Subject: Repeal of the National Speed Limit Law

From: [email-masked] (Balaji Ramanathan)
Date: 21 Jun 1995 18:12:05 GMT

Hi all,
	So, the senate has repealed the 55mph law and the house
is expected to follow.  However, I haven't read anything positive
about it in any newspaper.  Every newspaper has paragraph after
paragraph of lies and damn lies from "consumer safety" advocates
who bitch and moan about the "carnage that will result".

	As a transportation engineer, I know that there have been
no credible studies that actually link speed limits to highway
fatalities  (actually speed does not kill, it is speed differential
that kills).  And there must be organizations out there like
the National Motorists Association that know this too.  Why aren't they
being given any air time in the media.  Ultmiately, with all this
brain washing going on, the federal government might decontrol the
freeways, but state governments may get worse.

	Any opinions or comments?

--
----------------->8      Cut here for Signature!       8<---------------------
Balaji Ramanathan,                   | 
Institute of Transportation Studies, |         I don't believe in luck!
University of California, Irvine.    |              I RELY on it!!

---

From: [email-masked] (Glenn Mandelkern)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:59:24 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>	Any opinions or comments?

If the 55 MPH Speed Limit is repealed, a large number of speeding tickets 
would cease to be written.  That means less and less revenue for California,
which has several highways known to be cash cows.  One that comes
to mind is the infamous stretch of 101 in the King City area.
The 20th of each month also happens to be a target date for lookout
of speeders, from south of Gilroy to the San Luis Obispo/Monterey County line.

A law exists on the books in which counties must raise the same amount
of revenue from tickets every year as was raised in 1992.  The legislators
felt that if they did not have such a law, public safety statutes would 
not be enforced.  That would make traffic cops and CHP lax and lazy,
according to them and thus more people would get hurt or killed on the roads.
If the county did not raise the same amount of money, it would be penalized 
by the state for the difference.

That is a quota by any other name, . . . .

28 of CA's 58 counties did not meet their amounts this year, some were off 
by close to $1,000,000.  The primary reason cited was that drunk driving 
arrests and tickets have gone down significantly since 1992.

So my guess is that certain agencies here in California would be strongly
opposed to seeing the speed limit repealed.  Otherwise, where else could
they turn to for more money?  In the case of Alameda County, some programs
related to education were cut to make up part of their missing balance.
You can only cut so much.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Mandelkern                                          Hee, hee, hee, hee!
[email-masked]                                     Questor the Elf lives!

---

From: tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma )
Date: 22 Jun 1995 00:15:59 GMT

>>who bitch and moan about the "carnage that will result".
<snip..>

>You can only cut so much.

But the California Motor Vehicle code is based upon safe and sane speed
plus prima facia speed limits.  There is a paragraph in it that refers to 
the Federally Mandated Speed Limit, and that if such limit is repealled the
a return to the safe and sane speed will once againg prevail.

This law works both ways, you can be going under the limit but too fast for
conditions and you can be flying on the I5, SR99, I40, I15, I10, I8, HWY101 
if you convince a judge that you were driving the vehicle in a responsible
manner, you will not be fined.

My belief in th matter is that tickets written under the safe and sane laws
will be tougher to fight as cops will write less and will tend to remember
to who.  Oh the other hand, if in some counties the locals start willy nilly
writing tickets, then it ought to be far easier to beat them in court.

In my experience, the CHP always quotes the Federal Law when breaking the
55/65 limits 'cause all they have to prove is that they paced you for over
a 16th or so of a mile to make the charges stick.  I have had two tickets 
_greatly_ reduced by judges by arguing that the Federal Law is an abomination
foisted upon the state by a rapacious federal establishment.  This kind of
thing seems to work in Orange County, _not_ LA.  Unfortunatedly, the judges
still stuck me with the points thanks to some jerk politicians from the
East Coast (ie: New Jersey...).

Repeal of the 55/65 is similar to the repeal of prohibition, no one follows
it.  It only serves to make criminal of citizens who just happen to have
more common sense than politicians.

Good Riddance

tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Gabor Morocz)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 05:51:34 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Glenn Mandelkern)
writes: 

>So my guess is that certain agencies here in California would be
>strongly opposed to seeing the speed limit repealed.  Otherwise, where
>else could they turn to for more money? 

Do not mind the agencies.  How about the people of California?  How do
they feel about this?

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 05:19:01 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jason O'Rourke <[email-masked]> wrote:
>I don't expect to see it go anywhere in California, with possible 
>exception of the I-5.  
>
>Aside from the loss of ticket revenue, as someone else mentioned, I bet 
>there will be millions coming from the insurance block to lobby (bribe) 
>against passage.  With Quakenbush doing his part to keep 1990 Prop 103 
>from ever being implemented as well, there are few interests in 
>California to encourage it.  We don't count.

Oh yes we DO count.  Look at how we function in this country.  First, we 
check our pockets.  If we have money left over after everthing else, we 
look for a politician to invest in.  We implore him to pass laws that aid 
us or give us comfort.  Like repealing the speed limit laws.  God help us 
if we EVER, EVER read the laws they pass.  Have you ever read a law 
passed by your favorite politician?

I hear reports every month about how the police department, the 
prosecutor and judge failed abysmally to follow procedure.  By learning 
the law, WE can keep the money away from them, no matter what they pass.  
Well, almost.

Here's one good example: where a completed traffic is delivered, vs. 
where should be delivered.  The traffic cop delivers a copy to the watch 
commander who bundles them up and sends them to the data room at the 
courthouse.  The magistrate NEVER EVER sees them.  They must be delivered 
to the magistrate.  Read the vehicle code.  So much for due process.  Oh, 
and by the way, that equal protection clause of the 14th amendment means 
that you will be screwed just like the next guy if YOU DON'T KNOW THE LAW.

>
>Perhaps the Teamsters can be of help.  
>
>Jason O'Rourke
>
>

-- 
Scott Dunn :  Sui Juris : @netcom.com :

---

From: [email-masked] (Albert Jeans)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:44:38 GMT

The 55 mph speed limit is a joke right now because almost everyone exceeds it
here in the SF Bay Area on the freeways. 65 is more like the lower limit,
traffic permitting. I would rather see a 65 mph speed limit strictly enforced
to keep those people doing 75+ in check. As someone said, it's the speed
differential that causes accidents. BTW, I've always noticed that in Southern
California, all lanes of traffic tend to move at a more uniform speed. Has
anyone else noticed this and are there fewer accidents per vehicle mile there?

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:38:29 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Do not mind the agencies.  How about the people of California?  How do

Right.  Like the Legislature really gives a damn.  They just want their 
money and to be left alone.  Just look at Doris Allen.  Little Republican 
Turncoat.  Think she would want to raise taxes?  Increase funds for that 
failing public education?  She certainly didn't care about how people in 
Orange County felt about her deal with Willie Brown.  Notice the recall 
effort brewing.  That is how angry people are about her.  She is proof 
that the Legislature could care less about us as long as we give up our 
money and let them decide what to do with it.
-- 
Scott Dunn :  Sui Juris : @netcom.com :

---

From: Chuck Fry <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Jun 1995 15:27:32 GMT

>Do not mind the agencies.  How about the people of California?  How do

Judging from my commute, I'd say they think it's well overdue!

Vote with your right foot.  And call your Congresscritter, to get this
law passed in the House!
 -- Chuck, frequent flyer on 280

-- 
Chuck Fry  [email-masked]  [email-masked]  [email-masked]
The Communications Decency Act, promoting Internet censorship, passed the
US Senate.  DON'T LET IT PASS IN THE HOUSE!  Call your Congresscritter.
         See http://www.cdt.org/cda.html for more information.

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Ottolini)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 15:01:56 GMT

The pre-oil crisis speed limit on most Interstates was 70 mph-
the speed they were designed for.  I'd assume they'd return to that.
Since people routinely exceed that limit already, I doubt whether
that would change revenue collection that much.

---

From: [email-masked] (Barry Fowler)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 21:13:40 GMT

Richard Ottolini ([email-masked]) wrote:
: The pre-oil crisis speed limit on most Interstates was 70 mph-
: the speed they were designed for.  I'd assume they'd return to that.
: Since people routinely exceed that limit already, I doubt whether
: that would change revenue collection that much.

On the same note, I recall driving on I-5 through Anaheim as a teenager
when the speed limit there was 70 MPH.  Those were the days (the 70's).
I also recall no speed limit in Nevada with us kids egging on dad to
get the '57 Buic to 100 MPH on I-15 going in to Las Vegas.

Somehow, I think the CHP still wants to issue tickets for the bucks though.
How else would they get their fleet of Crown Vics?

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 23 Jun 1995 15:55:35 -0400

>who bitch and moan about the "carnage that will result".

Yeah, the "carnage" such as that reported by the IIHS when the speed
limit was raised to 65.  Their nice, full-color report they sent me
showed how automobile deaths went up a few hundred.  Of course, they
neglected to take into account the number of miles driven, which would
have shown that the death rate decreased.  It is interesting that for
all their OTHER statistics they stated in deaths per 100,000 miles
driven...

>that kills).  

This is why the repeal bothers me.  The asshole Democrats, who were
against repealing the limit in the first place, decided that they
would keep it for trucks and busses.  Now, we can have huge speed
differentials between cars and trucks.  That is perhaps the WORST
thing they could have done.

>And there must be organizations out there like

Yes, but who are the brain-dead idiots (i.e., the general public)
going to believe-- the "official" word, spouted by police officials,
insurance companies, and others who reap a literal fortune from
traffic tickets, or some organization who half the country hasn't even
heard of?  It's disgusting that this happens.  I wish there was a way
I could convert people, and get them to join the NMA.  Most people
look at me as if I asked them to join a cult...

-JPC
-- 
 -<=>- Just say NO! to Budmilloors...   Support your local MICROBREWERY -<=>-
John P. Curcio  [email-masked]  Philips Labs  Briarcliff Manor, NY
   "If nothing beats a Bud, given the choice, I'd take the nothing..."
   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH

---

From: [email-masked] (Jon N. Steiger)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 03:32:11 GMT

Kevin Atkinson ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, AAPR RB <[email-masked]> wrote:

: >Everyone has quoted that the speed limits serve as revenue enhancement
: >devices for the police. Could someone please explain then why the speed
: >limit fines are among the lowest fines in the CVC? If it were economically
: >motivated, wouldn't they be higher. They are currently the cheepest fines
: >you can pay for a motor vehical violation. 

: That is a good point however the cops issue tons of speeding tickets so 
: it all evens out.

    Speeding tickets are a good source of revenue for the police, but
a major source of revenue for insurance companies.  This is why insurance
companies have people in Washington lobbying against raising speed limits.
This is why insurance companies donate radar/laser devices to police 
departments.

: >                   Everybody knows the speed limit. If you get caught
: >speeding you knew what you were doing was wrong.

: You broke a law but you did't necessary do wrong.  What is wrong is only 
: in the hands of the beholder.  

    Right.  Murdering someone is wrong.  If there were a law on the 
books that said otherwise, would that change the moral/ethical status
of cold-blooded murder from wrong to right?  Speed limits may be 
law, but I view them, and the revenue generation resultant, as wrong.

: >                                                   If you REALLY want to
: >stop giving your money to the courts, stop speeding - or keep at least one
: >person going faster than you. 

    Stop giving money to the courts at the expense of surrendering my 
rights and freedom as an American?  No thanks!

: >Have you ever driven to Vegas (where speed is king) and not come across a
: >fatal/serious accadent? Have you noticed how many miles you can drive in
: >the city at slower speeds, with more cars and have fewer serious
: >accidents?

    80% of all traffic fatalities occur at speeds of 40mph or less. (NTSI)
The majority of accidents occur in intersections.  (Also NTSI)
Speed kills?  I think not.

: >Have you noticed that the people most in favor of eliminating the speed
: >laws and fighting tickets live in the rural areas of the state where you
: >have to go 20 miles through peach groves just to get to the next town?

    I have not noticed this, and if it were true, what does that have to do 
with anything anyway???

: >Mark my words now. I am saying this on the record. If the speed limits are
: >raised by 20 MPH or more there will be an immediate increase in accidents
: >and fatalities in those cars not equipped with air bags. The greatest
: >increase will be of people under 30 years old.

    How can you possibly say this?  You give no facts, no supporting
data!!  Are we just supposed to take your word for this?  Besides, 
good driver training would more than eliminate any potential for 
such an increase.  Germany has proved that society is smarter than 
the government would have us believe.

: I hope I have made my point quite clear.  The slogen "speed kills" is a 
: big misconception that almost every one belives but the NMA and the few 
: intelligent non-NMA members out there.
: -- 
: * Kevin Atkinson, Clarknet I'net Serv., Maintainer of the Usenet Info Center *

     "Speed kills" is a crock of you-know-what.  This has been proven time and
time again.  Its a handy, catchy phrase that idiots pull out of their butt 
every time talk of raising the speed limit comes up.  People have pointed 
out that race drivers, who average 200mph for hours and hours on end have
an extremely low fatality rate.  Did anyone catch the USA Today article
about the senate bill?  Some chode was saying that he was glad that 
busses, trucks, etc had to stay at 55mph.  He said that this would ensure
safety.  How can anyone be so STUPID?????  Those big vehicles, poking along
are going to create absolute HAVOC!!!  (I can see it now, fatality rates
increase, US govt. decides to instate a 50mph national speed limit.)  :-P

                                                 -Jon-

+=========================================================================+
||   Jon N. Steiger  -  DoD# 1038  -  USUA# A46209  -  KotWitDoDFAQ      ||
|| [email-masked]  (ISBN# 0-440-13405-6 speaks for itself.) _  || 
|| http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/homepage.html , _.o.._ _ / | ||
|| .----------( ULTRA-light == ULTRA-fun!! )----------.   +********=++-' ||
|| | '91 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 && '91 Yamaha FZR600R |   ` o/           || 
|| `--------------------------------------------------'            Oo.   ||
|| Bureaucracy is evil! >> I hack, therefore I am... irrelevant.   |     ||
+=========================================================================+

---

From: [email-masked] (Cynthia)
Date: 25 Jun 1995 13:18:33 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>thing they could have done.

	I believe in states with 65 mph limits, commercial traffic
is limited to 55.

--
Please note: This is Keith Ryan posting. Please direct any e-mail
response to either "[email-masked]" or "[email-masked]"

Any typographical or grammatical errors are due to the evil news
machine mulching my post ;)
-- 
--
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Rushton)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 01:16:54 MST

[email-masked] (AAPR RB) spews:
>If they were going for cash, wouldn't they rather write one or two
>littering fines at $1,000 each instead of the 8 to 10 speeding tickets
>that would make up the same ammount of money? Where does the money go? It
>goes to court costs to pay for judges who see people trying to fight their
>80 MPH tickets. Everybody knows the speed limit. If you get caught
>speeding you knew what you were doing was wrong. If you REALLY want to
>stop giving your money to the courts, stop speeding - or keep at least one
>person going faster than you. 

This is typical spew from the brain-dead.  The idea that going 10-20-30 mph 
above a posted speed limit on a regular interstate highway is going to harm 
somebody is ridiculous.  

The only reason "55" and "65" have been kept around is because it raises a 
hell of a lot of money.  I don't see cops pulling over people because they 
swerve multiple lanes without signaling.  I don't see cops pulling over cars 
with bald tires, shot suspensions, or a fog of white/blue smoke coming from 
the tailpipe.  I certainly don't see cops pulling over those slow leftlaners.  
I don't see cops arresting those idiots that enter interstate onramps at 25 
miles an hour and then stop because they're afraid to merge.  And I sure don't 
see them pulling over those bums drinking 40 oz bottles while behind the 
wheel.  Hell, I don't see cops pulling over people lacking LICENSE PLATES.  
My god, you just know these people DON'T HAVE INSURANCE.  I would think 
these bums would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.  It's just a helluva 
lot easier, and profitable, for these cops to sit on their fat asses with a 
radar gun (that may or may not cause testicular cancer) between their legs 
just waiting for me to "violate the law" by driving 75 instead of 65 instead 
of trying to catch some people that REALLY cause accidents.

Also, I just loathe people with that "Go along to get along" attitude.  Why 
don't you let the Federal Government plant a microchip up your butt and tattoo 
your Social Security Number on your forehead while you're at it?

>Isn't it also odd that all the speed surveys done by people who have
>something to lose and people to be accountable to (read government and
>safety officials) come up with speed and alcohol as the number one and two
>causes of traffic fatalitys? The only ones who find speed to be a
>non-contributing factor are those who have their own agendas like selling
>books or creating lobbying groups and are not held accountable for
>anything? This isn't politics, its common sense.

Duh, speed is obviously going to be a contributing factor in an accident.  
However, that's an ancillary reason.  If you run a red light and hit someone 
then what is the reason?  Speed, or running a red light?  If you're drunk and 
going 90, then what is the reason?  Speed, or the alcohol?  If you fall asleep 
and go into a ditch, then what is the reason?  Speed, or not being awake?  If 
you try to outrun a train and get hit, then what is the reason?  Speed (or 
lack thereof), or stupidity?  This isn't brain-surgery, it's common sense.

>Have you ever driven to Vegas (where speed is king) and not come across a
>fatal/serious accadent? Have you noticed how many miles you can drive in
>the city at slower speeds, with more cars and have fewer serious
>accidents?

You people with AOL domains.  What is it?  Are you just naturally stupid, or 
looking for everyone to laugh at you with totally false statements like the 
above?

>Mark my words now. I am saying this on the record. If the speed limits are
>raised by 20 MPH or more there will be an immediate increase in accidents
>and fatalities in those cars not equipped with air bags. The greatest
>increase will be of people under 30 years old.

I think the only air bag is you, pal.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Rushton)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 11:22:08 MST

>        I believe in states with 65 mph limits, commercial traffic

Depends on the state.  Missouri has 65 for regular vehicles and 60 for 
carriers (over a certain size), while in Iowa and Kansas all go 65.

The speed differential doesn't make any sense, as the case with most political 
compromises that defy logic and reason.

---

From: [email-masked] (John Carr)
Date: 25 Jun 1995 17:40:15 GMT

Before the national speed limit there were different speed limits for
different classes of vehicles.  I-84 through Danbury, CT had signs saying
"Speed limit 65/Trucks and Buses 55".  For a few years after the national
speed limit (until they realized it wasn't temporary?) the sign read
"Speed limit 55/Trucks and Buses 55".

-- 
    John Carr ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:42:14 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, AAPR RB <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Everyone has quoted that the speed limits serve as revenue enhancement
>devices for the police. Could someone please explain then why the speed
>limit fines are among the lowest fines in the CVC? If it were economically
>motivated, wouldn't they be higher. They are currently the cheepest fines
>you can pay for a motor vehical violation. 

Since you raise many points, I will stick with this one.  The reason why 
they are the lowest is that volume talks.  Do you really think they give 
out a littering ticket more than once or twice a week?  I doubt it.  But 
many times a day, ONE cop will issue who knows how many speeding tickets.

Now, if they made the penalty high, people would fight the tickets 
questioning the procedure and raising the cost of collection.  So, in 
order to keep the cost of collection down, they have to keep the 
motivation to fight it down.  They just pick at you one at a time.  
Meanwhile they have an army of paid lawyers doing their dirty work.  BTW, 
"they" are the municipal city governments.

Too bad they don't teach any law in public school.  And I don't mean "This
is what the law says, so OBEY!".  I mean teaching kids how to look up
statutes, codes regulations and cases.  They never teach kids how 
question the law.  I believe (after much reflection) that every kid 
should know how to fight a basic lawsuit as a defendant and a plaintiff.  
This way, they wouldn't have to rely on a (gasp) lawyer for their 
livelihood, they could effectively evaluate a law, and keep the 
government honest.

One example of knowing the law.  Been watching Bill Popejoy, our
illustrious Orange County CEO.  Bill has submitted a complaint regarding
Roger Stanton to the Foreman of the Orange County Grand jury.  He followed
procedures according to a little known law "state code 3060" as the OC
Register put it.  Actually it's Government Code 3060.Bill is taking this
action because a recall would take too long. Instead, all he would have 
to do is impeach Stanton with the Grand Jury.  Much quicker and cheaper.

This is the sort of thing politicians are DEATHLY afraid of.  The People.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert T. Weverka)
Date: 26 Jun 95 11:43:52 GMT

Chris Glasser <[email-masked]> writes:

>And common sense also says that the faster you're driving, the less time you
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>have to react to unexpected situations. If you're driving an interstate at
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>night, your headlights can only cover a certain amount of ground in front of
>you. If you're going 75 in a 55, by the time your headlights hit some
>unexpected debris on the road you will not have any chance of avoiding that
>debris. 

  ...
>whole group of people and by making what I consider rediculous statements like
>driving 10,20, and 30 MPH over posted speed limits is perfectly safe.

It appears that the National Highway Administration studies contradict
your "common sense".  Changing the speed limit up or down on any particular
highway does not substantially change the speed that people drive that
highway.  Nor does it effect accident rates.

  People drive the speed they consider safe for the road and weather conditions
An artificially low speed limit just makes lawbreakers out of otherwise
law abiding citizens.  Interstates around here were designed for 80 mph speeds
and people drive from Denver to Kansas at 80 mph inspite of the speed limit.
If the road conditions are bad, they slow down, If they have piss poor
headlights  they slow down.  Most people find a safe speed, do not overdrive
their headlights, nor the road conditions.  And on the interstate that
safe speed is higher than the Federal law permits.

  We ought to have a law that no speed limit can be set lower than the
80th percentile of prevailing traffic.  Lower than that is just artificial
revenue enhancement.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert T. Weverka)
Date: 26 Jun 95 11:43:52 GMT

^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  ...

---

From: [email-masked] (Barry Fowler)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 16:08:49 GMT

Cynthia ([email-masked]) wrote:

: 	I believe in states with 65 mph limits, commercial traffic
: is limited to 55.

Not true in Colorado.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 26 Jun 1995 12:02:46 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Chris Glasser  <[email-masked]> wrote:
}
}>==========Mark Rushton, 6/24/95==========
}>
}>This is typical spew from the brain-dead.  The idea that going
}>10-20-30 mph 
}>above a posted speed limit on a regular interstate highway is
}>going to harm 
}>somebody is ridiculous. 
}
}Right. Going 85 in a 55 MPH zone is perfectly safe. Even if everyone else is
}going 55-65.  
}Do you really believe that?

I bet my life on it.  Well, except that everyone else is doing 60-75.

}What if you're going 75 or 85 in a 55, and the guy in the lane next to you
}about 150 feet in front of you has a tire blow out? What if he then loses
}control of his car temporarily and swerves into your lane? At 75, you have
}MUCH less time to react than at 55. Your brakes will not be able to slow your
}car down anywhere near as well.

Even if he swerves into my lane, he still hasn't lost much of his own
speed--- he can't, in fact, because he can't brake with the blown-out
tire.  I only have to slow enough to avoid him

}Your car will not handle as well as 75. You
}have a much greater chance of hitting this guy going 75 than 55. Do you deny
}this?

Yes.  I also claim the situation is rare-- few blowouts on the highway
result in loss of control, and there are few in the first place.

}And common sense also says that the faster you're driving, the less time you
}have to react to unexpected situations. If you're driving an interstate at
}night, your headlights can only cover a certain amount of ground in front of
}you. If you're going 75 in a 55, by the time your headlights hit some
}unexpected debris on the road you will not have any chance of avoiding that
}debris. 

So don't overdrive your headlights.   At 75mph, you probably aren't
doing so.

}The average car's brakes are far less effective at stopping from 75 than at
}55.

The need to come to a panic stop on the highway is extremely rare.  Or
do brick walls suddenly drop onto highways where you live?

---

From: [email-masked] (Shyamal Prasad)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 17:42:36 GMT

"Cynthia" == Cynthia  <[email-masked]> writes:

    Cynthia> In article <[email-masked]>, John
    Cynthia> P. Curcio <[email-masked]> wrote:

    >> This is why the repeal bothers me.  The asshole Democrats, who
    >> were against repealing the limit in the first place, decided
    >> that they would keep it for trucks and busses.  Now, we can
    >> have huge speed differentials between cars and trucks.  That is
    >> perhaps the WORST thing they could have done.

    Cynthia> 	I believe in states with 65 mph limits, commercial
    Cynthia> traffic is limited to 55.

It's common to hear that "speed kills" when "speed differential's
kill" is probably more accurate.

Any state that raises speed limits (or eliminates them :-) should also
make passing on the right illegal.  If you have trucks going 55 mph
and cars going 80 mph (very common in Europe) you absolutely cannot
pass on the right. It will drive the accident rate up before you can
say "ouch". Making passing on the right illegal would also perhaps
make it quite acceptable (and legal?) for you to flash your lights at
a left lane hog because they would really, really be holding up
traffic with no excuses.

You should watch English drivers on their 3 lane motorways. If you
close in on a car in the middle lane it will probably move over to the
left if there is space. Really neat. People just move as far left as
is possible. It keeps traffic going as fast as possible. When was the
last time you saw some one do the equivalent of that in the US?

Cheers
Shyamal
-- 
Shyamal Prasad
I speak for me, only me, and just me......

---

From: [email-masked] (Arlene Marilyn Schauer)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 12:06:10 -0700

>thing they could have done.
I disagree with you.  Trucks weigh a lot more than cars, that means
that the faster that they travel, the greater the force will be at
impact.  PLus, it's also a well know fact that it takes longer to
stop a vehicle the faster the speed it has.  The best thing to do
is to be courteous to trucks and make sure that they're not
tailgating you.

And all Democrats aren't assholes.

-- 

Arlene

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Rushton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:13:41 MST

<[email-masked]> writes:

>Right. Going 85 in a 55 MPH zone is perfectly safe. Even if everyone else is
>going 55-65.  Do you really believe that?

I'm talking about driving down the predominantly straight, divided interstates 
that are now (mostly) 65 mph.  Makes no sense to drive 55, or 65, or even 75 
in some cases.  Come on out to Kansas if and see if you don't agree with me.

>What if you're going 75 or 85 in a 55, and the guy in the lane next to you
>about 150 feet in front of you has a tire blow out? What if he then loses
>control of his car temporarily and swerves into your lane? At 75, you have
>MUCH less time to react than at 55. Your brakes will not be able to slow your
>car down anywhere near as well. Your car will not handle as well as 75. You
>have a much greater chance of hitting this guy going 75 than 55. Do you deny
>this?

Pretty lame arguement.  But what if the tires blows at 55?  Wouldn't you be 
safer driving at 35?  If it blew at 35, wouldn't it be better if you were 
driving 15?  Come on, your arguement is very sophomoric.

>unexpected debris on the road you will not have any chance of avoiding that

What are you looking at while driving?  Your ankles?  The cute lights on the 
dashboard of your car?  You seem to think 75 is warp speed.  It used to be the 
regular speed limit on many STATE highways back before the mid 1970's oil 
embargo came along.  Cars have greatly improved since then.

>The average car's brakes are far less effective at stopping from 75 than at 
>55.

Yes, and they're also less effective stopping from 55 than 35.  Your point?  
How many times have you had to slam on your brakes and come to a complete stop 
on a divided interstate highway from 55 mph or faster?  It may have happened 
to people, but it's not a daily (or weekly, or monthly, or yearly) occurance.  
Not out here in the great plains....

(my slagging of people with AOL domains is edited)

>So now everyone with an AOL domain has been grouped together and classified.
>Hmm, that's about as dumb as me saying that everyone named Mark is a complete
>fool. But I wouldn't say that. I would just say the one particular Mark making
>the statement above is a complete fool. Try paying attention to what people
>have to say rather than what domain they're posting from.

>While I don't completely agree with the AOL poster's statements, I think he
>makes some valid points. I also think you made some valid points about cops
>not giving tickets to people with license plates, etc. But I think you
>undermined the good points you made by doing stupid things like stereotyping a

Stereotyping?  Most people with AOL domains either figure out it's a total 
ripoff and get hooked up with an ISP or go around posting inane comments to 
other newsgroups because someone else picks up their huge bills.  Hey, bud, I 
see it all the time.  Most of them don't read FAQs, can't figure out how to 
copy things in their responses on Usenet, and flame all the time because of 
their pseudonym status.  Not all, but enough to give the few decent ones a bad 
name and rep.

Driving 10, 20, or 30 mph over posted speed limits is perfectly safe, provided 
you're on a divided, interstate highway of reasonable grade that lacks any 
severe corners and that traffic is moving along with you.  I normally drive 75 
on the rural interstates and I'm always being passed by people that seem to 
know how to keep their cars under control at such Warp speeds (NT speeds for 
you MS fans :-)   Naturally, I don't consider what I said to be a 
"rediciulous" (sic) statement.

---

From: [email-masked] (AAPR RB)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 16:21:30 -0400

"That is a good point however the cops issue tons of speeding tickets so
it all evens out. You point is flawed.  While what you say is true the
fact is speeding is EAZY to enforce.  Littering is VERY difficult to
inforse so not very many tickets or handed out. The idea that the
goverment has nothing to lose is a misconception.  The goverment has a lot
to lose in revenue."

It doesn't quite even out. Here in California the counties actually owe
the state money for not writing enough tickets for DUI and speed - their
stated two biggest reasons for accidents. So they are already losing
revenue. They could make up for it by increasing fines, but they don't.
Littering is just one example of the more expensive fines. As a matter of
fact, all CVC fines are greater than or equal to speeding tickets. The cut
and paste didn't go too well, but you can tab this out in a word processor
to get the full effect, or drop it into a spreadsheet like I did and chart
the fines as I did and SEE that speeding is the cheepest catagory of fines
you can get in your car. 

CVC code Offense 1st violation 2nd violation in year 3rd violation in year
42000 felony $1000 to 10000 - -
42000.1 100 MPH+ no more than $500 - -
42000.5 speeding semi no more than $100 no more than $300 -
42001 infractions (speeding, etc.) no more than $100 no more than $200 no
more than $250
42001.1 intersections $50 to 100 $100 to 200 $250 to 500
42001.2 exhaust standards $100 to 250 - -
42001.3a driving logs no more than $500 - -
42001.3b driving logs $500 to 1000 - -
42001.5 handicapped parking no less than $250 - -
42001.7 littering $100 to 1000 $500 to 1000 $750 to 1000
42001.8 unregistered vehicle $50 to 250 - -
42001.11 carpool lane $100 to 150 $150 to 200 $250 to 500
42001.12 move right for code-3 vehicle $100 to 250 $150 to 500 $250 to 500
42002 general misdemeanors no more than $1000 - -

If they wanted easy money they could drive around code-3 and fine anyone
who didn't pull over and make more money easier than waiting for speeders.
That happens all the time. Not to mention the fact that they could drag it
out into a felony pursuit for even more bucks. What about fining vehicals
with expired registrations? The tags on the plate are color coded to make
expired tags stick out. That's another easy money maker not taken
advantage of. Not to mention that it would take ten speeding tickets to
make up for one littering ticket if taken for the maxiumum fine (given the
revenue conspiracy theory that is so popular).

"You should see the 20/20 article on how misleading satistics are used 
every day in congress."
followed closely by:
"A 7 year study that the goverment spent 1/2 million dollars on disproved
that very statement."

Let us not forget 20/20's fine and public apology for skewing tests on
it's show and how these two statements tend to be contradictory. Perhaps
you're playing with the "Good Government, Bad Government" scenario that
started with police shows as the "good cop, bad cop" act? But let's go on
and say that these are both true statements.

"...and the Report "Effects of Raising And Lowering Speed Limits" proves
it.  You can read the findings of the report at
http:///www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/sl-irrel.html."

Hopefully this article was originally published in a scientific journal
before being published on the net. The scientific community has recently
announced that they will not pre-publish articles on the net due to it's
overall lack of credibility in the articles available therin. before being
published in a journal and article undergoes reviews by members of the
scientific community to check for errors and avoid the type of
uncredibility that the net tends to have. (ever see "Make Money FAST!" ?)

"You broke a law but you did't necessary do wrong."

You knew the law and broke it. That is wrong.

Same argument is used by everybody who gets caught doing something against
the rules. Rules are the glue that hold us together as a nation and keeps
us from the anarchy some are working twords. If there are rules you don't
agree with, you can get them changed by getting them on the ballot and
stating your points in an open forum. This is exactly what the government
is doing now. Even if it all passes at the federal level, it will still be
up to the states to set the speed limits. Even if they change the speed
limits to 100 MPH there will be a minority of people who complain that
they are too restrictive and will go over them. It is human nature. It's
not the speed limit per se, its speeding in general.

"The slogen "speed kills" is a big misconception that almost every one
belives but the NMA and the few intelligent non-NMA members out there."

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only ones who find speed to
be a non-contributing factor are those who have their own agendas like
selling books or creating lobbying groups and are not held accountable for
anything. They are arguing by throwing studies and political posturing in
the face of basic physics. Increasing speed directly increases stopping
distance and shortens reaction times. That is the bottom line.

---

From: Ernie Pittarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jun 1995 19:35:07 GMT

>driving 10,20, and 30 MPH over posted speed limits is perfectly safe.
Valid points?!  More like a lot of unsubstantiated statements...

I don't think advocating driving 10, 20, or yes, sometimes even 30 MPH over the
posted speed limit of 55 is a "rediculous" statement.  We were driving that
fast 20 years ago without shoulder belts, air bags, disc brakes, radial tires,
"crumple zones", and hundreds of other safety improvements.  It would seem
to me that it is perfectly reasonable to at least return to the speed limits
that were in place in 1973 when we were driving huge, unsafe, land cruisers.

Ernie P.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Sheldon)
Date: 26 Jun 95 20:09:27 GMT

>last time you saw some one do the equivalent of that in the US?

 That's all well and good.

 But you ignore the fact that for some stupid, dumb reason, many interstates
in major cities in the US happen to have exit ramps on the left side of the
road.

 I don't really see how you can feasibly expect everyboy to drive in the
right lane when they may have to exit to the left a half mile ahead.

:(
-- 
Steve Sheldon           [These are my own opinions]    '95 Dodge Neon
Iowa State University   ICSS Resource Facility by day  '85 Honda Spree
[email-masked]     ProMap by night                '91 Bridgestone MB5
   BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.

---

From: Ernie Pittarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jun 1995 19:25:04 GMT

>the city at slower speeds, with more cars and have fewer serious

Ummm, yes, in fact, I have driven to Vegas and not seen a fatal accident.
You could close your eyes and drive off the road and most likely the only
thing you'd hit would be a tumbleweed!  This is one of the most obvious
places where the 55 (or 65) MPH speed limit is a joke.

>Have you noticed that the people most in favor of eliminating the speed
>laws and fighting tickets live in the rural areas of the state where you
>have to go 20 miles through peach groves just to get to the next town?
>

Duh.  People in rural areas that routinely cover long distances want to go
faster.

>increase will be of people under 30 years old.

Will there be an increase in accidents?  There could be a temporary blip as
people adjust to driving faster, but since most traffic is moving at 70
anyway, I don't expect much change.  We need to emphasize driver education
and training in this country, not enforcement of speed laws.

Ernie P.

---

From: [email-masked] (Barry Fowler)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 21:18:46 GMT

People are already driving at the "sinful" speed limits that you claim
will cause a higher degree of fatalities and accidents.  The change in
the speed limit would simply keep them from becoming offenders of the law.

If everyday activity is a "crime", then people all become "criminals" and
lack of respect for the law results.

Laws should reflect the desires of our citizens, not simply provide a method 
of extorting money from the populace.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dan Howell)
Date: 27 Jun 1995 03:07:48 GMT

> Do not mind the agencies.  How about the people of California?  How do

The people of California that were driving on the I-405 today at about noon
voted, using their gas pedals, with near unanimous consent, to do away with
the 55 mph speed limit.  Similar results have been repeatedly observed on
other freeways.

---
Dan Howell  <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ernie Pittarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jun 1995 21:29:57 GMT

[email-masked] (AAPR RB) wrote:

> Increasing speed directly increases stopping

Oh, I see, and with this brilliant logic then I guess it must be
downright suicide to fly in an airplane, seeing that I'd be going *MUCH*
faster than in a car...

The point is that there is a safe and reasonable speed and if you set the
speed limits around the 85th percentile, then most people will not be risking'
a ticket every time they drive.

Ernie P.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:01:12 EDT

>}car down anywhere near as well.

How fast is the guy next to him going? If he's going 75 too, rather than 55,
as is likely the case, then you will have just as much time to react as if
both were going 55. I just finished explaining this in detail in another
thread.

>}Your car will not handle as well a[t] 75. You

You car will handle the same at 75 as it does at 55, when it comes to avoiding
obstacles that are moving at the same relative velocity (say, 5 mph slower
than you are).

>}The average car's brakes are far less effective at stopping from 75 than at

If by this you mean that it takes longer to stop from 75 than from 55, then
that is correct. Isaac Newton explained it rather thoroughly. On the other
hand, if by this you mean that it takes longer to slow down by a fixed amount,
say 10 mph, then you are incorrect. It takes the same amount of time to
slow from 75 to 65 as it does to slow from 55 to 45. This is much more likely
to happen than having to come to a full stop on the freeway. Vehicles in front
of you do NOT suddenly come to a complete stop instantaneously. More likely,
they will apply the brakes to avoid some hazard, then resume their previous
speed. That only requires that you slow by as much as they did. How fast you
are going has no effect on how long it takes you to do so.

Michael Johnson
Relay Technology, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 27 Jun 1995 04:40:23 GMT

>"they" are the municipal city governments.

True, but what local governments collect is peanuts compared to what the 
insurance companies collect in increased premiums on speeders.  The creation
of the unreasonable 55 MPH law was a bonanza for the insurers for this reason, 
and it's the reason they're lobbying so hard to keep 55.  The Insurance companies 
give away radar units to police departments, lobby to keep the limits down, 
but you never hear of them asking for extremely stipp speeding penalties. 
If that happened, people might actually stop exceeding 55, and the ticket
curcharge cash flow would stop.  They want you to speed so they can cash in
when you get caught.

Yes, 55 is the law, but it's not a REASONABLE law..  It's almost the same if 
they passed a law requiring all drivers to pull over every 10 miles and conduct
a tire pressure check and visual inspection.  They could say it was for safety
reasons, but it would be universally disobeyed, because it would be an 
unreasonable law, like 55.  Speeds should be set by the 85th percentile method, 
(the spped at which the majority travel in the absence of posted limits).

---

From: [email-masked] (John Alexiou)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 14:07:40 -0400

>you can pay for a motor vehical violation. 

That isn't true. In the city of Atlanta the minimum fine for speeding
currently is $72 (up-to 15 over the limit).
 For traffic-light violation it's $65.

that my experience (according to my record).
-- 
John Alexiou
Internet: [email-masked], or [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Yvonne M. Poser)
Date: 27 Jun 1995 18:44:20 GMT

Mark Rushton ([email-masked]) wrote:
:  >John P. Curcio <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >>This is why the repeal bothers me.  The asshole Democrats, who were
: >>against repealing the limit in the first place, decided that they
: >>would keep it for trucks and busses.  Now, we can have huge speed
: >>differentials between cars and trucks.  That is perhaps the WORST
: >>thing they could have done.

Bullshit.  Ever been on the Autobahnen?  Big trucks are severely
limited, while cars are unlimited.  There are huge speed differentials,
sometimes 100 mph.  No big deal if people know how to drive.  

--Tom Hunter

---

From: [email-masked] (Shyamal Prasad)
Date: 27 Jun 1995 17:26:41 GMT

"Steve" == Steve Sheldon <[email-masked]> writes:

    Steve> In <[email-masked]>
    Steve> [email-masked] (Shyamal Prasad) writes:
    >> You should watch English drivers on their 3 lane motorways. If
    >> you close in on a car in the middle lane it will probably move

    Steve>  That's all well and good.

    Steve>  But you ignore the fact that for some stupid, dumb reason,
    Steve> many interstates in major cities in the US happen to have
    Steve> exit ramps on the left side of the road.

    Steve>  I don't really see how you can feasibly expect everyboy to
    Steve> drive in the right lane when they may have to exit to the
    Steve> left a half mile ahead.

I agree....but in cities speed limits are often high enough, and these
rules do break down. I think the point I was making was that major
British motorways are often 3 lanes *outside* of cities.

I have driven from Austin, TX to San Antonio, TX on I-35 where a large
part of the drive is 3 lanes with a 65 mph limit. It's pretty
stressfull because there is little lane discipline, and there are cars
passing at random in all lanes and you have to weave in and out if you
want to go faster. There are no left exits here....it's just the
attitude that "there are always two other lanes to pass in" that makes
it so dangerous.

At any rate, there are no simple answers :-)

Cheers!
Shyamal

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:01:12 EDT

Michael Johnson
Relay Technology, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (James Kokernak)
Date: 27 Jun 1995 16:29:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Barry Fowler) writes:
|> 
|> : >Mark my words now. I am saying this on the record. If the speed limits are
|> : >raised by 20 MPH or more there will be an immediate increase in accidents
|> : >and fatalities in those cars not equipped with air bags. The greatest
|> : >increase will be of people under 30 years old.
|> 
|> People are already driving at the "sinful" speed limits that you claim
|> will cause a higher degree of fatalities and accidents.  The change in
|> the speed limit would simply keep them from becoming offenders of the law.

I would argue that an increase in the number of accidents on interstates
(which is how the insurance institute will report it) will be due mainly
to two factors. 

1. A small percentage of people will overdrive their capabilities 
   while adjusting to the new speeds. The group most affected will
   probably be those that drive 55mph now.

2. An increase in the interstate speed limit (I think MA is already 
   talking about going to 70mph) will make the interstates a more
   attractive travel route. There will be a shift of traffic from 
   rural roads to interstates. This increased congestion, combined 
   with the effects of (1) will increase the total # of accidents and 
   fatalities, but not necessarily the # of fatalities per 100 million
   miles driven. Although the Insurance groups will make it sound like
   there is carnage at every corner.

   Someone once refered to these as "bikini statistics"...ones that 
   suggest a lot but reveal nothing.

--Jim

---

From: [email-masked] (John Cantrell)
Date: 28 Jun 1995 15:22:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Scott Dunn) writes:
|> In article <[email-masked]>, AAPR RB <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> >Everyone has quoted that the speed limits serve as revenue enhancement
|> >devices for the police. Could someone please explain then why the speed
|> >limit fines are among the lowest fines in the CVC? If it were economically
|> >motivated, wouldn't they be higher. They are currently the cheepest fines
|> >you can pay for a motor vehical violation. 
|> 
|> Since you raise many points, I will stick with this one.  The reason why 
|> they are the lowest is that volume talks.  

In the responses that I have read, everyone talks about volume making 
up the difference and how easy speed laws are to enforce. I view it a bit 
differently. I tend to think of the 'pain threshold' of the fine. Suppose,
for example, it now cost $1000 for 10 mph over the limit. Also suppose that
your insurance would go up $300/year for 3 years if convicted. What would happen?
I believe that EVERYONE would fight their ticket! Result: clogging of the 
court system followed by something akin to a total breakdown. It appears to me
to be a simple matter of economics.

This shows me that the people who set the fines for speeding REALLY knew what
they were doing (or they were REALLY lucky!). Set them just high enough 
to make money, but not so high that people will fight them, thereby causing 
the government to lose money.

Just my thoughts.

Yours,
cantrell

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert King)
Date: 27 Jun 1995 20:08:25 GMT

>   probably be those that drive 55mph now.

   This is certainly true, but I feel this percentage will be EXTREMELY
small.  The truth is, the capabilities needed to drive 75 are not much
higher than those needed to drive 55.  At 75, braking distances are increased,
but not by a significant amount, and reaction times are reduced, but by a
smaller amount.

   In short, anyone capable of driving 55 responsibly should be able to drive
75 responsibly.

>   there is carnage at every corner.

   When Texas raised their interstate speed limits from 55 to 65, the traffic
on the interstates stayed pretty much the same.  Interstates at 55 versus rural
roads at 55 are already a better travel route, and most interstates are already
65, so the expected shift from rural roads to interstates should have already
occured.  Further raising the interstate's speed limit would have an
insignificant effect on traffic loads.

>   suggest a lot but reveal nothing.

   Yep, these are usuually used to sway those on the line.  Not really for or
against an issue.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert T. Weverka)
Date: 29 Jun 95 15:21:23 GMT

People who argue that "speed kills", because going faster is 
more dangerous, entirely miss the point.  The issue not 
whether to have any speed limits at all, it is an issue of 
where to draw the line.

The Federal Highway Administration performed experiments on 
speed limits, concluding in their final report on "Effects 
of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits" Report No. FHWA-RD-92-
084 that "the majority of motorists do not alter their speed 
to conform to speed limits they perceive as unreasonable for 
prevailing conditions."  People neither slow down for speed 
limits they feel are too low, nor do they speed up for speed 
limits which are too high.  This study also shows "Lowering 
speed limits more than 5 mi/h  below the 85th percentile 
speed of traffic did not reduce accidents."  The 85th 
percentile speed is the speed below which 85 percent of the 
people drive. The abstract and finding of this report are 
available on
http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/sl-irrel.html

On the Denver-Boulder Turnpike the 85th percentile is about 
65 mph.  In good weather, this is a safe speed on this 
limited access highway.  Setting the speed limit at 65 mph 
would bring the law into conformance with the speed that 
most people think is safe.

Most drivers pick a reasonably safe speed.  To set the speed 
limit below the 85th percentile does nothing but make 
violators out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.  It creates 
disrespect for the law, when the laws are so unreasonable 
that most people violate them.  We should set the speed 
limits on limited access highways no lower than the 85th 
percentile.

-Ted Weverka

---

From: Chuck Fry <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jun 1995 14:58:23 GMT

>before being published on the net. 

If it's the study by Tignor and Warren, it was commissioned by the US
Department of Transportation.  This is a very thorough study with a lot
of information gathered from a variety of real roads, not some gedanken
experiment by academics with too much time on their hands.

>				    The scientific community has recently
>overall lack of credibility in the articles available therin.

The "scientific community" is not one unified body, but is made up of
individuals with rather diverse opinions.  What authority represents
your "scientific community"?  In any event, Tignor and Warren have had
other papers published in proceedings of various conferences.  These
guys aren't just blowing smoke.

>distance and shortens reaction times. That is the bottom line.

You are confusing two different issues.  Of course physics dictates that
e=1/2mv^2.  So once a mistake is made, the higher the speed, the higher
the penalty for a sudden stop.  But study after study has shown that
accident rates are not correlated with absolute speed, but with speed
*differentials* between vehicles.  Tignor and Warren (and others before
them) show that the most dangerous drivers on the road are the
*slowest*, as they tend to collect other drivers in their accidents; in
contrast, the "speed demons" tend to fall off the roads alone, hurting
only themselves.

Tignor and Warren also show that posted speed limits do not affect the
behavior of the average driver; people drive at whatever speed they feel
comfortable and safe, and by and large the accident rates show people's
judgments are correct.  Consider that many Interstate highways have
design speeds in excess of 70 MPH -- and this for the heavy,
ill-handling, underbraked cars of the '60s!

The other issue is that safety *cannot* be the only criteria for setting
speed limits.  Sure, the roads would be safest at 0 MPH, but you'd never
get anywhere!  You often hear people say "you cannot put a price on a
human life", but as a matter of engineering and public policy, we
*must*.

The facts are in.  "Speed kills" is a Big Lie.  Everyone who drives
knows it, and pretending otherwise is just hypocrisy.  So it's time for
the traffic engineers, and not the insurance industry or any other
vested interest, to set the speed limits.

 -- Chuck Fry, member, National Motorists Association

---

From: [email-masked] (John Reece)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 21:41:17 GMT

>last time you saw some one do the equivalent of that in the US?

Absolutely, positively right.  Furthermore, following this
protocol seems to result in  British drivers paying far more attention
to their surroundings than American drivers.  Since returning from
a business trip there it seems like American drivers in comparison are 
poking along 10-15 mph slower, but in a complete trance.  Listening
to the British traffic reports it seemed like there were far fewer
fender-benders on the greater London motorways than on the 
greater SF Bay Area freeways.

This is one instance where I'd like to some of our state officials
take a foreign junket at taxpayers expense.  It might open a few
eyes.

>Shyamal

John Reece
Not an Intel spokesman

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 28 Jun 1995 15:51:59 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,

>impact.

But, in 99.999999% of all cases there isn't going to be any impact!!!
When people argue against higher speed limits, why do they always
assume there will be more accidents?  Studies have shown that this
isn't true!  In fact, speed differential has been shown to be more of
a contributing cause to accidents than speed alone.  Mandating a speed
differential isn't a smart thing to do...

>PLus, it's also a well know fact that it takes longer to

This is common-sense advice, but too many idiots on the road don't
follow it.  If trucks are limited to 65 yet cars are allowed to do 85,
what is going to happen when a truck wants to pass another truck?  The
truck will cause big problems if there is even moderate traffic on the
road.

>And all Democrats aren't assholes.

I've yet to see proof of that....

-JPC

---

From: [email-masked] (John Reece)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 21:27:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>fatalities  (actually speed does not kill, it is speed differential

Actually, I think it's speed differential plus Americans' refusal
to follow a slow-traffic-keep-right/pass-only-on-the-left protocol.
The result is a lot more chaotic, high-speed lane jockeying than
you will find in Europe, where such a protocal is the custom if not
the law.

John Reece
Not an Intel spokesman

---

From: [email-masked] (Todd Mullins)
Date: 29 Jun 1995 21:45:40 GMT

Chris Glasser ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Right. Going 85 in a 55 MPH zone is perfectly safe. Even if everyone else is
: going 55-65.  
: Do you really believe that?

I think we all agree that it's the speed differential, blah blah blah

: What if you're going 75 or 85 in a 55, and the guy in the lane next to you
: about 150 feet in front of you has a tire blow out? What if he then loses
: control of his car temporarily and swerves into your lane? At 75, you have
: MUCH less time to react than at 55. Your brakes will not be able to slow your
: car down anywhere near as well. Your car will not handle as well as 75. You
: have a much greater chance of hitting this guy going 75 than 55. Do you deny
: this?

Of course not, but I can equally claim "You have a much greater chance
of hitting this guy going 55 than 35."  Or "35 than 15".  Or "15 than
0".  I think they call this one "Slippery Slope", no?

Besides, how fast was the other guy going?  It's the speed differential,
dontcha know (there's an echo in here).

: And common sense also says that the faster you're driving, the less time you
: have to react to unexpected situations. If you're driving an interstate at
: night, your headlights can only cover a certain amount of ground in front of
: you. If you're going 75 in a 55, by the time your headlights hit some
: unexpected debris on the road you will not have any chance of avoiding that
: debris. 

Would anybody care to discuss the pathetic headlights the US DOT has
foisted on us up until very recently?  Don't overdrive your lamps,
folks.

: The average car's brakes are far less effective at stopping from 75 than at
: 55.

And "55 than at 35", and - oh, well, you do understand, don't you?

--

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

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Geary)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 01:27:18 LOCAL

>You knew the law and broke it. That is wrong.

I would put it differently.  For more than 20 years, Congress has known the 
will of the people, as expressed daily by the speeds we actually drive.  
Instead of honoring our will, Congress chose to go against it, making 
lawbreakers of ordinary people.

*That* is wrong.

>not the speed limit per se, its speeding in general.

The fact is people drive at the speeds they drive at.  Congress does not 
decide this, state legislatures do not decide this, and the head of the CHP 
does not decide this.  Drivers decide for themselves what speeds to drive at, 
and speed limits have only a small effect on that choice.

If you're looking for ballots and open forums, why not go for the obvious one: 
watch what speed people actually drive at.  That is the most direct, most 
honest expression of the will of the people.

Governments can make rules, but if the rules don't reflect common practice of 
ordinary people, they become irrelevant--just as speed limits are today.

-Mike

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Thompson)
Date: 2 Jul 1995 17:12:09 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:

: >}The average car's brakes are far less effective
: >}at stopping from 75 than at 55.

: If by this you mean that it takes longer to stop from
: 75 than from 55, then that is correct. Isaac Newton
: explained it rather thoroughly. On the other hand, if 
: by this you mean that it takes longer to slow down by
: a fixed amount, say 10 mph, then you are incorrect. It
: takes the same amount of time to slow from 75 to 65 as
: it does to slow from 55 to 45.

   Um,  I don't think so.  Since slowing the car down involves
dissapating the kinetic energy of the car, and KE = 1/2 mv^2.
That is why stopping distances increase exponentially, not linearly
with speed.

So:  75*75 - 65*65 = 1400
     55*55 - 45*45 = 1000

  Ignoring the 1/2 and assuming the mass stays constant:

     (1400-1000)/1000 = .4 ->  40%

  Therefore it you have to dissapate 40% more energy to slow 
from 75 to 65 than from 55 to 45.  And assuming that you 
have the same constant energy removal rate (no brake fade)
in both cases, you would also travel more than 40% farther since
your average speed is higher.  Since brake fade is a real
problem in most cars, that will only make things worse.

  To test this, go out in your driveway and go from 10mph to a
dead stop.  Pretty quick, huh ??  Now go out on the open road
and slow down from 70 to 60.  Took a more time, didn't it ??
Also, check out how much farther you travelled while you were
slowing down.

  Not meant as a flame or personal attack, but stuff like this
is one of the best arguments *not* to raise the speeed limit.
There are too many people who have no idea of how to deal with
the incerased stopping distances and how the car is going to
behave.  I don't really think that the majority of drivers are
stupid, but they are certainly woefully undertrained and 
undereducated.  Hell, half of them don't really seem to be
able to cope with 55 on a daily basis.

Oh well,
Jeff	[email-masked]

: to happen than having to come to a full stop on the freeway. Vehicles in front
: of you do NOT suddenly come to a complete stop instantaneously. More likely,
: they will apply the brakes to avoid some hazard, then resume their previous
: speed. That only requires that you slow by as much as they did. How fast you
: are going has no effect on how long it takes you to do so.

: Michael Johnson
: Relay Technology, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (Cynthia)
Date: 2 Jul 1995 23:54:33 GMT

>able to cope with 55 on a daily basis.

	This argument has no real world bearing upon speed limits.
If the ability to stop were important, then newer cars would be allowed
to drive faster, and/or older cars will be forced off the highways.
	My car can stop faster at higher speeds than many new cars, and
better than virtually any car from the 50's/60's/70's and 80's. Heck, 
I'ld wager I can stop quicker and under more control from 100mph, than
that old GM sedan from 60...

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Gough)
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 02:05:16 MST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jeff Thompson) writes:
>[snip]

Except you also need to consider that wind resistance is proportional to v^3.  
So one gets substantial help from wind resistance when slowing from 75 to 65 
mph.  I would attempt to quantify this like you did, but that would require 
solving a differential equation, which I've refused to solve even since I was 
scared silly as an undergraduate when I solved on and got a Bessel function.  
;-)

With my car, I can slow down fairly quickly from 75 mph to 65 mph simply by 
taking my foot off the gas pedal.

>behave. 

I would postulate that people learn empirically how their car behaves in 
braking from various speeds by trying it.  After a while, they get a "feel" 
for how their car behaves in most situations.

> I don't really think that the majority of drivers are
>undereducated.

Well, surveys have shown that 80% think they are above average.  ;-)

However, I think the distribution of driving skills follows a binomial 
distribution, as follows:

        manics   -    50%
        idiots     -    50%

;-)

Regards,
Andy

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Andy Gough                      |      "Knowledge is power."
Internet: [email-masked]   |                -- Francis Bacon
ICBM: 33^18'29" N  111^48'39" W |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Thompson)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 15:01:07 GMT

Andrew Gough ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jeff Thompson) writes:
: >   Um,  I don't think so.  Since slowing the car down involves
: >dissapating the kinetic energy of the car, and KE = 1/2 mv^2.
: >That is why stopping distances increase exponentially, not linearly
: >with speed.
: >[snip]
: >  Therefore it you have to dissapate 40% more energy to slow 
: >from 75 to 65 than from 55 to 45.  And assuming that you 
: >have the same constant energy removal rate (no brake fade)
: >in both cases, you would also travel more than 40% farther since
: >your average speed is higher.  Since brake fade is a real
: >problem in most cars, that will only make things worse.

:Except you also need to consider that wind resistance is proportional to v^3.  
:So one gets substantial help from wind resistance when slowing from 75 to 65 
:mph.  I would attempt to quantify this like you did, but that would require 
:solving a differential equation, which I've refused to solve even since I was 
:scared silly as an undergraduate when I solved on and got a Bessel function.  
: ;-)

   I believe that the wind resistance is higher, but I remain skeptical
about how much of an impact is has.  Wind resistance is roughly 2.5
times higher at 75mph than at 55mph, but I'm not sure how much overall
impact it has.  I know that it takes longer for my car to coast down
from 75-65 than if I hammer on the brakes.  I admit that I left it out,
but I'm not going to do the differential equation either ;)

:I would postulate that people learn empirically how their car behaves in 
:braking from various speeds by trying it.  After a while, they get a "feel" 
:for how their car behaves in most situations.

   But if you raise the limit, there are going to be a lot of
experimenters out there.  All on the same road together.  Maybe
it will be OK.  I seem to be more optomistic today.  :)

Later,

---

From: Jason Cepelak <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Jul 1995 04:41:54 GMT

I agree with the gentleman's assertion that speed limits are 
nothing but cash cows for state budgets and insurance lobbies.

Obviously, a higher rate of speed decreases reaction time. Yet 
what is lost in the debate is driver responsibility. Too often 
many people operate vehicles as if they are the only ones on the 
road. Failure to stay left, using directionals and common sense 
are contributors to accidents, not speed. 

Its funny how purveyors of lower speed limits consistently claim 
that study after study has shown higher speed limits cause 
deaths, yet they never mention a study conducted by two FHA 
engineers in the late eighties that proved speed itself does not 
kill.

The bottom line is this: If you are going to drive fast you must 
anticipate hazardous conditions sooner. Driving 80 MPH requires a 
higher level of attention than driving 55 MPH. Merely blaming 
speed for accidents is a cop out and removes responsibility. I 
say raise the speed limit and start going after the REAL hazards 
on the road

---

From: Michael Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:29:06 EDT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Lloyd R.
Parker) says:
>: First of all, KE is not exponentially increasing. Energy is work per unit
>: time, and work is force times distance, which means that KE has to be
>: expressed in units of force times velocity, not mass times velocity squared.
>
>Sorry, but an object in motion possesses an amount of KE equal to 1/2
>times its mass times its velocity squared.  Basic physics.  To take the
>object from 10 mph to 0 mph requires removing a certain amount of KE
>equal to 1/2 times the mass times 100 (1/2m10^2 - 1/2m0^2).  To take the
>object from 20 mph to 10 mph requires removing KE equal to 1/2 times the
>mass times 300 (1/2m20^2 - 1/2m10^2).
>
>The amount of force you have to use is not a constant -- it will depend
>upon how much KE you have to remove.

Hmm.. we really need to do something about these lloyderers. Care to
cite your reference Lloyd? Unfortunately, I don't have a physics text
here, but in this case that hardly matters.

Allow me to reiterate. When attempting to make calculations in
physics (and chemistry) it is important to remember that if the units
don't come out right, you've made a mistake or some invalid assumptions.

Let's start with the basics again.

   W = F * D                                                      (1)

Work is force times distance. Pretty basic comic book physics.

   E = W / T                                                      (2)

Energy is work over time. Again, basic comic book physics. If we assign
units to the values on the right (F in Newtons, D in Meters, T in
seconds) we have:

   Energy = Newtons * Meters / Second                             (3)

What this means is that for any change in velocity the energy used to
effect that change is directly proportional to the force applied to the
object and is directly proportional to the change in velocity. If you
apply a small amount of force, the energy used will be small (and
incidentally, the velocity change will take a long time). If you apply a
large amount of force, the energy used will be higher and the elapsed time
will be less for the same velocity change.

This is why it takes more energy to accelerate quickly from 0-60 mph than it
does to accelerate slowly from 0-60 mph. When you finally get to 60 mph your
car has the same kinetic energy relative to the Earth, but the energy you
expended accelerating can vary.

To talk about kinetic energy as though it were an absolute quantity is
just plain wrong. Kinetic energy is always measured relative to a frame
of reference. For example, suppose I am driving 75 mph and am overtaking
a car that is moving at 65 mph. I have a given kinetic energy with
respect to that other car. If I slow to match speeds with that other
car, I now have kinetic energy equal zero with respect to that other car.

Or another example, the Solar system (and Earth) are moving through space at
some fixed velocity. With respect to some hypothetical observer, the kinetic
energy of a car stationary on Earth is going to be extremely large. Now,
suppose that the Solar system hit some (relatively) dense interstellar gas
and slowed down by a few 100 km/hr. Does this mean that suddenly cars on the
planet Earth would be able to stop faster? Somehow I don't think so.

We can express this in another way. Let's take a look at the basic equation
for acceleration (or deceleration, which is negative acceleration):

  F = MA

Force equals mass times acceleration. It is valid to average the acceleration
if you know the beginning velocity, the ending velocity, and the time involved.
So we're decelerating from X mph to X-5 mph. Let's assume that we always use
enough force to do this in 3 seconds. To make the units match, we can convert
some mph figures to feet/second:

  75 mph = 110 ft/sec
  65 mph =  95 ft/sec

We can also assume that the mass of the car is constant. Let's assume that it
is 1000 Kg (a convenient number). So we have a velocity change (Vd) of 15
ft/sec over a 3 second interval, giving us an acceleration of 5 ft/sec/sec.
We can plug in those numbers, giving us:

  F = 1000 Kg * 5 ft/sec/sec

Or

  F = 5000 units of force

You can do the same math using different starting and ending velocities and
the result will be the same. The important thing is not how fast you are going
when you start, it's the change in velocity.

We can rearrange the F = MA equation to express it in terms of elapsed time,
in which case:

  T = M * Vd / F

Or, elapsed time equals Mass times (Velocity change) over Force. What this says
is that for a constant mass, a constant force, and a fixed change in velocity,
the elapsed time is always the same. If you increase the force, the time
decreases. If you increase the mass or the velocity change, the time
increases.

The energy used to effect this velocity change can be calculated using:

  E = F * Vd

If we plug in the numbers:

  E = 5000 kg ft/sec/sec * 15 ft/sec

Which gives us:
                 2     3
  E = 75000 kg ft / sec

Or to change units:
                       2
  E = 75000 kg (ft/sec) / sec

Hm.. there's your velocity squared. But wait a second, how did that
extra time value get in there?  Let's do a little reasoned analysis of
this equation. A reasonable interpretation of this would be that for a given
mass and a given velocity change, that the energy used would be directly
proportional to the mass, directly proportional to the square of the velocity
CHANGE and inversely proportional to the time it takes to effect that change.
We already know that energy is inversely proportional to time, from the
equation E = W / T so that would mean that the work done in slowing a car by a
given velocity would be given by the mass of the car times the square of the
velocity change. Always.

So obviously something is missing in the kinetic energy picture. I'm not
going to try to guess what it is, I'd rather go dig out my physics text,
which is at home. It may be that Jeff and Lloyd are applying the KE equation
in ways that don't apply (gee, do you think so?). It may be that they don't
have the right equation. I can't verify that at the moment.

Also, please note that when you increase your velocity relative to a frame
of reference, your kinetic energy always increases. When you decrease your
velocity relative to a frame of reference, your kinetic energy always
decreases. But note also that it always takes a POSITIVE amount of energy
to effect a velocity change, either positive or negative. That would suggest
that what you are doing when you press the brake pedal is not absorbing the
kinetic energy of the vehicle. So where does the kinetic energy go? Actually,
it is dissipated as heat and noise. That's why the brakes heat up and sometimes
squeal.

Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
[email-masked], [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:36:26 EDT

>   Energy = Newtons * Meters / Second                             (3)

Having consulted my physics text, I can now say that I mixed up my
terms. Energy and Work are the same thing. What I called energy is
actually power. So my terms are a little skewed, but that doesn't
invalidate my proof, which is based on F=MA.

So, while you can expend varying amounts of power accelerating from 0-60
mph, the energy used is the same. According to said physics text, the
magnitute of energy used to effect a velocity change is ALWAYS equal to the
change in kinetic energy (relative to a frame of reference, of course).

>The energy used to effect this velocity change can be calculated using:

This is not quite right. The equation is actually:

  P = (F * D) / T

The distance traveled is of course relative to a frame of reference. This
would be given by the average relative velocity times the acceleration
interval. For an observer in a vehicle moving at X-10 mph, this would be:

  P = (5000 kg ft/sec/sec * (7.5 ft/sec * 3 sec) / 3 sec = 375000 power units

The work would then be given by:

                  2     2
  E = 112500 kg ft / sec

Or:
                        2
  E = 112500 kg (ft/sec)

Which if we plug in the original mass and velocity change numbers, give us

       1                           2                     2
  E = --- * (1000 kg) * (15 ft/sec)  = 112500 kg (ft/sec)
       2

Which matches the kinetic energy equation:

        1     2
  KE = --- M V
        2

I then wrote:
>in ways that don't apply (gee, do you think so?).

So now we can examine what is wrong with this picture. Let's do a little
more math. Since the KE change is supposed to match the energy expended
(that is, the work done) in changing velocity, how can the time always
be the same for a given velocity change?

Let's examine our scenario of a 75-65 mph change over 3 seconds for a
car massing 1000 Kg. The beginning KE with respect to a stationary
observer is:
                                   2
  KE0 = 0.5 * 1000Kg * (110 ft/sec)  = 6050000 energy units

And the ending KE is:
                                  2
  KE1 = 0.5 * 1000Kg * (95 ft/sec)   = 4512500 energy units

For a change in KE of 1537500 energy units. Those same energy units
can be expressed as force times distance. We calculated the force to
be 5000 units of force. So now we have to figure out how much distance
was involved. We can average the velocity of the car over the interval
to give 102.5 ft/sec times 3 seconds for 307.5 feet. So the energy
should be given by:

  KEd = 307.5 ft * 5000 force units = 1537500 energy units

Which matches perfectly. We can do the same calculation for a change from
65 mph to 55 mph:
                                   2
  KE0 = 0.5 * 1000 Kg * (95 ft/sec)  = 4512500 energy units
                                   2
  KE1 = 0.5 * 1000 Kg * (80 ft/sec)  = 3200000 energy units

For a difference of 1312500 which is less than for the change from 75
to 65 mph, as expected. Now, using the work equation, the average
velocity of the car over the 3 seconds is 87.5 ft/sec, giving a
distance traveled of 262.5 feet, so the KE change should be:

  KEd = 262.5 ft * 5000 force units = 1312500 energy units

Which again matches. So as you can see, the time is always the same,
even though the kinetic energy change is geometrically increasing.

My terminology in describing the energy exchange was off, which is why
my units didn't always match up. It's been a while since I studied
energy. Nevertheless, my physics based on F=MA were correct and once
I found the flaw in my energy calculations, were verified based on
kinetic energy change.

---

From: [email-masked] (Phil Mueller)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 20:29:57 GMT

in article <[email-masked]>

>Hmm.. we really need to do something about these lloyderers. 

Lloyd is right is this case.

>Care to

Uhhh, you probably should have checked with your physics text.

>Work is force times distance. Pretty basic comic book physics.

So far, so good.

>Energy is work over time. Again, basic comic book physics. 

Nope, *power* is work per time.  Energy is work.  Two different names 
for the same thing.  With this wrong equation, there's no point in 
reading the rest of your article.  

Well, I'll just make one more point...
> ... Hm.. there's your velocity squared. But wait a second, how did that
> extra time value get in there?                                              

Too bad you didn't follow your own advice about units: 
    "it is important to remember that if the units don't come out right,

     you've made a mistake or some invalid assumptions."

--  
Phil Mueller  [email-masked]  1989 BMW 325i

---

From: [email-masked] (Lloyd R. Parker)
Date: 6 Jul 1995 11:40:18 -0400

Robert T. Weverka ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:

: >Sorry, but an object in motion possesses an amount of KE equal to 1/2 
: >times its mass times its velocity squared.  Basic physics.  To take the 
: >object from 10 mph to 0 mph requires removing a certain amount of KE 
: >equal to 1/2 times the mass times 100 (1/2m10^2 - 1/2m0^2).  To take the 
: >object from 20 mph to 10 mph requires removing KE equal to 1/2 times the 
: >mass times 300 (1/2m20^2 - 1/2m10^2).

: So what.  The force you have available is about 1 g.  Limited by tire adhesion.
: At 1 g deceleration, you go from 20 mph to 10 mph in the same time it takes
: 1 g deceleration to take you from 10 mph to 0 mph.

: >The amount of force you have to use is not a constant -- it will depend 
: >upon how much KE you have to remove.

: Force = time derivative of momentum =  m dV/dt
: Constant force =  constant deceleration.

s = vt -1/2at^2  (s=distance)     since a=v/t, t=v/a
s = v(v/a) -1/2 a(v/a)^2
s = v^2/a -1/2(v^2/a)
s = 1/2(v^2/a)

So stopping distance is proportional to the square of the velocity, not 
the velocity itself.  And distance is what keeps you out of a collision 
(or gets you into one).

---

From: [email-masked] (John W Watford)
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 05:53:57 GMT

THe bottom line is this.  Today, there are more people driving 75mph than 
65mph on the highways.  This is because newer cars are more competent and 
comfortable to drive than older cars.  NObody would drive a 55 chevy 
75mph down an interstate in the dark because the confidence in teh cars 
ablity to handle an emergencye is nonexistent.  

The danger lies in people driving 60mph in a area where everyone else is 
driving 75.  

On the other hand.  The argument about 15mph difference betwee you and 
the car that has a blowout is null.  If a car has a blowout at 35, and 
you're doing 45, and you hit that car, your chances of survival are much 
better than if that car ias doing 50 and you were doing 60.  Remeber, 
both cars are moving, and both must come to a stop at some point.

 Mark Rushton ([email-masked]) wrote:
: <[email-masked]> writes:

: >Right. Going 85 in a 55 MPH zone is perfectly safe. Even if everyone else is
: >going 55-65.  Do you really believe that?

: I'm talking about driving down the predominantly straight, divided interstates 
: that are now (mostly) 65 mph.  Makes no sense to drive 55, or 65, or even 75 
: in some cases.  Come on out to Kansas if and see if you don't agree with me.

: >What if you're going 75 or 85 in a 55, and the guy in the lane next to you
: >about 150 feet in front of you has a tire blow out? What if he then loses
: >control of his car temporarily and swerves into your lane? At 75, you have
: >MUCH less time to react than at 55. Your brakes will not be able to slow your
: >car down anywhere near as well. Your car will not handle as well as 75. You
: >have a much greater chance of hitting this guy going 75 than 55. Do you deny
: >this?

: Pretty lame arguement.  But what if the tires blows at 55?  Wouldn't you be 
: safer driving at 35?  If it blew at 35, wouldn't it be better if you were 
: driving 15?  Come on, your arguement is very sophomoric.

: >And common sense also says that the faster you're driving, the less time you
: >have to react to unexpected situations. If you're driving an interstate at
: >night, your headlights can only cover a certain amount of ground in front of
: >you. If you're going 75 in a 55, by the time your headlights hit some
: >unexpected debris on the road you will not have any chance of avoiding that
: >debris. 

: What are you looking at while driving?  Your ankles?  The cute lights on the 
: dashboard of your car?  You seem to think 75 is warp speed.  It used to be the 
: regular speed limit on many STATE highways back before the mid 1970's oil 
: embargo came along.  Cars have greatly improved since then.

: >The average car's brakes are far less effective at stopping from 75 than at 
: >55.

: Yes, and they're also less effective stopping from 55 than 35.  Your point?  
: How many times have you had to slam on your brakes and come to a complete stop 
: on a divided interstate highway from 55 mph or faster?  It may have happened 
: to people, but it's not a daily (or weekly, or monthly, or yearly) occurance.  
: Not out here in the great plains....

: (my slagging of people with AOL domains is edited)

: >So now everyone with an AOL domain has been grouped together and classified.
: >Hmm, that's about as dumb as me saying that everyone named Mark is a complete
: >fool. But I wouldn't say that. I would just say the one particular Mark making
: >the statement above is a complete fool. Try paying attention to what people
: >have to say rather than what domain they're posting from.

: >While I don't completely agree with the AOL poster's statements, I think he
: >makes some valid points. I also think you made some valid points about cops
: >not giving tickets to people with license plates, etc. But I think you
: >undermined the good points you made by doing stupid things like stereotyping a
: >whole group of people and by making what I consider rediculous statements like
: >driving 10,20, and 30 MPH over posted speed limits is perfectly safe.

: Stereotyping?  Most people with AOL domains either figure out it's a total 
: ripoff and get hooked up with an ISP or go around posting inane comments to 
: other newsgroups because someone else picks up their huge bills.  Hey, bud, I 
: see it all the time.  Most of them don't read FAQs, can't figure out how to 
: copy things in their responses on Usenet, and flame all the time because of 
: their pseudonym status.  Not all, but enough to give the few decent ones a bad 
: name and rep.

: Driving 10, 20, or 30 mph over posted speed limits is perfectly safe, provided 
: you're on a divided, interstate highway of reasonable grade that lacks any 
: severe corners and that traffic is moving along with you.  I normally drive 75 
: on the rural interstates and I'm always being passed by people that seem to 
: know how to keep their cars under control at such Warp speeds (NT speeds for 
: you MS fans :-)   Naturally, I don't consider what I said to be a 
: "rediciulous" (sic) statement.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 8 Jul 95 05:12:08 -0600

> The danger lies in people driving 60mph in a area where everyone else is 
  Perhaps it is time to start digging out any old 1950s and 60s copies
of Popular Science and Pop. Mechanix you might have in your attic and
reading up on various ideas people had to deal with this particular
'problem'.
  One item might be a highway system designed with three lanes in each
direction, each lane for a certain speed range. The rightmost lane,
the exit/entry lane, would be for 60mph and under. The middle lane
is for 100mph but over 50mph, and the leftmost lane has no speed limit,
but for over 90mph.
  The strict rules employed in Germany would probably be very helpful
in keeling things in control: You do not block lanes.. if you are in
the unlimited lane and someone is moving up on you, you must move
move out of the way if possible or risk an expensive fine. Signalling
is an absolute must, or you also get a big fine, etc.

  Perhaps a driver certification course and color-coded license
plates would help reduce problems. Uncertified people must stay in
the slower lanes or get big fines, while certified drivers can go
any speed. The certification would be a driving school where people
are taught how to deal with problems like high speed blowouts,
hydroplaning, and other emergency situations.
  This would definitely reduce accidents since people would have the
hands-on experience to be able to deal with problems. Retesting
every ten years or so, to brush up on skills and find those no longer
capable (due to age and whatnot) of handling such high speeds would
also help deal with problems..

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Adams)
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 05:55:23 GMT

mcollett ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >>
: >I disagree with you.  Trucks weigh a lot more than cars, that means
: >that the faster that they travel, the greater the force will be at

: Well I must disagree with you and agree with the traffic engineer.  
: He/She (I've forgotten who's who) has been studying the numbers and the
: statistics much longer and in more detail than both of us, I'm sure.  
: In my opinion however, things on the interstate are much more dangerous 
: at the relative level.  As in a bike flying up behind a truck at a 50 mph

I too will trust traffic and transportation engineers over the big mouths
in government and insurance companies.  My guess, however, would be that
the practical speed limits for trucks would be lower than for cars, not
because of weight, but because of vehicle stability.  A small low vehicle
with four wheels at each corner has to be more stable than an eighteen
wheeled vehicle with a high center of gravity towing one or more trailers.

Rather than slowing the automobile down to match the truck, some speed
differential may be desirable.  I am sure the engineers could calculate
the optimum speeds for both sets of vehicles, minimizing both speed
differential concerns, and stability concerns, while maximizing average
speeds for each.  Those optimum speeds, I am sure would be nothing remotely 
close to those chosen by our government which sets speeds arbitrarily. 

Michael Adams

-- 
                                             [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephan Anagnostaras)
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 1995 17:54:40 -0700

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

> I think 55 is an *unreasonable* speed limit.  Most of the major inner
> highways have 40-45 limits and on a freeway we just get 10mph more?  I
> believe a resonable limit would be around 70 or so.  It looks like 55 was
> set to make more money for states in ticket fines.  My 2¢ worth.

It was set to save gas, that's why it's called the "Energy Speed Limit" and
why the Federal Govt has justification to set the limit (otherwise outside
of their consitutional authority) but they made it a matter of foreign
policy.  I have mixed feelings about this, but I would probably agree that
70 is a reasonable limit. 
However, in some instances the 70 mph would increase the variability in the
speed of traffic, which would lead to more accidents and headaches. 
As such Im not sure I would favor higher speeds inside the city where traffic is
always heavy.  However, the route between SF and LA for example, could
tolerate a limit of 80 or so (in fact, I sometimes wonder if the limit
is 100, since you occassionally see bands of cars goings 110 or so and
can tag along if you have a good enough car).   I think you're right in
assessing that the speed limit is kept in place in order to raise money
for the states/cities.  however, this isnt surprising after the loss
of revenue-sharing during the early 80s.  Higher speed limits would probably
mean higher taxes, but I would be happy to pay.

Cheers
Stephan

-- 
STEPHAN ANAGNOSTARAS                   UCLA BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephan Anagnostaras)
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 1995 17:54:40 -0700

Cheers
Stephan

---

From: [email-masked] (Hi Ho Silver)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 19:01:28 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Jason Cepelak <[email-masked]> writes:
$The bottom line is this: If you are going to drive fast you must 
$anticipate hazardous conditions sooner. Driving 80 MPH requires a 
$higher level of attention than driving 55 MPH. Merely blaming 
$speed for accidents is a cop out and removes responsibility. I 
$say raise the speed limit and start going after the REAL hazards 
$on the road

   Actually, I'd say that an increase in the speed limit should probably
_follow_ an increase in the ability of a typical driver.  Of course,
in the real world you could never trust a politician to carry through
on such a promise - "Today, we enact sweeping new legislation to make
our roads safer through better training, tougher examinations, periodic
re-testing, and a change in the focus of traffic law enforcement from
the pursuit of speeders to the pursuit of dangerous drivers.  Over
the next three years, we will clear our roads of the unsafe drivers
and make the highways safer for all.  At the end of this period,
we will increase the speed limit on our major highways from 100 km/h
to 120 km/h."  Yeah, right.  And income tax was a temporary levy to
fund the war effort in 1917 (at least that's how it was introduced
in Canada).

   Our new Premier here in Ontario, as one of his first acts, did
away with photo radar and promised to make the roads safer.  He's
right in that photo radar was put in place to raise revenue and
is not an effective way of making the roads safer.  Time will tell
if he'll manage to put together a package of proposals three months
hence to make the roads safer.  I rather doubt that the political
will exists to do what's really needed.
-- 
 ______________________________________________
/  Hi Ho Silver, who likes the idea of having  \  __________________________
\  SNTF and large h00ters in the same package   \/   [email-masked]    \
 \______________________________________________/ ...{!uunet}!bokonon!silver \

---

From: Michael Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 13:09:38 EDT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Lloyd R.
>the velocity itself.  And distance is what keeps you out of a collision

It's important to remember that we've been talking about relative velocities
and relative distances covered. When braking from 75 mph to 0 mph with respect
to a stationary observer, the stopping distance is pretty high. However,
when braking from a relative 10 mph to a relative 0 mph with respect to a
vehicle in front of you, the *relative distance* traveled is the same,
regardless of how fast the two vehicles are moving with respect to a
stationary observer. Or, to put it another way, if you are matching speeds
with another vehicle, you will always close the gap between the two by the
same amount, if you start at the same relative velocity and brake at the
same rate.

The reason why you should increase your following distance as you get to
higher speeds is that there is a linear increase in stopping TIME the faster
you go.

Suppose you're following a car with identical braking characteristics (I
realize that's an unwarranted assumption in the real world, but it will do
for an illustration) and the lead driver hits the brakes for a panic stop.
Assuming you're paying attention, you have a pretty much fixed reaction time,
which varies from one driver to another. In that time, assuming you were
pacing the lead car, a relative velocity builds between you and the leading
car. When you get on the brakes, there is now a relative velocity and you
are closing on the leading car by the RELATIVE VELOCITY. Once the other car
gets to 0 mph and stops decelerating, you have a chance to match velocities
again, which should take just as long as your reaction time in our simplified
example.

If the time it takes to stop with respect to the OTHER CAR is longer than the
time it takes to cover the distance between the two cars at their relative
velocities, then you have a collision.

So, since people almost NEVER leave an adequate following distance for a panic
stop, why don't we have more rear-enders? The reason is that drivers almost
never actually have to panic stop on the highway. Much more common is the case
where a driver perceives a threat, hits the brakes to slow by some amount,
say 10 or 20 mph, then either stays at that speed or accelerates again. The
drivers out there may not be leaving enough room for a 75-mph panic stop, but
they ARE leaving enough room to compensate for a 10 to 20 mph velocity change.

Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
[email-masked], [email-masked]
"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart