into that.  Many of them are good points.
   My basic feeling on the matter is this: If you are willing to accept 
the repercussions (?) of speeding (tickets, increased insurance) and you 
do it in a safe manner (don't tailgate, don't blow through residential 
areas, and other such common sense), then you should be able to drive 
whatever speed you want.  If you're in west Texas on a hundred mile 
stretch of ruler straight road with no other cars and you want to travel 
150 mph, then go right ahead.  If you blow a tire and get killed, you are 
the only one taking the risk and you are the only one affected.
   Likewise, if you do not wish to travel over the speed limit, then you 
should not impede those who do.  For instance, if you want to go 55 you 
have every right to do so, but if you're on a multilane road you should 
stay in the right lane at *all* times, leaving the left lane for faster 
drivers.  If you find yourself in the left lane going about the same 
speed as the car next to you, you're wrong.  This single courtesy by 
slower drivers, plus widespread use of blinkers to indicate intentions, 
makes the Autobahn work as well as it does.  I've driven for hours at 170 
kph in Germany and never even considered myself to be travelling at an 
unsafe speed.
   I drove a truck from Nebraska to DC that had a limiter at 65 mph, and 
it was the most frustrating experience I've had.  During that 1350 mile 
trip I passed exactly seven vehicles before hitting the mountains in 
Pennsylvania where I could exceed 65 on the downhills.  I was not flowing 
with traffic, but impeding it, especially near major metropolitan areas, 
and thought that limit was more dangerous than any speed I may attain 
without it.  I cursed the blithering idiot who mandated that governor 
literally halfway across the country, and if anyone gets a governor put 
on their car it should be him or her, and I sincerely hope they get 
rear-ended because they can't accelerate to get out of the way of that 
runaway semi.  Maybe then they'll understand...

(        )
 Ragnorok

---

From: kevintap (Kevin Tapperson)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 15:33:01 GMT

In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Death of The Gods) writes:
]Mark Spencer ([email-masked]) wrote:
]:         Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
]....
]:         What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
]: simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
]
]If you're in west Texas on a hundred mile
]stretch of ruler straight road with no other cars and you want to travel
]150 mph, then go right ahead.  If you blow a tire and get killed, you are
]the only one taking the risk and you are the only one affected.

Imagine this...

You're on a ruler straight road in west Texas doing 110?? (don't know because
the speedometer tops out at 85, someone else in the car has a stopwatch 
getting split times on the mile markers ~32 seconds), and the radar detector 
goes off.  Your reaction:  hit the brakes.  Well this nearly locks up the tires
and with some skill and a bit of luck, you manage to avoid crashing in the ditch
on the side of the road.  Your speedometer just reaches 55 by the time the radar
detector goes mad, you hapily wave to the #@!$&^% cop as he speeds by going the
other direction.

Now imagine this without the speed limit law...

You pass by the cop doing 110, nothing happens.  No squeeling tires, no
chance of crashing in the ditch.  (You also saved money because you didn't have
to buy that radar detector.)

Now tell me, what's safer, having the speed limit or not.

..based on a true story...

Kevin Tapperson
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Lyle J. Mackey)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 09:15:53 -0600

>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.

Uhm, well, no. There are no PUBLIC ROADS where 65 mph can be legally 
exceeded, but there are other places.

>to drive at dangerous speeds.

Yaknow, the speedometer on my bike reads up to 170, but I rarely take it 
above 110 or so. Hm. Or was that your point?

>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

65 mph is not a safe speed on every road. Nor is 85 mph dangerous on 
every road.

>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

They'd lose millions in speeding-ticket revenues.  I'd imagine the 
insurance lobby would also have a thing or two to say about this.

 -LjM

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Nov 95 10:21:36 PST

In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) writes:
]        Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
]exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
]speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
]majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
]every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

What happens *when* (not if) Congress passes the new highway bill eliminating
the 55/65 speed limit, and you're stuck with a car limited to 65. That'll do
wonders for the resale value I bet. The new speed limit in California is 
going to be 70. Already signed by the governor just waiting for the bill 
to pass in Congress.  

This all reminds me of a speed limit thread in rec.autos.driving from a 
while back. Some guy posted something about speed limits being set where
they are for safety reasons after careful study, blah blah blah. Played
it real straight, and lots of people took the bait, but someone finally 
noticed the DOD# in the sig and got the joke. :)  
-- 
****************************************************************************
    Daniel Wang               '84 RZ350     AMA#: none   Activities: none
   [email-masked]      '92 GS500E    DOD#: none       Honors: none 
      Quote: "To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid."
****************************************************************************

---

From: Scott Sigethy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:12:04 -0500

On 13 Nov 1995, John P. Curcio wrote:

> Date: 13 NOV 1995 16:44:12 -0500 
> From: John P. Curcio <[email-masked]>
> Newgroups: rec.autos.misc, rec.autos.driving, rec.autos.tech, ca.driving,
>     dc.driving, alt.law-enforcement, talk.politics.misc, rec.motorcycles

For what it's worth, take a look at USA Today, page 4A.
Congress is about to abolish the 55/65 mph limit
and many states are about to raise their limits if the bill passes.

In OK, SD, MO, TX, and CA, the speed limit will be raised to 70 mph
in Wyo., Nev, and Kansas, the new limit will be 75 mph.
In Montana, there will be NO SPEED LIMIT!

Personally I am looking forward to driving through Montana if this passes.

So I guess we won't be needing speed limiters will we?

I DO think, though, that drivers should be better educated at handling 
cars, particularly at higher speeds.
A lot of people out there are not particularly skilled at high speed 
driving and they are causing the accidents that appear on highway statistics.

Wow, an Autobahn in Montana- cool huh?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:10:07 GMT

>powerful sports cars (who really needs to get to 60 mph in 5 seconds?). But

I do.. Makes it easy to run away from persistent tailgaters, merge with traffic, 
and it's just plain FUN!

>they won't pass a law mandating that they stop making cars that easily allow

If 80 to 90 percent of the people are breaking the law, then it SHOULD
be broken, and then eliminated.  

Hey, let's improve highway safety and fuel economy by requiring everyone to 
stop and check their tire pressures every 10 miles, inflating them as needed.  
While they're at it, they'll also have to check the tread depth, and not proceed 
if the wear bars are showing.

Let's have another law that requires drivers to install tire chains immediately 
as soon as there's any measurable snow or ice on the roads, and remove them 
as soons as it'd dry again.

Let's pass a law requiring that no car is kep on the road for more than 5 years, 
before it becomes unsafe..

Let's pass a law that prevents accidents by allowing the stickiest tires possible, 
even if they only last 1000 miles (It'll stimulate the economy too..)

Let's pass a law requiring everyone to wear oversize padded gloves so they 
can't hurt anyone in case they have abusive tendencies.

Let's put cameras and microphones in every room in everyone's home and 
workplace to ensure they don't break any present (or future) laws..

To make sure these laws are enforced, allow the insurance companies to charge 
drivers up to $2000 extra per year per vehicle, with no cancellation by the 
insurer ot driver allowed..  

We'll also remove all police from other duties and put them all on the highways 
to follow us and make sure we OBEY..

Stupid laws erode respect for legitimate laws, and 55/65 is most definitely 
a stupid law, with about as much chance for compliance as the others listed above.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Nov 1995 03:44:06 GMT

In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) writes:
>**** SNIP *************. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the

I can think of at least one case where limiters would endanger one's life.
Trying to drive someone to the hospital before they die, either in the car
of a friend or relative, or in an ambulance that can't get by a pack of 65-limited 
cars that can't speed up to get out of the way.

Or, someone is following me, with obvious intent to do me harm or steal my car, 
I'd like to have the ability to lose the vermin with my vehicle's superior speed..
I suppose, without that option, I could always carry a suitable automatic weapon...

Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..  55 was a temporary law
designed to make the public think the politicians were doing something about 
a phony fuel crisis, and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep 
it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it generated.

Besides, If my car had a speed governor, I'd just disable it, as most everyone
else would.

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:04:44 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

> detector goes mad, you hapily wave to the #@!$&^% cop as he speeds by
going the

Imagine this. No radar detector, travelling 55 MPH, and the cop drives by.
No problem.

> to buy that radar detector.)

Imagine this. You are driving a 110 MPH, you hit a pothole, deer, whatever
just as another car is coming the other direction. The car goes out of
control and kills the occupants of the other vehicle.

> Now tell me, what's safer, having the speed limit or not.

The speed limit is safer. The slower the speed, the less chance of fatal
accidents. I am not saying the speed limit should stay at 55 MPH, but I
don't want to see 100 MPH speed limits either.

-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Shaw)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 01:34:34 -0700

> simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

You should pick up a copy of Leonard Evans' book "Traffic Safety and the
Driver" (1991, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, ISBN 0-442-00163-0) and get a
little more perspective on the issue of traffic safety.  It is not so cut
and dry as you would suggest.

Evans even comments on studies that showed:

1)  A decrease in traffic fatalities in areas not affected by the 55 mph
    speed limit when it was put into effect.
2)  An increase in traffic fatalities in areas kept at 55 mph when other
    sections of the same interstate were raised to 65 mph.

The only thing that can be said conclusively is that an impact at a
higher speed will do more damage than at a lower speed IF YOU DON'T
CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE.  It is real hard to pinpoint exact effects
when you are simultaneously providing better crash protection and
increasing the speed of impact.

Besides, I think if we are supposedly going to get serious about
reducing traffic fatalities the most obvious thing to do is to
train better drivers, remove bad drivers from the road, and really
put a clamp on alcohol and driving.  This would save far more than
the few thousand lives predicted for such nebulous restrictions
like speed governors.

Speed governors as another one of those PC solutions that could
not possibly insult someone who is either an irresponsible or
lousy driver.  

Mark

---

From: [email-masked] (Gerald G. Washington)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 15:44:53 GMT

William P. Milam ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In message <[email-masked]> - Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]> writes
: :
: :>
: :>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) writes:
: :>
: :>>The
: :>>majority of all accidents are due to speed.
: :>
: :>Evidence, please.
: I concur! What evidence is there? I hear a lot of noise about deaths declining
: after the 55 limit was passed in the 70's...unfortunatley this statement
: ignores the fact that:

Okay.  The latest AutoWeek or Car & Driver printed findings released by the
Florida State Highway Patrol (or some such).  The percentage of fatal collisions
caused by speeding in Florida since 1990 was some ridiculously low number like 6%.
I'll try to find the actual article.

-- Gerald
   [email-masked]

---

From: Bob Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Nov 1995 01:01:26 GMT

>absolute, and that exceeding it, even to pass, is a violation of the law.

Depends on two things:
1) what state you're in, and
2) what roads you're on.

Some states have "prima facie" speed limits where exceeding 
them is legal if you can prove that your actions were not 
unreasonable or dangerous.  

The other exception is a little-known clause of the wonderful 
National Maximum Speed Limit law.  You cannot exceed it under 
any circumstances; it is absolute.  The anti-speed, big- 
government forces won another round.

---

From: [email-masked] (Vitalstatistix)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:08:03

>going to be 70. Already signed by the governor just waiting for the bill 
<snip>
>    Daniel Wang               '84 RZ350     AMA#: none   Activities: none

Dont forget the case where it may be necessary to go over 65 to get out of 
trouble.  If the only way that you can avoid an accident is to speed over 65 
mph even for a few seconds, and you have a speed limiter, God help you!

Krish

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew T. Russotto)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 19:38:05 -0500

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

}I must contradict this. Ambulance personnel should stabilize the patient
}PRIOR to transport. As a paramedic, I was bound by those rules. In PA,
}ambulances must obey ALL laws regardless of the emergency. No sense
}endangering more lives to save on life, whether transport by ambulance or
}personal vehicle.

I'll just have to watch for the ambulance with full lights and sirens
heading down the Blue Route at 55mph, getting passed by everyone else.
I'm sure it's a comical sight, to everyone except the patient.

}> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..  
}
}Sure it does.

Like what?

}> and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep 
}> it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it >
}generated.
}
}How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?

They do it openly and notoriously.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto      [email-masked]     [email-masked]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

---

From: [email-masked] (firebug)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 01:10:40 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Randy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
>> of a friend or relative, or in an ambulance that can't get by a pack of
>> 65-limited cars that can't speed up to get out of the way.
>
>I must contradict this. Ambulance personnel should stabilize the patient
>PRIOR to transport. As a paramedic, I was bound by those rules. In PA,
>ambulances must obey ALL laws regardless of the emergency. No sense
>endangering more lives to save on life, whether transport by ambulance or
>personal vehicle.

It's always been my understanding that an ambulance can do whatever it wants
as long as it's not unreasonably dangerous. This is what they told us in
driver's ed, this is what I've observed, and it even happens to be what
Florida law says. (I tried to check NY (where I took driver's ed) and PA
laws, but couldn't find them on the net, though NY could have it buried a
dozen levels deep in one of their messy gopher systems).

>Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above
>the law?

When you've got as many stupid laws as we do now, you'll find that people
don't have much regard for law.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:12:16 EST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] said:
>> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..  
>
>Sure it does.

No, it doesn't. A correct interpretation of various studies shows that not
only did the 55mph limit not save any lives, but the 65mph limit did not 
increase the highway fatality rate (per million miles traveled) AND if 
anything a low speed limit (lower than the 85th percentile speed of freely
flowing traffic) contributes to a higher accident rate, rather than the 
opposite. In fact, a low speed limit is more likely to increase accidents
than a high speed limit is. See the NMA home page:

  http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/

>> 55 was a temporary law
>> a phony fuel crisis, 
>How do you know it was phony?

Because anyone alive at the time knows that the shortage of fuel was caused
not by an actual shortage of supply at the oil well, but by an embargo by
the OPEC nations trying to extort more money out of the USA market. Not the
fault of our politicians directly, but phony nonetheless.

>> and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep 
>> it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it >
>generated.
>
>How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?

Can you say PAC? Can you say "campaign contribution"? Can you say "bribe"?
The fact is that insurance companies pump large amounts of money into
lobbying politicians to keep the NMSL. A bribe by any other name smells
just as foul.

>Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above

Damned right I have no regard for that particular law. As a free citizen,
I consider it my DUTY to disregard laws that are clearly unjust, as 
determined by the question "does breaking this law actually harm anyone?".
If the answer is no, the law is unjust. Removing the speed limiter from one's
car would not harm anybody, hence it would be an unjust law that imposed it.

Clearly murder, assault, rape, robbery, larceny, and so on harm others and
should be outlawed. Such laws I respect. Driving my car at greater than the 
posted limit but nonetheless in a responsible manner does not harm (or even 
endanger) anyone, thus the speed limit is unjust. Obviously most everyone 
else thinks so too, since the majority of drivers regularly exceed the 
speed limit on most roads.

>Randy

Michael Johnson                                     http://mordor.relay.com/
Relay Technology, Inc.
The opinions above are my own and not necessarily shared by Relay Technology

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Smith)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 22:01:05 GMT

>would compare the prevention of cars that allow speeding to the removal of

Your own logic is so impaired as to be nearly useless in this situation.  
Consider, for a moment, facts.  Fact: 25 years ago, a 2-ton sled with no 
airbag, no shoulder belt, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, no radial 
tires, and no fuel-efficient engine was legally allowed to cruise at 70 miles 
per hour, or faster (so I'm told).

Now, contrast that with today.  Modern vehicles have all of the above safety 
features, far more efficient engines, and a more developed interstate highway 
system.  Yet it is considered unsafe for them to exceed 55mph (or 65, as the 
case may be).

Now consider another afront to logic:  seven or eight years ago, all highways 
were considered "safe" at 55mph.  Then, suddenly, those very same highways 
driven by those very same people in the very same manner were deemed "safe" at 
65mph by good 'ole John Lawman.  Did some sweeping safety device come into play 
that magically made this possible?  No.  The law just bowed to sense, which is, 
I admit, an odd thing for it to do since it does it so irregularly.

Now, every day in my commute to work, I catch up to people like you.  
Apparently, you must be immortal, because you seem to have no grasp of the 
passage of time.  Time is the ONLY resource available that we can't get more of 
in some form or fashion.  I don't cherish spending it in a car.

So, if you want to drive at 55mph or 65mph, you just go right ahead.  Stay in 
the damned right lane where sheep belong.  Perhaps you are so insecure about 
your abilities to operate a motor vehicle that you don't feel capable of 
performing this duty, to which I answer:  take public transportation and stop 
making the rest of us pay for your handicap.

I have a 1994 Camaro Z/28 which is capable of nearly 160mph, and I have had it 
there on occasion on a state-patrolled highway.  I routinely drive at 80mph or 
more, traffic permitting.  I wish I could spit in the face of every "policeman" 
that hides behind a radar/laser gun in attempt to enforce a law that 97% of the 
American public does not support, obey, or condone and to which the police 
themselves do not obey.  And I wish there was a way I could kick every lackey 
politician out of office who supports this inane and criminal law for the 
solitary purpose of profiteering.

Of course, as long as there exists drivel such as you that can't seem to figure 
out which lane he/she belongs in, it seems the rest of us are going to have to 
pay for your inadequacies and insecurities.

Feel free to respond.  I have a lot more ammunition to throw at your pitiful 
argument.

---

From: [email-masked] (chris flynn)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:40:21 GMT

>Preventing your car from exceeding the maximum speed limit does not affect

You seem to be under the impression that the speed limit is set at a
"safe maximium speed". Do you have the slightest clue how the various
speed limits around the world were set by the various governments?
Do you have a clue, full stop?

---

From: [email-masked] (Melissa L Brown)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 07:13:19 GMT

(BIG snip)

: >>>        What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
: >>>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
: >>

Frankly, this is pure BS. 
For the millionth time, most accidents/highway deaths happen because 
somebody does something stupid, or maybe mechanical failure, but not 
because someone is driving too fast.
For example, pulling out in front of someone, not paying attention and 
rear-ending someone, ad nauseum.
If you feel that driving the big 55 is the safest maximum speed, get your 
ass over in the right lane and let the rest of us pass you by.

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Lajoie)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:40:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>consideration and safety in mind, under threat of death!!! 

Been there. done that. It's called California driving, and yes, it DOES 
make drivers pretty damn considerate.

-- 
--
Steve La Joie     
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Smith)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 12:43:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>
>
>California made over $800 million from speeding citations last year.  The
>simple fact is that the government likes speeders.
>
>-- Gerald
>   [email-masked]

No no no, the government doesn't like speeders.  They just love our money.  
They don't give a damn about our safety, just cash.

While you're at it, take this sobering fact to heart:  California may have had 
over $800 million in speeding revenues, but imagine how many extra BILLIONS the 
insurance companies took in from higher rates charged to those people!

It's a scam!  A hoodwink!  An out-and-out lie to get your money, and we ought 
to be trying to find a way to get rid of it.  By God, is there NO WAY to get to 
these self-serving bastards?

BTW, here in Atlanta, I heard something really stupid on the morning news.  
There has been an awful lot of outcry from the public to raise speed limits 
since the National limit was abolished.  Now, from the good 'ole Dept. of 
Transportation (those lackeys), they have issued a "study" that "proves" that 
raising the speed limit will cost the city $770 million.  Why, you say?  
Because they are assuming a 30% increase in traffic accidents due to speed.

WHAT KIND OF BULL IS THIS?

Their own studies a few years ago showed that raising the limit from 55mph to 
65mph actually DECREASED accidents (ie. people on the road for a lesser amount 
of time).  Of course, the public in general HATES to pay for things, so 
interjecting a large numerical figure into the argument is likely to cool down 
interest in the speed increase, at least for those who buy this cockamamie 
bull.

And even more so, our local Georgia State Patrol (arguably the most snot-nosed 
and piss-ridden State Patrol in these 50 states) has instigated a local 
operation, dubbed "Hard Nose", which has no other task than to set up 
concentrated speed traps trying to nab speeders.  Their Chief (whatever his 
title is) was recently asked if he thought the limits should be raised.  His 
answer?  "Absolutely not.  We're having a hard enough time enforcing the 
current limit".  NOW WHAT KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT?  If people are constantly 
flouting an outdated and overbearing law, then why the hell don't they CHANGE 
IT?!?!??!  Prohibition didn't work, but at least they had the sense to get rid 
of it when the realization hit.  A recent poll by the Atlanta 
Journal-Constitution showed that 87% of all drivers exceed 55mph, and 72% 
exceed 65mph.  Of course, I was in the 10% that drive at 80mph or greater (they 
didn't poll beyond 80mph).

Is there some congressman we can call?  Some lobby we can court?  This insanity 
has gone on de facto for twenty years.  We can do something about it.

[email-masked]

=======================================
The opinions expressed here are my own
and in no way reflect upon anyone or
anything except myself.  I reserve the
right to offend anyone and anything in
any acceptably legal manner.
=======================================

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Wassenich)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 15:28:02 GMT

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

>And this is supposed to prove...what?  That you're lucky?  I don't consider 
>people who do 20 MPH over the limit on back roads and curves anything but 
>stupid.
>
>Years ago, as an EMT in a rural Virgina town, I was called to a accident 
>with a rolled-over pickup truck.  On this perfectly straight road, speed 
>had to have been a contributing factor.  I'll never forget the look of 
>horror frozen on that partially-ejected teenager's face.  
>
On a "perfectly straight road", how did this "partially-ejected teenager" 
manage to roll a pickup truck, and what did this have to do with speed?  
Sounds to me like the little twerp drove it into the ditch and flipped it.

Steve

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:52:06 EST

>horror frozen on that partially-ejected teenager's face.  

As tragic as that teenager's death was, you have no basis for assuming that
speed had to be a contributing factor. This was an inexperienced driver
operating a vehicle with a high potential for rollover. The accident might
very well have been caused by the driver overcorrecting for an error, such
as allowing a wheel to drift onto the shoulder.

Driving too fast for conditions _might_ have caused the accident. It might 
not. You don't know, and neither do I. Even it was the proximate cause, 
we don't know how fast that truck was going. Perhaps the teenager was very
stupid and was operating at 50mph over. This does not mean that operating
at 10mph over would also have resulted in an accident. Operating over the
posted limit may be illegal, but it is not always dangerous. What matters is
whether one is driving too fast for conditions, which is a different thing.

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:13:23 -0500

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

> I've been exceeding the 55/65  by at least 10 MPHlimit ever since it was 
> established.. I also run 10-20 over the limit on back roads, curves, wherever 
> traffic and road conditions allow a comfortable limit that's higher than the 
> posted limit..

Ooh, you outlaw you. :-0

> Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent 
> sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic..  Oh, I
> also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at 
> about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds 
> cause accidents.

This does not prove low speeds cause accidents, it proves you weren't
paying attention, and you can't drive in the rain. I believe the phrase
OPERATOR ERROR fits here.
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Shahak Nagiel)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:25:55 -0400

> In article <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Good point. I'm only 22 and have only been driving for 5 years, but despite 
> nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets and the only
> time I've ever had a collision was when I was pulling out of a driveway very
> slowly on a residential street and hit a parked car, breaking the cover on
> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
> 
   Sorry. These things prove nothing but the fact that accidents are
possible under any conditions.  You both got in accidents (or ditches) not
necessarily because you were going slow, but because you were unfamiliar
with the area in poor weather or just not observent enough.  Had you been
going faster, it just would have been worse.  Speed in and of itself is
not dangerous, but it is inheritantly so.  Many drivers seem to forget a
fundamental law of physics which states that the kinetic energy is equal
to mass (the car's weight) times velocity SQUARED.  Regardless of the
car's mass, the point is that for doubling your speed, the momentum of the
car increases FOURfold.  From 50 to 75, while only a 50% increase in
speed, momentum increases 125%, which requires far longer breaking
distances and makes accidents far more dangerous.
   Granted, most speed laws on today's highways have been around since the
50s, when cars needed 250 feet to come to a stop from 60 miles/hour, and
they got 10 miles to the gallon.  Today, a good car can get 25-30 miles to
the gallon, and yank itself to a halt within 140 feet.  Which is why, of
course, almost everyone cruises at 65 or 70 and doesn't feel guilty about
it.  But speed kills, no doubt about it, whether on highways or not.

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 21:26:16 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>going faster, it just would have been worse.  Speed in and of itself is

Of course, this is obvious. I was being sarcastic; of course I didn't hit
the parked car because I was going slow. I was just saying that speed is
a minor factor in accidents; I hit the car because I wasn't paying attention
to the back of my vehicle. Speeding has never gotten me into an accident.
I never exceed my perception of what seems to be a safe speed. 

Speeding, as defined by exceeding the posted speed limit is a very minor
problem compared to tailgating, driver inattentiveness, drunk driving,
unsafe lane changes, and driving too fast for the road conditions (which
may or may not be above the speed limit).

And yes, I'm a student at Caltech, I know all about momentum.

-- 
Adam Villani
[email-masked]
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
Find the wondrous connection: Cesar Chavez, Benjamin Banneker, Sacajawea

---

From: [email-masked] (Sol)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 15:56:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Adam

> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
As part of the previously proposed European legislation to restrict bikes
to 100bhp the argument went something like... more powerful bikes go
faster and since speed is a major factor in motorcycle accidents ban more
powerful bikes.

The European bike organisations like FEM, BMF, MAG etc all succesfully
argued that most motorcycle accidents occur at lower speeds and within the
speed limit.... therefor power and speed are not major contributing
factors in M/C accidents.

It was also shown that (and I don't remeber the figures) while the power
of bikes had increased the number of accidents as a proportion of bikes
registered had decreased over time - this was largely attributed to the
increased rider training and increased safety awarness of bikers. The
conclusion here was that the proportion of accidents caused by other road
users and perpetrated against bikers was increasing as a proportion of the
number of accidents involving M/C's, and was largely attributable to poor
cage owner training / awareness.

So in conclusion we shouldn't be tempted to assume speed is 'the' factor
in bike accidents .... and should turn our attention to improving the
training and awareness of cage owners.

---

From: [email-masked] (Reid D Rivenburgh)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 16:54:09 -0700

>>>>> "John" == John Paramore <[email-masked]> writes:

    John> Friends in the State Patrol and RCMP tell me that they
    John> target speeders more because most are highly focused, paying
    John> attention to the road ahead, and are much easier to slip up
    John> on.

Now I wouldn't think that the above is true, unless you're referring
to the idiotic sub-breed of speeders.  Part of being a good driver is
being aware of the cars around you, and that includes looking in your
rear-view mirror from time to time.  I usually know when someone is
coming up behind me quickly, especially if it's a cop!  Which is
another point: smart speeders are always on the lookoup for cops.  I
guess the bottom line is that there are lots of dumb speeders...

Reid

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Szymczak)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:30:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>and are much easier to slip up on.

It wouldn't have anything to do with revenue generation, now would it? 
When we had photo radar in Ontario, the offical government line was 
public safety, the unofficial line was money. Since speeding was only a 
factor in 10% of accidents, I guess the government thought the other 90% 
weren't that serious.

At least our new government putting the police officer where they belong 
- in a cruiser not a van taking pictures. And at least they are starting 
to crack down on drivers eating, using cell phones, reading something, 
tailgating, unsafe lane changes, etc - the more common reasons behind 
accidents.

I remember driving to Toronto on the QEW when photo radar began. Man it 
was tense. It was the most tense drive I ever had. Everyone was doing the 
same speed in all three lanes, in fact, the right lane was down to 80km/h 
is some places. People braking at the sight of a van - chain reaction. 
Now with photo radar gone, speeds are up, the left lane is moving faster, 
and I feel more relaxed.

My biggest beef: people who insist on driving in the middle lane around 
the speed limit on 3 or more lane highways. I have one piece of advice: 
MOVE OVER! I hate passing on the right, especially near onramps/offramps. 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that passing on the right is 
illegal in Germany and other European countries.

Left lane bandits are fun too. Ohh a truck, I better pass it at exactly 
1km/h more. By the time the person has passed the truck there is a line 
of 10 or more cars, literally tailgating. Speed up and pass.

The only time I got caught speeding was on a secondary highway on the 
Manitoulin Island doing about 120km/h in an 80km/h. Cop was coming 
straight at me, and as soon as I saw the car I knew it was the OPP. But, 
alas, I had met the cop the day before - my ex-girlfriend was selling his 
house - I guess I had used my free "Get Out of Jail" card.
-- 
Yours truly,

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Smith)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 12:56:18 GMT

>..based on a true story...

EVEN MORE SO, take this into consideration:

Under the current restrictive laws, if you are speeding, and if you're wise, 
you probably spend a disproportionate amount of your time watching for cops.  I 
know I do.  Your driving/speeding style is also modified to allow for known 
radar/laser traps.

Now imagine if you could go into the left lane, and drive 80mph-100mph, and not 
have to look for cops.  You could concentrate solely upon driving.  No panic 
stops.  No traffic knots (you know, those globs of traffic with a patrol car in 
the center that nobody DARES to pass).

Imagine also that the idiot driving the 1971 Cadillac with a dragging muffler 
isn't hogging the left lane driving at 50mph, or that old fool in the Winnebago 
isn't speeding up and slowing down ten times per minute in the left lane.  Why 
aren't these people in the left lane?  Because (a) they don't want to get run 
over by legal speeders and (b) the left lane will have a MINIMUM speed of, say, 
75mph during non-rush-hour times.  That should keep the sheep where they 
belong, in the far right lane.

Hell, keeping them in the right lane would solve a lot of problems anyway.  How 
many of you out there have been on a two-lane highway where two idiots are 
going side-byside at 50mph, and refuse to speed up, slow down, or get out of 
the way?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 14 Nov 1995 04:19:04 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Andy the Pugh)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 15:53:57 GMT

>Personally I am looking forward to driving through Montana if this passes.
I just hope the Montana authorities have the common sense to
overlook the probable iniriall rash of accidents as foolish people
from neighbouring states bring their cars in to see what they will
do, then find that what they will do is seize or break in some 
unfortunate and unrecoverable manner. :-(

ap

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Lajoie)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:35:40 GMT

Humm. The speed limit use to be 55. Now it's 65. Tomorrow it will 
something else. I think this is a crummy idea.  Cars get older and less 
effecient. How are you going to limit the speed? What about older cars? 
Imorted cars? What about passing?

Right after the 55 MPH speed limit was passed, I was pulled over by a 
highway patrolman for blocking traffic. I was doing 55 in a 70 MPH zone. 
I said it wasn't legal to go 70. He said that under the basic spped law, 
I had to drive at a SAFE speed, and going 55 when everyone else is going 
70 was NOT safe.

Once I had a sick VW and it could go very fast. I almost got squished by 
a semi getting one the freeway. It would have been nice to be able to get 
up to the same speed as the traffic. As it was, I was only ran off the road.

Crummy idea that will probably get more people killed than it would save.

-- 
--
Steve La Joie     
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (George B)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:09:53 GMT

>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

Because it could KILL people.

What if you had to rush someone to the hospital and did not have time
to wait for an ambulance? What if someone is chasing you?

Your suggestion is another example of the idiotic thinking that is
becomming so common in this country.  Because a FEW violate the law,
you want to take away one more piece of my security. If I NEED to go
fast, I want to be able to do it.

Otherwise, only cops, lawyers, and politicians will have cars that go
over 65. 

George Bonser
[email-masked]

Have Internet access at work but don't
want to use it for personal postings?
A cris.com telnet account is only $10/month
unlimited access time. That include a web page too.
See http://www.cris.com

There are three kinds of jobs:
Good, Cheap, Fast ... pick any two.

---

From: [email-masked] (George B)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:09:57 GMT

If I need to get somebody to the hospital, or need to get to a police
station in a hurry ... I want to be able to. Out in the country, you
might not have time to wait for an ambulance or a cop. I might also
need to get away from a truck with failed brakes or a lunitic with a
gun.

I want the security of knowing I CAN go fast if I need to ... even if
I never do.

George Bonser
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 15 Nov 1995 05:04:37 GMT

>to drive at dangerous speeds.

Yes, I agree. Whenever I get in my car, and see that the speedometer goes
to <gasp> 140, my eyes glaze over and I start mumbling my Homer-wants-
donuts mantra: "Mmmmmm.....speeding......swift, fast, illegal speeding....."

>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

I think he's on to something.

The majority of airplane crashes are caused by altitude! We should also
ban airplanes from flying. Milons (cheap shot, I know) of lives would be saved
in the long run if airplanes were unable to exceed a safe altitude.

>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

Safe speed is determined by driver skill, vehicle capability, road conditions,
traffic congestion, weather, ..... A one-size-fits all speed limit doesn't really
exist. I'm really glad the control-freak viewpoint is in the minority in this
country.

[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Kirkham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:11:48 +0000

Mark Spencer wrote:
> speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?

I guess for the same reason that they don't make morons get
vasectomies so that they don't breed more morons.

 The
> majority of all accidents are due to speed. 

Like I said......

Thosands of lives would be saved
> every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.

Uh huh. Yeah. Sure. Right. Again, like I said....

> simple way to enforce a law and save lives?

And what is wrong that they don't interfere with everybody else's
lives more than they already do. You seem to be the ideal candidate
for the aforementioned medical procedure.

Scott

---

From: "NMA [Bob M]" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Nov 1995 19:25:15 GMT

The idea of speed limiters is nothing new.  I remember about 15 years 
ago, a device was proposed for cars that would allow the police to shut 
off the engine by remote control.  The idea was to prevent high-speed 
chases.  A noble idea, but hollow nails work well at that too.

Speed limiters are safety limiters too.  What about the volunteer 
firemen, paramedics etc?  There are times where going over the speed 
limit is warranted albeit not always legal.  Would you want to say you 
had an accident because you couldn't step on the gas to get out of the 
way?  But we're missing the real point here.  We're assuming that all 
speed limits are set correctly.  If that was true, there would be no such 
thing as speed traps for revenue enhancement.  People pulled over for 
speeding would deserve a ticket.  Unfortunately, that's not the situation 
today.

There's another issue related to that: Properly set limits reflect the 
-actual- (on-road, as opposed to meaningless talk) desires of drivers, 
meaning that the limit would be self-regulating.  This defeats any need 
for a limiting device.  

By the way, in some states, the speed limits are prima facie, not 
absolute.  PF speed limits are illegal to exceed unless you can prove 
that doing so isn't dangerous.  This is tacit acknowledgement of the 
effects that variations in roads, weather, cars, etc. play in the speed 
situation.  Absolute means just that; it is never legal to exceed it.  
For example, Montana's speed limit, when 55/65 is repealed, will have no 
numerical limit during the day.  It's called "reasonable and prudent", a 
part of their basic speed rule.  (The MT Highway Patrol chief supports 
the repeal, BTW)

If you feel that 56 mph is too fast, please stay in the right lane so the 
rest of us can pass.  

-- 
National Motorists Association      	Join the NMA!
[email-masked]                  	$29 a year.
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/    	Sign up online.

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Smith)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 13:35:45 GMT

>I'm sure it's a comical sight, to everyone except the patient.

I encountered just such a thing on my commute from North Carolina to Atlanta, 
GA.  I was comfortably cruising at around 80mph when I saw an ambulance ahead. 
This poor ambulance had lights flashing and sirens going.  This ambulance had 
about twelve cars stuck behind it, no doubt because the motorists were unsure 
if they should pass the ambulance.  There was no traffic in the oncoming lane, 
yet they didn't pass.  Obviously it would've been pretty idiotic to pull off 
the road when you're BEHIND the ambulance.

When a passing lane became available, I passed all twelve cars and the 
ambulance.  Apparently this broke some of the other drivers our of their 
reverie, as a couple of them then passed the ambulance.

I'm sure the driver of that vehicle was cursing the limit up and down.  There 
was virtually NO TRAFFIC whatsoever (except that piled behind the 
slothly ambulance).  I'm sure the patient had a long trip to the hospital.

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Smith)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 13:29:34 GMT

>> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..  

Okay, what is it then?  I know you're not going to say "it saves lives", 
because every study known to man shows that traffic deaths have not increased 
measurably in going from 55mph to 65mph.  In some cases it has actually 
decreased deaths since folks are on the road a lesser amount of time, and the 
speed differential between the law-abiders and the law-flouters is less.

>How do you know it was phony?

Okay, I have to give you this one.  Whoever said the fuel crisis was "phony" 
didn't live through it.  Ever remember being able to get a gallon of high-test 
for under sixty cents?

>How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?

I think he used the right idea but the wrong terms.  "Bribe" in the strictest 
sense indicates money "under the table" for illegal means.  However "campaign 
contributions" don't seem to fall under this category.  I have no doubt that 
the politicians like it this way.  Either way, they insurance and state patrol 
lobbies effectively "bribe" these politicians every year to see things their 
way.  The only difference is, it's "legal".

>Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above

America was founded on the ideals that the power to change government rests 
with the people.  Now, national figures indicate that an absolutely 
outrageously overwhelming number of people think the current limits are far too 
low.  I'm not talking only 50%-60% here, I'm talking 80%-90%.  Now, if the 
matter were put to a vote today, we'd have higher limits tomorrow.  But the 
lawmen and politicos (and insurance lackeys) don't want it that way.  So, 
effectively, the government is usurping the power of the people "for our own 
good".  Don't forget that prohibition used this same argument.

I speed whenever I get the chance.  Am I above the law?  No, but I refuse to 
obey a law that has no basis or support, as is the case with our speed limits. 
Would I commit murder, rape, or robbery?  No, because these laws do have a 
basis for their existence other than crookery and profiteering.

If speeding makes me a crook, then you better start building a helluva lot of 
jails, because you'll need space for about 200 million speeders nationwide.

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 14:14 CST

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

>Now imagine if you could go into the left lane, and drive 80mph-100mph, and
>not have to look for cops.  You could concentrate solely upon driving.  No
>panic stops.  No traffic knots (you know, those globs of traffic with a
>patrol car in the center that nobody DARES to pass).

Ah, memories.  I think I'm the only one who flaunts it, but I seem not to be
able to get a ticket.  There was a traffic knot on an interstate under 
construction.  The posted speed limit was 45.  The cop was going 45.  Every
car was going 45 in the right lane behind the cop.  I didn't like going that
slow on this road.  There wasn't even a reason for the lowered limits.
I passed him at 65, with my mom in the passenger seat, telling me how "one
day I'll get it."  Everyone followed me, and soon the interstate was back
to a reasonable speed, even if it wasn't at a reasonable speed limit.
The cop was the only one that didn't speed up, and he was left back there
all alone, waiting to knot the next group of cars.

Marc

---

From: Lord Kittenslayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:03:41 -0800

On 15 Nov 1995, Adam Neil Villani wrote:

>  I'm only 22 and have only been driving for 5 years, but despite 
> nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets

Well it's kinda hard to get tickets on the 210, where the flow of traffic 
ranges from 70-80 MPH. Although I almost managed to one time: I was 
tearing down the carpool lane going at least 85 when all of a sudden I 
saw a motorcycle cop on my right, two lanes away. Needless to say, I 
checked my rear-view and fell back hard. I think he either must have lost 
me, or must have been looking for actual Car Pool violators (which I wasn't).

> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.

No, it just proves that not looking where you're going causes accidents. If 
you had been going faster, it just would have been worse! This lame 'proof' 
is just more ammo for the "speed kills" people. Sheesh, no wonder people 
over here make fun of you CalTech folk!

---

From: [email-masked] (Seungho Cha)
Date: 14 Nov 1995 18:08:14 -0800

Speed limit on the car is one stupid idea.  It won't work for some
more stupid people who don't know what speed they can handle.  A few
days ago, I was driving on the freeway on the second lane, and a BMW
325i on the left lane almost hit me.  That idiot couldn't handle 75mph
on the curved freeway.  He slowed down a little on that curve after
that close call, then speed up again on the straight freeway.  And,
that same idiot almost hit me again on the next curve.  Some idiots
think they should do speeding if they have nice cars, even though they
cannot handle.  Those idiots may try to corner local cross way at
65mph, even if car speed is limited to 65mph.  Do you want to limit
the speed to 15mph?  Why don't you say "let's ban the automobile on
the road"?

-- 
 ___
' o/                                   |>
  |    .  o                            |            Seungho Cha, Ph.D.
  >\.                                ( | )          Computer Science

---

From: Brad Cuppy <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1995 18:55:13 GMT

[email-masked] (Randy) wrote:

> Following is the PA law regarding Emergency Vehicles (take special note of
> subsection D.

[ snipped }

>    (d)  Ambulances and blood-delivery vehicles.--The driver of
> an ambulance or blood-delivery vehicle shall comply with maximum
> speed limits, red signal indications and stop signs. After
> ascertaining that the ambulance or blood-delivery vehicle will
> be given the right-of-way, the driver may proceed through a red
> signal indication or stop sign.

> 
> The laws may or may not be stupid, but they are laws. You are bound to
> abide by them. If you break them, you are a criminal. Do your best to
> repeal laws which you think are unfair/unjust.
> -- 
> Randy

Subsection (d) --> The gov't knows what's best for us (sarcasm).

Obedience to arbitrary and puntative gov't regulations are more
important than saving one's life where a few minutes is a 
difference between life and death.

The legislature who wrote that subsection of the law ought to be 
voted out of office and be ridiculed for pushing something that
arbitrary. All other emergency vehicles can exceed the posted 
speed limit except ambulances and blood vehicles.

Laws like that deserve to be broken.

              Brad

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1995 14:49:02 GMT

[email-masked] (Robert W. Hall) wrote:

>Competence is the problem, not speed.  There are far too many incompetent
>drivers on the road.  Far too many drivers lack precision, judgement, >skill.
>
>Rigourous driving tests, as present in Germany, would be a start, I think.

I can just imagine the screams of outrage that their "Constitutional Right" 
to drive a car is being violated because they have to demonstrate that they 
actually know what they're doing behind the wheel.

Still a damn good idea, though.

-- 
                            _\\|//_
                            ( O-O )

---

From: Randy Morobitto <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1995 17:55:15 GMT

>I live in Scotland, and I'd be interested to find out about the limits in the states
>as I don't have any idea...
Until a few months ago, our federal speed limit was 55 (hell of a long
temporary limit, eh?)...  Recently, our new gov't saw fit to allow a
speed limit of 65mph, and if what I saw in a national newspaper was
correct, we may get to see 70!

Most 2-lanes in the Pennsylvania area are 25 mph, and urban 4-lanes are
35.
Unfortunately, while some states have allowed 65 on a lot of their
roads, PA only lets us have it on "rural interstates", where there's
less of a need to move large volumes of vehicles quickly...  Most of our
heavily congested roads are still 55.

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1995 14:53:36 GMT

>Sounds to me like the little twerp drove it into the ditch and flipped it.

Needless to say, the driver was silent on this matter.  This piece of road 
was one of the deadliest in the county for the number of accidents that 
were speed-related.  There were plenty of narrow, twisty, two lane roads 
that virtually never had accidents on them, OTOH.

-- 
                            _\\|//_
                            ( O-O )

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Gilbert)
Date: 16 Nov 1995 15:07:17 GMT

> I'll try to find the actual article.

Just a few loosely related thoughts:

1) Not sure about the above statistic, but dispite what it is, remember that
   probably the easiest thing for a trooper to do is check the "speed excessive
   for conditions" box on the accident report.  This will be interpeted as
   "speeding" by most people, even though the speed might well have been below
   legal limits.

2) Dispite all the "don't drink and drive" campains, alcohol is still a 
   significant factor in many accidents.

3) (IMHO)  I suspect simply falling asleep is an often overlooked cause of
   accidents, especially on the interstates.  I suspect that most of us
   have, at one time or another, come close to succumbing to the heavy
   eyelids during long drives.  Take a little cold medicine for that stuffy
   nose and really aggravate the situation.

4) I suspect that for the cases where exceeding the speed limit did contribute
   to the accident, that many times the limit exceeded was not the 65mph
   limit, but something much slower (e.g. doing 50mph in a residential area).
   I mention this in response to the idea of mandating speed limiters on cars.

-Bob

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:58:36 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Matthew

> I'm sure it's a comical sight, to everyone except the patient.

It may be comical to you, but if the patient is aware, then it is not an
emergency. I have been in the back of ambulances trying to treat patients
while moving at faster speeds. The truth is, it was harder for me to start
an IV in a faster moving ambulance, then a slower moving one. The patient
actually benefits when the ambulance is moving slower.

> }> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..  

Read my other posts.

> They do it openly and notoriously.

Then why aren't they arrested? I have never seen this openly and notoriously.

-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:56:12 -0500

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

> Imagine this:  You are driving at 55mph from Texas to California.  You fall 
> asleep at the wheel because it's taking so long.  You run off the road
and kill 
> yourself, or, better yet, you run into the oncoming lane and kill
someone in an 
> oncoming vehicle.

Imagine this. You take a rest from driving and get enough sleep. 
How much time do you think you are going to save anyway? If you are going
to be on the roads for extended periods of time, you should be well
rested. No sense putting others in danger just so you can get somewhere
faster. BTW, people fall asleep at the wheel no matter how fast they are
going.

> Believe it or not:  during World War II, speed limits were drastically
lowered 
> to save fuel.  Traffic deaths SOARED.  Why?  Folks were either (a) falling 
> asleep at the wheel or (b) being run over by speeders due to the huge speed 
> differential between the law-abiding and the law-ignoring.

As far as traffic deaths soaring, I would not say that. Show me the study
to prove this. As far as the speed differential, the law-abiding were not
at fault. The speeder was at fault. Go ahead and ignore the law, but don't
endanger anyone else, and don't whine when you get caught. Try to repeal
the law.

> Well, gee, let's examine a little shade-tree physics.  You lose control of a 
> car at 55mph and wander into the oncoming lane.  You strike an oncoming
vehicle 
> also running at 55mph.  Combined impact speed:  110mph.  Result:  You
are going 
> to die.

Hmmm... Not necessarily. There have been plenty of accidents with both
vehicles doing the speed limit. Now go figure, not many of them died. The
ones that did die, did not have seatbelts on.

Now imagine this. You are driving 110 MPH. The other car is driving 55
MPH. Combined speed 165 MPH. WOW.

> Imagine the same scenario, but at the higher speeds.  Results:  you are going 
> to die, just a little quicker and a lot messier.  No airbag or shoulder
belt or 
> crumple zone is going to be enough at either speed, unless you're
driving a M1 
> tank.

Not necessarily. Seatbelts and airbags combined reduce the chance of death.

> On the other hand, examine this logic:  if you are traveling twice as
fast, you 
> will be on the road half as long.  No argument there, eh?  

No argument at all.

> You drastically 
> decrease the already-remote possibility of striking a deer, possum,
armadillo, 
> etc. 

No you don't.

> As for potholes, I've never been on an interstate that had a pothole 
> large enough to cause anyone to lose control of their vehicle.

Not at lower speeds.

> Perhaps if they 
> were totally incompetent, they might.  The only place I've seen potholes
in on 
> rural roads and inner-city streets, where you have no business going 100mph 
> anyway.

Hmmm... You have never seen PA roads then.

> Then what is safe, huh?  

Not driving. :-)

> Where do you set the limit? 

Don't ask me.

> What is "safe" to you 
> might be "crawling along" to me.

So true.

> Should we then pander to the lowest common 
> denominator?  If that's the case, then the current 55mph is far too high for 
> some of the fools who ply our highways today.

Could be true.

> The solution here, dear readers, is to greatly increase the difficulty
it > takes 
> to get a driving license in the first place.  

I disagree. We should have better training. I think Everyone should be put
through a driving class/course prior to testing.

> I have heard that it takes over a 
> year to get a license in Germany, where you must take extensive classes and 
> spend a week with an instructor IN THE CAR with you.  The result:  autobahns 
> are the safest high-speed roadways in the world.

I cannot disagree with this, except for one thing. When an accident on the
autobahn does happen, there is always a death.

> Here in America, it seems all you have to demonstrate is the ability to
not hit 
> four plastic traffic cones and know proper use of a blinker (on paper,
because 
> it obviously isn't used in practice by the vast majority).  Under this
system, 
> it is possible for a 16-year old with no experience to get out on our
highways, 
> just as it's possible for a 90-year old man with one eye and little
hearing to 
> drive the same roads (true story - he hit a school bus because he
couldn't see 
> it with his bad eye).  Neither one of them have any business on the roads.

I can agree with this.
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Branney)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:00:50 GMT

Firstly, speed limiters would not be suitable for taking your car abroad. If you went
to a country with a higher limit, you could actually cause accidents. Also, who knows
what the speed limits will be 10 years from now? They could be higher, with
high-quality wide roads with banked corners, or they could be reduced, if less money
is spent on road repair.

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:02:02 -0500

BTW, PA laws are not on the net anywhere. I will be putting them on my web
site shortly.

3105.  Drivers of emergency vehicles.
   (a)  General rule.--The driver of an emergency vehicle, when
responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an
actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to
but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the
privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the
conditions stated in this section.
   (b)  Exercise of special privileges.--The driver of an
emergency vehicle may:
       (1)  Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of
   this part.
       (2)  Proceed past a red signal indication or stop sign,
   but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe
   operation, except as provided in subsection (d).
       (3)  Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as the
   driver does not endanger life or property, except as provided
   in subsection (d).
       (4)  Disregard regulations governing direction of
   movement or turning in specified directions.
   (c)  Audible and visual signals required.--The privileges
granted in this section to an emergency vehicle shall apply only
when the vehicle is making use of an audible signal and visual
signals meeting the requirements and standards set forth in
regulations adopted by the department, except that an emergency
vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with
or display the visual signals. An ambulance which is
transporting a patient may use either the lights or the audible
warning system, or both, as determined by the driver of the
ambulance.
   (d)  Ambulances and blood-delivery vehicles.--The driver of
an ambulance or blood-delivery vehicle shall comply with maximum
speed limits, red signal indications and stop signs. After
ascertaining that the ambulance or blood-delivery vehicle will
be given the right-of-way, the driver may proceed through a red
signal indication or stop sign.
   (e)  Exercise of care.--This section does not relieve the
driver of an emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due
regard for the safety of all persons.

---

From: [email-masked] (Vitalstatistix)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:01:00

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Kevin Atkinson) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Andy the Pugh <[email-masked]> wrote:
<snip>
>My My won't this be fun....  That fact along with people who deside to drive 
>100 when they can't handle it could cause an increase in 
>accients significant enough to "prove" the speed kills jerks case!

But you do accept that some drivers who are not qualified to drive (at any 
speed) will be going waaaayyyyy above their capabilities.  For those drivers, 
the increased speed is going to RESULT in increased accidents.  Oh by the way, 
note that I said that increased speed is going to result in increased 
accidents, not cause an increase in accidents.  The cause is their inability 
to drive.  

Also, next time anybody tells you that they can prove 'CAUSATION' (higher 
spped causes accidents) by using ANY statistical result, tell them to go jump 
off Mt. Everest.  Causation is absolute .... statistical results always have a 
degree of error associated with them.

But, I am looking forward to the higher speeds although here in FL it probably 
will not be much higher than what they are now.  Now, if we can only keep 
those bad drivers off the road .....

Krish

>* Kevin Atkinson, Clarknet I'net Serv.,  http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/    
*>*  Maintainer of the Usenet Info Center at http://sunsite.unc.edu/usenet-i/  
*>* And of Reasonable Drivers Unanimous at http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/ 
*

---

From: "Graham J. Addis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 09:01:25 GMT

Shahak Nagiel wrote:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Just out of curiosity, can anyone elaborate on the driving tests there

I've never taken one myself, but the tuition must include the
following before you can get a driving licence:

Motorway driving
Night driving
Town driving
Proof of having taken a first aid course
Written examination
Minimum of ten hours tuition (I believe)

As an aside, a lot of people actually get their motorcycle licence
at the same time as their car licence, although they have little
intention of getting a motorcycle, because the it is cheaper than
redoing everything at a later date.

Graham Addis

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Nov 1995 06:22:47 GMT

In <[email-masked]>, Tom Walker <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>
>This thread might just beat out re:American Cars SUCK!! for flame thread 
>of the year!! What do you guys think??
>
Actually, the flaming has been surprisingly light.  It has shown that the 
overwhelming majority of the writers think speed limiters and the NMSL are
stupid ideas..  I hope some of the politicians considering keeping 55/65
are reading this newsgroup to get an idea of how the public feels about this
issue.

---

From: [email-masked] (Andy the Pugh)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 13:04:02 GMT

>of the year!! What do you guys think??
No, I am amazed just what an interesting massive cross post it has turned
out to be.

ap

---

From: [email-masked] (Matthew T. Russotto)
Date: 16 Nov 1995 11:27:26 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
Eric Smith <[email-masked]> wrote:
}of it when the realization hit.  A recent poll by the Atlanta 
}Journal-Constitution showed that 87% of all drivers exceed 55mph, and 72% 
}exceed 65mph.  Of course, I was in the 10% that drive at 80mph or greater (they 
}didn't poll beyond 80mph).
}
}Is there some congressman we can call?  Some lobby we can court?  This insanity 
}has gone on de facto for twenty years.  We can do something about it.

No, we can't.  That is the message and the meaning of the speed limit:
Here is a law which most despise and few obey, yet this government can
keep it in place despite the wishes of the citizens.  The speed limit
is one of the government's way of telling us who is the master.
Maryland and Pennsylvania got really obnoxious about this for a while,
essentially flipping motorists the bird with signs marked:

STILL! <-- in yellow
SPEED
 55
LIMIT

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Shaw)
Date: 16 Nov 1995 17:12:14 GMT

In article, [email-masked] (Eric Smith) writes:
|> And even more so, our local Georgia State Patrol (arguably the most snot-nosed 
|> and piss-ridden State Patrol in these 50 states) has instigated a local 
|> operation, dubbed "Hard Nose", which has no other task than to set up 
|> concentrated speed traps trying to nab speeders.  Their Chief (whatever his 
|> title is) was recently asked if he thought the limits should be raised.  His 
|> answer?  "Absolutely not.  We're having a hard enough time enforcing the 
|> current limit".  NOW WHAT KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT?  

This is an interesting response to the same problem here in Arizona.  But Arizona,
went the other way since they noticed in was too much of a hassle to enforce the
lower limits (and the speed differential was also pretty high!).  So some years
back they changed the state law to make speeding above 55, but less than 65 a
"petty offense" for wasting a natural resouce and only instituted a fine with
no points or record of it (like a parking ticket).  Then they just changed the
interstate road speed limits to 65.

Since then the interstates are much more civilized and you didn't see as many
gross speeders or slow drivers either. 

BTW, I experienced an interesting example of the problem this week when I
blew a CV boot and sprayed grease onto my exhaust.  The car smoked like crazy 
and I had to drop to around 50 mph on the freeway to keep more grease from
being flung out by centrifugal force.  At 50 in the far right lane I was
under constant fear of getting run over and the cars shooting by at 65 was
somewhat frightening.   Boy, did I long for the ability to match my speed
to everybody else!  This idea of driving at the speed limit, even if
the traffic is going faster, is nonsense -- and I can see why the people who
do it are frightened by "fast" drivers.  If they would only drive with the
flow they would be less intimidated.

Mark

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:27:48 -0500

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

<snip>

> you probably spend a disproportionate amount of your time watching for cops.  
> I know I do.

If you are wise, you won't speed. Therefore, avoiding a possible ticket.

> Your driving/speeding style is also modified to allow for known 
> radar/laser traps.

Would not have to worry about speed traps if you were not speeding.

> not 

Now imagine this. You drive the speed limit (whatever it is in your area),
and do not have to look for cops. You could concentrate solely upon
driving. No panic stops (except for the possible deer, or disabled car, or
debris on roadway). No traffic knots since everyone would/should be doing
the same speed.

> isn't speeding up and slowing down ten times per minute in the left lane.

Hmmm.... I hardly ever see these types of vehicles doing what you say. But
if I saw the caddy doing that, he would be taken off the road that quick.

> Why 
> aren't these people in the left lane? 

My theory on this is that they wish to annoy speeders and be as far away
from possible unexpected dangers from the right berm.

> Because (a) they don't want to get run 
> over by legal speeders and 

If they didn't want to get run over by legal speeders, they would stay in
the right lane.

(b) the left lane will have a MINIMUM speed of, say, 
> 75mph during non-rush-hour times.  

I never saw that.

> That should keep the sheep where they 
> Hell, keeping them in the right lane would solve a lot of problems anyway.

It may.

> How 

I have seen that happen at all speeds. Even fast speeds.
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert S. Jenkins)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:02:38 -0500

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

I cant imagine 55mph anywhere(our state speed limit on interstates is
65mph. I mean the BlueRidge Parkway has a speed limit of 45mph and it is
anything BUT straight

> control and kills the occupants of the other vehicle.

He sais a ruler straight road with no other in SIGHT. Yuo just changed the
scenaio, stick to the question.

> don't want to see 100 MPH speed limits either.

Ok so YOU drive 30mph EVERYWHERE YOU go...

Robert

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 01:51:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>correct, we may get to see 70!

You're mixing up state and federal regulations. The feds mandated 55 from
the 70s until a few years ago, when they upped the limit to 65 on rural
interstates. Some states didn't go for that, though, and kept it at 55.
Now there is a bill in Congress to repeal the national limits and return
it to the states.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:47:33 GMT

On 13 Nov 1995 09:06:39 GMT, Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]> wrote in

>I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.

Most *deaths* are caused by impaired driving.

Most *accidents* are caused by inattention and/or poor judgement.

According to the driver training course where I live (Dept. of Transport
approved course), you are more likely to *cause* an accident by driving 10
km/h below the speed limit than 10 km/h above, because you create
congestion, tension in the drivers behind you (leading to irrational
decisions), and the increased risk associated with passing.

Anyone who thinks that slower is always safer should remember that many
highways also post a minimum speed limit.  This minimum speed is posted
because the government recognises that speed difference is more dangerous
than speed itself.

--
Chris
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.

---

From: [email-masked] (WARNING--Contents Protected With Permanent Marking )
Date: 16 Nov 1995 11:27:09 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Andy the Pugh)
writes: 
>In article
<[email-masked]>,
>unfortunate and unrecoverable manner. :-(
Montana has effectively had no limit even while the NMSL was in effect.
When you get stopped in MT you get a ticket for wasting fuel or
something.  There's not really a whole lot to run into if you crash on
the Interstates in MT, so who cares if some dumbshit crashes and kills
himself because he exceeded the limits of his skill and his vehicle?  I
won't lose any sleep over it-that's one less moron on the road to cut
me off.
>ap

Eric
84 Jetta 2.0 16V

---

From: Bob Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Nov 1995 00:43:01 GMT

[email-masked] (WARNING--Contents Protected With Permanent 
Marking ) wrote:

>himself because he exceeded the limits of his skill and his vehicle?  

Isn't that the truth.  They have a $5 daytime speeding ticket, 
which does not go on your record, and it is illegal for 
insurance companies to jack up your rates if (when) you get 
one.  The MHP publicly announces that they give 10 over before 
they'll even look at you.  They have better things to do with 
their time.

I used to live out there, and got about 8 of the $5 tickets.  
As often as not however, I'd be tooling down a road at 75 and 
have a cop come up in the other lane.  They usually left me 
alone, in some cases not even bothering to flip on the lights.

MT's $5 speeding ticket is a great anti-radar detector law.  
For the price of even the cheapest detector, you'll have to get 
a lot of tickets to cover it's cost.  8 tix * $5 = $40.  
Nowhere can you get a detector for that little, and as a result 
I never had or needed a detector in Montana.  That changed when 
I moved to NY then WI.

-- 
Bob Morrow N7PTM
USAF Tops In Blue  http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/bobm/tib.htm
WWW Scenic Roads homepage: http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/bobm

---

From: [email-masked] (Hactar)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:08:29 -0500

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

>Many drivers seem to forget a
>to mass (the car's weight) times velocity SQUARED.

  Yes.

>  Regardless of the
>car increases FOURfold.

  Yes.

>  From 50 to 75, while only a 50% increase in

  No; you had it right the first time -- it's kinetic energy, not momentum.

/===BBS=813=960=8066===[email-masked]====83=GPz=550===DoD=#16384===\
|   Did you ever get the feeling that the story's too damn real   |
|____________and in the present tense? Jethro Tull________________|
| -.-- -.-- --.. -.-- -.-- --.. | An idea that is not dangerous   |
| -.-- -.-- --.. -.-- -.-- --.. | is unworth of being called      |
|____Rush, _Moving Pictures_    | an idea at all. Oscar Wilde_____|
| And we never failed to fail; it was the easiest thing to do CSN |
|   He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;   |
\______and he who dares not is a slave. Sir William Drummond______/

---

From: [email-masked] (James Landess)
Date: 16 Nov 1995 21:24:32 GMT

Hactar ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: [email-masked] (Shahak Nagiel) wrote:

: >> In article <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >Many drivers seem to forget a
: >fundamental law of physics which states that the kinetic energy is equal
: >to mass (the car's weight) times velocity SQUARED.

:   Yes.

Actually that's twice the kinetic energy (E=0.5*m*v^2)
And, actually it is a relationship that follows from fundamental laws

: >Regardless of the
: >car's mass, the point is that for doubling your speed, the momentum of the
: >car increases FOURfold.

:   Yes.

No, the energy increases by a factor of four, the momentum (m*v) only 
doubles.  Reaction time stays the same, reaction distances double, 
stopping times double, and stopping distances quadruple. (assuming constant 
deceleration).  Now if there is half as many things to hit, visible four 
times farther away, ... huh?

: >  From 50 to 75, while only a 50% increase in
: >speed, momentum increases 125%, which requires far longer breaking
: >distances and makes accidents far more dangerous.

See above, but the point is still valid, but if you include conditions as 
a factor in choosing speed, the point is muddled, which is the point.  

:   No; you had it right the first time -- it's kinetic energy, not momentum.

Yep.
--
James D. Landess
Sunnyvale, California

---

From: [email-masked] (John Caradimas)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:05:06 GMT

>distances and makes accidents far more dangerous.

Agreed.

>it.  But speed kills, no doubt about it, whether on highways or not.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Speed is a driver's controlled parameter. Speed does not kill, stupid
drivers (who do not know where or when to speed) kill.

It is the same thing as saying that electricity kills. Sure, if you
touch a pair of wires you can get killed, but we do not stop using
electricity for that reason.

---

From: Dave Brownell <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1995 21:10:33 GMT

Speed per se doesn't kill, but speed under the wrong 
condition/circumstances increases your risk factor for everything from 
speeding citations to death. What really is the problem in many cases is 
speed differential. People dawdling along at 50 just can't judge the 
closing speed of the guy behind them doing 80 as they ever so 
s-l-o-w-l-y pull out to pass the nice old lady in the coma doing 35 or 
40. It makes for some thrilling situations...

---

From: [email-masked] (Shahak Nagiel)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 19:39:08 -0400

> electricity for that reason.

OK, OK...sorry. I was trying to make a point by using a figurative cliche.
Obviously, speed in and of itself does not kill, but excessive speed
increases the likelyhood that a driver will make an error, because he has
less time to react.  Also, obviously, at higher speeds the consequences of
these errors amplify for the reasons I listed originally.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 03:41 CST

[email-masked] (Shahak Nagiel) writes...

>these errors amplify for the reasons I listed originally.

But this does not bring into the equation the inattention that driving
receives at low speeds.  Most accidents occur at low speeds because the
drivers are complacent.  The higher speeds demand more attention and
lead to fewer accidents of greater severity.

Marc

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 01:39:38 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Randy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>It does not prove that low speeds cause accidents, it proves you are an
>inattentive driver.
>

How many times do I have to say this? I was making a JOKE. It wasn't a
very good one, evidently, because nobody seemed to understand it. Of
course pulling out of a driveway doesn't cause accidents.

BTW, it does not prove that I am an inattentive driver, it proves that
at that one moment I was inattentive. People on the net make too many
damn generalizations.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Simpson)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:30:02 GMT

>that virtually never had accidents on them, OTOH.

Just sounds like evolution at work to me!

*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     [email-masked] or [email-masked]     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1995 18:23:35 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:

>Exactly, the same reason that causes most "high speed" accidents, not the >speed itself.  I drove many years before 55 at 80 and above, and the >changing of the signs to 55 didn't magically make me an unsafe driver when >I maintained the same speeds (travelling with the flow).

Speed may not have a direct relationship to the *cause* of the accident, 
but it does to the *survivability* of the accident.  I don't have the exact 
figures at hand, but I do remember that the survival rate was near zero at 
80 MPH.

-- 
                            _\\|//_
                            ( O-O )

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 02:01:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>figures at hand, but I do remember that the survival rate was near zero at 

Well, in case you would like a completely anecdotal piece of evidence, last
month a good friend of mine rolled his car (Honda Civic) over 360 degrees
at 90 mph with four other people in the car (two of whom were not in
seatbelts) and they all survived. What saved them was rolling onto a big
bush. They had just minor injuries (bruises, one concussion, etc.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Randy)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:03:20 -0500

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

> In article <[email-masked]>,
> I think you missed his point.

No, you missed the point. He said ""proving" that low speeds cause
accidents." That was his point which is not true.
-- 
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (firebug)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 00:51:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>accidents." That was his point which is not true.

And here I had given you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you just read
his post quickly and didn't think it through.

He made several points:

1) You can take any situation (and be extension, any group of data), and use
it to prove anything you want to, as long as you take your anecdote (or
data) and claim that it supports your conclusion. No logic is necessary.
Note the quotes around proving. He was making the sarcasm *CLEAR* and
*OBVIOUS*! Not a great deal of intelligence was required to understand him.

2) Exceeding the speed limit is not the cause of all (or even most)
accidents. Whether you chose to properly interpret his post or not, I hope
you can understand this from it.

3) Driver error and inattention is much more dangerous than exceeding an
arbitrarily chosen number.

That post really required no explanation to a person with even a moderate
level of intelligence and literacy. (hint: that was an insult, and an
implication that you don't even have a moderate level of intelligence and
literacy. Not that you don't do a good job of getting that across on your
own)

Feel free to use a dictionary to look up the big words.

---

From: John Paramore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 02:58:02 GMT

On 16 Nov 1995, Rick Nakroshis wrote:

> Ashton Rampersad <arampe43> wrote:
> >Hey Dick:
> >
> >Who make you the fucking expert in evaluating accidents.  I work for the >New York City Department of Transportation- Traffic Engineering Division >which is not really an agency for preventing accidents but simply to keep >the traffic moving.
> >
> >Just do you fucking research properly.
> 
> And a fine representative you are.  I also notice that you've been playing
> with your email address.  Don't care to be held accountable for what you
> post?
> 
> 
> --
>                             _\\|//_
>                             ( O-O )
Actually I was unaware that expertise on that subject was requisite in a 
traffic engineering department

Just the fact that he *has* such a job tells you why he's hiding his 
E-Mail address

John

---

From: [email-masked] (Tigress)
Date: 15 Nov 1995 21:29:25 -0500

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951115162309.27701B-100000@osiris>,
Lord Kittenslayer  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>If you go to court hoping the officer doesn't show up, you might as well 
>say that for your own amusement if he does. Otherwise plead innocent 
>(obviously). If he does, you won't be "getting away" with anything.
>
>

I was saying by technicality it worked, so they decided since they
couldn't slow people down, and they couldn't get revenue off them, they
took the law off and cars went back to having speedometers that went to
wherever.

Tigress

---

From: Ashton Rampersad <arampe43>
Date: 15 Nov 95 18:29:57 EST

Hey Dick: 

Who make you the fucking expert in evaluating accidents.  I work for the New
York City Department of Transportation- Traffic Engineering Division which is
not really an agency for preventing accidents but simply to keep the traffic
moving.

---

From: [email-masked] (R Wolf)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 18:18:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Spencer) writes:
>Subject: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
>From: [email-masked] (Mark Spencer)
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 04:39:56 GMT

>to drive at dangerous speeds.

What is so special about the number 65? Why not make it 80 or for that 
matter maybe 95?

I disagree with you when you say that the government should impose 
regulations to limit the speed of cars. What would happen if you were in an 
emergency situation (lets say your wife were pregnant) one day that demanded 
you exceed 65, what then?

I don't think there is anything wrong with exceeding the speed limit, as 
long as it is done in a sensible fashion. There are times when the roads 
allow excess speeds and there are times when they don't (ie. heavy traffic).

I read an article in Cycle World some time ago. The topic of the article was 
100HP limit that governments should impose in many european countries. A 
study however showed that there is no relation/corrolation between HP 
capabilities and accidents. So there you have it, just because something has 
the ability to go fast doesn't mean it will necessarily cause an accident.

I feel the government should focus more on other issues like drunk driving 
instead of limiting cars. I know for a fact that here in Canada, for 
example, 50%, yes thats right 50% of all motorcycle accidents are related to 
driving under the influence of alcohol. So ther you have it again, Mark.

Regards,
Rudy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R Wolf

---

From: [email-masked] (R Wolf)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 18:18:36 GMT

Regards,
Rudy

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Nov 1995 14:31:04 GMT

[email-masked] (R Wolf) wrote:

>regulations to limit the speed of cars. What would happen if you were in >an emergency situation (lets say your wife were pregnant) one day that >demanded you exceed 65, what then?

I'd say it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for you to sling your wife in 
the back seat when she's about to deliver, and make like a pizza delivery 
man to try and get to the hospital in time.

What were you going to do if you weren't quick enough?  Watch her delivery 
the baby in the rear view mirror?

If in doubt, dial 911.

-- 
                            _\\|//_
                            ( O-O )

---

From: [email-masked] (MORE POWER ARGH ARGH ARGH!!)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 18:19:03 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

     _________________________________________________________________
   
Conclusion

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

-- 

         "There's someone in my head, but it's not me" 

     						-Pink Floyd

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Smith)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 17:11:02 GMT

>To eliminate all of these crashes, we'd just have to pass a law that 
>would make it illegal to fly close to the ground.  Keep those planes up 
>in the air where they belong.

However, doing so would violate an already-existing law, that of "what goes up 
must come down"!!!  Do you think the plane makes a conscious choice to crash?  
I doubt we have that many suicidal airline pilots, what with their exhorbitant 
salaries and all...<grin>

>
>Also, a majority of the crashes occur near airports.  Passing a law 
>keeping aircraft away from airports would make us safer yet.

Unless they decided to land on the nearest available flat surface like...
YOUR FRONT LAWN!!!

Oh, this thread could get to be too humorous to stand!

[email-masked]