Subject: Re: Repeal of the National Speed Limit Law

From: [email-masked] (AAPR RB)
Date: 30 Jun 1995 07:51:15 -0400

>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

The National Motorists Association sounds like a vested interest to me. 
Nice contradiction, but I won't hold that against you. 

Just to clear a few things up since some people (mostly NMA members by
chance) have been wildly misinterpriting my statements.

1) Thank you for posting the reference to the study about speed vs.
accidents and that it was a published article as opposed to something
found lying about on the net. We need more references and less opinion. On
that note I have found myself lacking a few references and will make up
for them now. 

Sources for speed causing accidents:
"The New Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia"
"Information Please Alminac" from the National Safety Council
Comptons Encyclopedia
The California Highway Patrol

"AUTOMOBILE DRIVING
  The Most Common Causes of Accidents
---------
The Most Common Causes of Accidents

   Almost 18 million traffic accidents are reported in the United States
annually, and more than 450,000 are reported in Canada each year. Human
error is responsible for about 90 percent of these accidents.
   The most frequent traffic violations committed by poor drivers are: (1)
speeding--the principal contributing factor in fatal and nonfatal traffic
accidents; (2) failing to yield the right-of-way--ranks second in nonfatal
and third in fatal accidents; and (3) driving under the influence of
alcohol--a factor in at least half of the fatal accidents." Comptons
Encyclopedia

In addition:
The Gallup Organization conducted a survey in which drivers rated their
own ability compaired to others on the road. 70% of the respondants
claimed to have better driving ability than other drivers on the road,
with nearly half stating their driving aptitude as 'excellent'. Only 36%
of people reported that they usually drive above the speed limit. (The
Gallup Organization)

Psycologists state time and time again that speeding is a direct response
to the 'challenge' of being passed by another driver. As a driver gets
passed he (most speeders are men) feels the need to regain his position
and the race is on. (Orange County Register)

The California Department of Motor Vehicals conducted a study to determine
the effects of suspending the licenses of habitual speeders. They stopped
the suspension of licenses to a control group of people, while continued
the enforcement with the rest of the habitual speeders for a number of
months. The study was discontinued after public outrage that the
non-suspended speeders were shown to be killing themselves and innocent
people (motorists, passengers and pedestrians) at a greater than normal
rate. (Orange County Register)

A published journal article showed that owners of radar detectors were
MORE likely to get speeding tickets than non-owners. This is primarily due
to the effect of radar detector owners are a self selected group of people
who habitually speed.

That should give you some quick items to disprove as opinions of bored
scientists.

I haven't mentioned this before but will now. I am not oppsed to a raised
speed limit being passed by the govt. In fact I am slightly for it.
However, I'm also pretty sure that many states won't change their speed
limits even if they were given control of them. If they did, only in
select (probably rural) areas.

One of my points about a higher speed limit creating more deaths and
serious accidents DOES  in fact take into account some of the points that
NMA members have brought up. Primarily the one about people will drive at
whatever speed they want no matter what the posted limit. I see it a
slightly different way. I see it as a percentage over the posted limit.
Raise the speed limit, all traffic speeds increase. Those who drove
habitually over the speed limit will still drive over the new speed limit.
However with greater speeds comes shortened reaction times and all the
other fun stuff discussed as of late. Still with me? OK now we see that we
are just moving everyone up in speed (momentum) and roughly the same
percentage of people who would have had accidents above the speed limit
will still have accidents above the speed limit, only with a higher
percentage of fatalities due to the increase in energy of impact and the
resulting greater structural damage to the vehical(s).

Assuming that all traffic will stay at the same average speed even with an
increase in posted speed limit and without adjusting to the newer speed
over time is unsound logic and psychology. History has taught us that. No
matter how good we have it we always want more. The first prison in
america had its first riot over the food the inmates were served. What
detestable food were they made to consume? Lobster. Raise the speed limits
now and in a few years they will be too slow again. That's just they way
things go.

By the way, sorry for any odd posting problems. In the past week two of my
Usenet links have gone down and I am being forced to use what is available
on AOL. They don't even list the newsgroups properly. I tried to send my
original posting to ca.driving, but it also got into rec.autos.driving
without me knowing it right off. That's why I have so many CA references -
CVC = California Vehical Code.

And yes, I do have a few speeding tickets. But as an EMT I have also
pulled a few too many people out of auto accidents. Many of them caused by
speeds above the flow of traffic.

---

From: tony@sebastian (Antonio S. Esporma )
Date: 30 Jun 1995 21:58:36 GMT

>chance) have been wildly misinterpriting my statements.
[snip, snip]
>non-suspended speeders were shown to be killing themselves and innocent
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>rate. (Orange County Register)

An a resident of Orange County,  I figure I'd shed some light on this:

Some kid who had accumulated a ton of speeding tickets got in a high speed 
accident and killed someone here in Orange County in one hell of an accident.

When the papers got wind of his driving record and the
conditions under which he kept driving (the aforementioned experiment)
they went _NUTS_ (this was pre OJ trial, you understand...) and trumpeted
this CRAZY EXPERIMENT all over the papers and news.  Subsequently, the
DMV was forced by "public opinion" (ie: media frenzy) to cancel it.
In no way did the experiment results support the statement underlined above.

>to the effect of radar detector owners are a self selected group of people

Maybe this is because we're up to here with selective enforcement and 
financial coercion by corrupt politican and perhaps radar detector 
owners are more likely to be free thinkers who don't give a shit about
some jack ass (oh boy...) politican telling them how to run their lives.  
Of course, this has nothing to do with speed vs. accidents.

>That should give you some quick items to disprove as opinions of bored

Hey, I'm a scientist too!  A prostituted one, 'cause phyziks don't pay
the mortgage.  And I speed.  ("Officer, I was doing research....")

>select (probably rural) areas.

And in Orange County, I hope the assinine Board of Supervisors, (the ones 
that crafted our recent financial debacle) don't get the idea of 
_lowering_ the speed limit to 45 for non residents so they can bilk mo'
money....

Ay,Ay, Ay!  watch your wallet.

tony

---

From: Chuck Fry <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 1995 23:12:53 GMT

>Nice contradiction, but I won't hold that against you. 

NMA is an organization composed of individuals who like to drive.  We
have no profit motive.

By vested interests, I meant groups like the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, whose member organizations stand to profit from overly
restrictive speed limits, and the National Trucking Association, whose
members are large trucking firms that would like to drive the
independent "mom 'n' pop" truckers out of business.  Both of the
aforementioned lobbies are in favor of 55 because they literally make
more money under 55.

>The California Highway Patrol

The CHP has a vested interest in keeping the speed limit low.  It's
called "job security" and "easy pickings".  It's a cinch to make your
unofficial quota when 90% of the traffic is exceeding the posted limit.

>alcohol--a factor in at least half of the fatal accidents." Comptons

Which edition?

>and the race is on. (Orange County Register)

Date of this article, please?

>rate. (Orange County Register)

Date of this article, please?

>to the effect of radar detector owners are a self selected group of people

Reference, please?  I could quote you studies by equally biased sources
that concluded radar detector users are safer drivers than average.

>habitually over the speed limit will still drive over the new speed limit.

I hear this all the time, AND IT IS FALSE.  Tignor and Warren
systematically disproved this old wives' tale.  PEOPLE DRIVE AT THE
SPEED THEY FEEL IS SAFE AND COMFORTABLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF POSTED LIMITS.
T&W proved this by varying the posted limits on various roads and
charting observed speed distributions and accident rates.  No
correlation was found between posted limits and drivers' speeds, or
between posted limits and accident rates.

>speeds above the flow of traffic.

But you haven't sufficiently demonstrated that the speed "above the flow
of traffic" was the proximate cause of the accident.  Just because speed
was *associated* does not mean it is the *cause*.

 -- Chuck
-- 
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] (Mark Rushton)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 20:56:05 MST

[email-masked] (AAPR RB) writes:

<edit>

>alcohol--a factor in at least half of the fatal accidents." Comptons

Speeding in residential areas?  On trafficways?  On a rural interstate?  State 
highway?  County road?  Gravel road?  Hello?  I'm talking about rural 
interstates where the speed limit is now 65 (55 in those few Neanderthal-run 
lower 48 states)

<snip> {yawn}

>select (probably rural) areas.

I sure hope you don't mean the Federal Government.  The Federal Govt has no 
business setting speed limits.  That moron from New Jersey, Lieberman, doesn't 
need to be telling me what is appropriate in the middle of nowhere Kansas.

And you mean when the states are given BACK control of them.  Currently, they
are being blackmailed by the Feds to adopt a lower speed limit due to an oil 
embargo that ended years ago or face the withdrawl of Fed Highway funds.  May 
I say it was a time when the Tenth Amendment actually meant something.

>Raise the speed limit, all traffic speeds increase. 

Actually, raise the speed limit when it doesn't make sense and all traffic 
speeds increase.  But......

There is a section of road in my neighborhood where the limit is 30.  However, 
it's hilly, there are cars parked on one side of the road, it's fairly narrow, 
and there are lots of trees and other obstructions.  I rarely get above 25 
because I'm always on the lookout due to past potential troubles.  I'm not 
saying the limit should be changed to 25, or even 20 (which is what I and most 
other drivers usually go), but I'd be nuts to take it at 30 mph, especially 35 
to 40 (unlike some other wide, open roads in the area)

>now and in a few years they will be too slow again. That's just they way

Er, 20-some years ago we had our interstates taken over by people who "knew 
better" for a "higher cause" by people who didn't drive (they had limos)  In 
the mean time, our cars have become so much more than the lumbering, bloated 
creatures of 20 years ago.  It just makes sense to let STATES have a say in 
the matter rather than the Freakin' Feds.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 1 Jul 1995 12:26:24 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, AAPR RB <[email-masked]> wrote:
}>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
}
}The National Motorists Association sounds like a vested interest to me. 
}Nice contradiction, but I won't hold that against you. 

The NMA isn't asking to set the limits, though.  

}Just to clear a few things up since some people (mostly NMA members by
}chance) have been wildly misinterpriting my statements.

}1) Thank you for posting the reference to the study about speed vs.
}accidents and that it was a published article as opposed to something
}found lying about on the net. We need more references and less opinion. On
}that note I have found myself lacking a few references and will make up
}for them now. 

Oh goody, dueling sources.  Mine's the 1995 World Almanac, also from
the National Safety Council.

}"Information Please Alminac" from the National Safety Council
}Comptons Encyclopedia
}The California Highway Patrol
}
}"AUTOMOBILE DRIVING
}  The Most Common Causes of Accidents
}---------
}The Most Common Causes of Accidents
}
}   Almost 18 million traffic accidents are reported in the United States
}annually, and more than 450,000 are reported in Canada each year. Human
}error is responsible for about 90 percent of these accidents.

}   The most frequent traffic violations committed by poor drivers are: (1)
}speeding--the principal contributing factor in fatal and nonfatal traffic
}accidents; (2) failing to yield the right-of-way--ranks second in nonfatal
}and third in fatal accidents; and (3) driving under the influence of
}alcohol--a factor in at least half of the fatal accidents." Comptons
}Encyclopedia

In fatal accidents, my source lists speeding at 16.5%, failure to
yield at 7.8%, and "no improper driving" at 42.3%.  In injury
accidents, speeding is 13.5%, failure to yield 17.3%, and "no improper
driving" 27.3$.  For total accidents, speeding is 12.2%, failure to
yield is 15.1%, and no improper driving 31.2%.  Note that failure to
yield is only one type of right-of-way violation.  Include them all
and the numbers are 12.7%, 25%, and 20.6% for fatal, injury, and total
accidents respectively.  Speeding -- speed too fast or unsafe-- is the
most common single driving error resulting in fatal accidents,  but it
still accounts for only 16.5% of those.  

}In addition:
}The Gallup Organization conducted a survey in which drivers rated their
}own ability compaired to others on the road. 70% of the respondants
}claimed to have better driving ability than other drivers on the road,
}with nearly half stating their driving aptitude as 'excellent'. Only 36%
}of people reported that they usually drive above the speed limit. (The
}Gallup Organization)

So people lie to pollsters, what else is new?  I usually drive over
the speed limit, and I consider myself in the bottom 30% of driving
ability.

}Psycologists state time and time again that speeding is a direct response
}to the 'challenge' of being passed by another driver. As a driver gets
}passed he (most speeders are men) feels the need to regain his position
}and the race is on. (Orange County Register)

Psychologists are full of hot air.  I speed all the time, and am
rarely passed.  If I am passed, I don't try to regain my position-- I
speed up and let the guy ahead of me flush out the cops.  Often I'll
pass him (or her-- a significant portion of upper 5 percentile
speeders are women, from my observation) again when traffic slows us
down, as I'm pretty good at moving through traffic (having a small car helps).

And almost EVERYONE speeds, in the sense of violating the posted
limit, so I'm not sure I accept that "most speeders are men".

}The California Department of Motor Vehicals conducted a study to determine
}the effects of suspending the licenses of habitual speeders. They stopped
}the suspension of licenses to a control group of people, while continued
}the enforcement with the rest of the habitual speeders for a number of
}months. The study was discontinued after public outrage that the
}non-suspended speeders were shown to be killing themselves and innocent
}people (motorists, passengers and pedestrians) at a greater than normal
}rate. (Orange County Register)

As compared to the suspended speeders, or as compared to other
drivers?  Since the study wasn't completed, it is impossible to draw
valid conclusions.    Or do you think suspending a license is akin to
chopping off someone's right foot?

}A published journal article showed that owners of radar detectors were
}MORE likely to get speeding tickets than non-owners. This is primarily due
}to the effect of radar detector owners are a self selected group of people
}who habitually speed.

This makes sense.

}I haven't mentioned this before but will now. I am not oppsed to a raised
}speed limit being passed by the govt. In fact I am slightly for it.
}However, I'm also pretty sure that many states won't change their speed
}limits even if they were given control of them. If they did, only in
}select (probably rural) areas.

Probably true as they are now addicted to the revenues brought in by
speeding tickets.

}One of my points about a higher speed limit creating more deaths and
}serious accidents DOES  in fact take into account some of the points that
}NMA members have brought up. Primarily the one about people will drive at
}whatever speed they want no matter what the posted limit. I see it a
}slightly different way. I see it as a percentage over the posted limit.
}Raise the speed limit, all traffic speeds increase. Those who drove 
}habitually over the speed limit will still drive over the new speed limit.

Did you read the study?  It showed that this effect _didn't_ happen.
Raising the speed limit actually lowered traffic speeds in some
instances.

}Assuming that all traffic will stay at the same average speed even with an
}increase in posted speed limit and without adjusting to the newer speed
}over time is unsound logic and psychology.

Which is why empirical research was done.  

}And yes, I do have a few speeding tickets. But as an EMT I have also
}pulled a few too many people out of auto accidents. Many of them caused by
}speeds above the flow of traffic.

Oh, another EMT who wants people to slow down so his job will be
easier.  How about if I just don't wear my seatbelt, then they'll be
no need for an EMT, just a high-pressure hose?

---

From: [email-masked] (Cynthia)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 00:00:49 GMT

>>habitually over the speed limit will still drive over the new speed limit.

	Funny, my average speed ( given equal road conditions ) on
highways in Ohio ( 65 limit ) and NY ( 55 limit ) are about equal. 
My average speed in Penn is slower due to the poor road conditions.

--
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] (Dan Howell)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 06:59:23 GMT

> The National Motorists Association sounds like a vested interest to me. 

Heaven forbid there be an organization that actually represents the interests
of *drivers*, rather than insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, etc.

But the NMA didn't sponsor the study that shows speed limits to be irrelevant,
the FHA did.  The NMA just dug the study out from its hiding place.

> "The New Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia"

Their source?

> "Information Please Alminac" from the National Safety Council

Vested interest.

> Comptons Encyclopedia

Their source?

> The California Highway Patrol

Vested interest.

> alcohol--a factor in at least half of the fatal accidents." Comptons

How was it determined that "speeding" was the "principal contributing
factor"?  What is the definition of "speeding" in this case?  Driving
above the posted limit?  Or driving faster than conditions would allow
safely?  If you run into something, I would say it is pretty obvious you
were "speeding", i.e. driving faster than conditions.  However, this
does not imply anything about driving faster than the posted limit.

> of people reported that they usually drive above the speed limit. (The

What does this prove?  Especially since this "36%" figure is belied by
the evidence mine own eyes see on the road every day.

> and the race is on. (Orange County Register)

What does this prove?

> rate. (Orange County Register)

"Habitual speeders", no doubt means people who habitually receive speeding
tickets.  I have no doubt that people who are habitually inattentive, and
thus don't notice the cop that is in the vicinity when they are speeding,
are more likely to receive speeding tickets.  I also have no doubt that
people who are habitually inattentive, are more likely to be involved in
accidents.  Therefore it is not surprising that there is a correlation
between those who habitually receive speeding tickets and those who are
involved in accidents, because of the root cause of both, which I believe
is inattentiveness.

This study doesn't prove that driving over the speed limit is the major
cause of accidents, however, or that there is any significant positive
correlation between posted speed limits and accidents rates.

> to the effect of radar detector owners are a self selected group of people

Or it could be primarily due to the effect that police officers who notice
that a person has a radar detector conclude that the driver "must be a
habitual speeder", and thus the officer is much more likely to write a
ticket than issue a warning.  Radar detectors don't make you immune from 
other methods of speed limit enforcement.

> That should give you some quick items to disprove as opinions of bored

The data are inconclusive.  What, in any of these studies, refutes the
findings of the FHA-supported study that showed that posted speed limits
are for the most part irrelevant?

> select (probably rural) areas.

You're probably right here.

> Raise the speed limit, all traffic speeds increase.

This is refuted by the FHA-supported study.

> Those who drove

There is no evidence for this.  Of course, a certain percentage of drivers
who were driving over the old speed limit will drive over the new speed limit,
but those drivers were probably already driving over the new speed limit
before.  And there is no reason to believe that drivers who drive, for
example, 15 mph over the limit will continue to drive 15 mph over the
limit when it is raised.

In fact, the FHA-supported study seemed to show that when the speed limit
was raised to a reasonable level, more people were likely to obey the limit.

> resulting greater structural damage to the vehical(s).

All of this assumes that the overall speed of traffic will increase
significantly with a raise in the speed limit, which is refuted by
the study.

> over time is unsound logic and psychology.

It may be intuitively wrong, but it's the facts, and the studies you have
pointed to don't show otherwise.

> History has taught us that. No

People were generally happy with the speed limits on the freeways before
the 55 NMSL.

> speeds above the flow of traffic.

Ahh, but how often is the flow of traffic at or under the posted speed limit?

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

---

From: [email-masked] (James Baxter)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 16:56:16 GMT

The difference in traffic speeds among states with 65mph limits as 
compared to states still in the dark ages with 55 mph limits is about 2 
mph.  Oddly enough, when the limit rises, the slower drivers speed up and 
the faster ones slow down, so the end result is enhanced safety, fewer 
lawbreakers, and smoother traffic flow.

-
Join the NMA! $29/yr.  800-882-2785
National Motorists Association   [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (James Baxter)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 17:06:16 GMT

"Speed-related" accidents or deaths are generally defined as 'exceeding 
the posted limit.'    Well, it's not too hard to see that with 
unreasonably low limits, the amount of 'speed-related' deaths and 
accidents will be high.   This is all part of an effort to 'demonize' 
speed.  The federal government (NHTSA) is starting a "Speed Management"  
dis-information program designed to slow you down.  They're doing info 
commercials, -generou$- ca$h donations to law enforcement agencies to run 
speed traps, etc.    In CT they gave the CT state cops $750,000 to do 
saturation enforcement of 55 earlier this year.  Over the memorial day 
weekend, they recorded 33% more tickets and 67% more accidents!  So much 
for "55 saves lives".

People don't realize that there is a vast difference between "speeding" 
and "traveling too fast for conditions."  You are speeding at 66 mph on I-
90 here in Wisconsin, but at the same time you're not traveling too fast 
for conditions (usually), so you're hardly being dangerous by exceeding 
the limit.   HOwever, you can be traveling 40 mph on that same road and 
be traveling too fast for conditions.  Snowstorm anyone?  Maybe rain or 
hail.

You can help put an end to this persecution of motorists.  The National 
Motorists Association is the only organization fighting to preserve 
drivers' rights.

-

---

From: [email-masked] (Dirk Broer)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 14:37 EST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (James Baxter) writes...
>accidents will be high.   This is all part of an effort to 'demonize' 

Some news reports around the D.C area suggest that the D.C beltway - 85% or 
more speed.  Yet only 65% of the accidents have 'speed' as a contributing 
factor.  Now if I were one to twist statistics - that would mean the 15% of the 
drivers that don't speed cause or are involved in 35% of the accidents.  

We got get those "conformest" off road.

Dirk

---

From: [email-masked] (James Baxter)
Date: 3 Jul 1995 16:53:37 GMT

The report that Mike is responding to studied driver responses to altered 
speed limits at 227 sites in 22 states over 5? years.  The engineers 
raised limits as much as 15 mph and lowered them as much as 20.  Result?  
Traffic speed either increased or decreased less than 1.5 mph.  They also 
found that speed limits are in most cases posted 10-15 mph below the 85th 
percentile speed, sometimes as low as the 30th percentile or lower.  

However, that report has been covered up by the Fed. Highway Admin. since 
it's findings state things contrary to what the "speed kills" safety 
nazis want to hear.  If you call them with that report #, they still 
won't know about it.  But we @ the National MOtorists Association do!  :-
)

-

---

From: Mark Badger <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Jul 1995 07:26:54 GMT

In the UK there seems to be a "casual" speed limit of 80mph on the highways, in
part due to weight of traffic and in part due to vehicle speed capacity. I used
to commute 140 miles per day on the M4 motorway and rarely saw anyone
travelling faster than 90mph. When they were travelling at higher speeds it was
essentially possible to do so (and seemingly safe as I never passed a resulting
accident later!). Speed on highways appears to be self-limiting.

What will be interesting in the US is to see whether, if and when speed limits
are increased (even 65mph is a ludicrous limit in many US driving situations),
drivers increase the distance between their vehicles commensurately. I was kind
of shocked when I first got to the US by how little distance people put between
their car and the one in front of them.

Mark

---

From: Dai F Toyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 22:43:08 -0700

> My average speed in Penn is slower due to the poor road conditions.

I believe that people usually drive within their own limits.  There was
an experiment conducted in Japan, in which a portion of a highway was 
used and the participants were told that there was no speed limit on
that part of the road, and that they could drive however fast they
wanted to.

As far as I can recall, the result showed that almost all drivers ended
up going no faster than 140 km/h (87 MPH).  Kinda goes to show that the
higher speed limit doesn't necessarily mean the drivers start driving
even faster.

Cheers!

      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   | Dai F Toyama          << [email-masked] >>     |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    | Computer Science  << Seattle Pacific University >> |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   | Driving Maniac      << '92 Acura Integra GS-R >>   |
 | |\ ||            *----------------------------------------------------*
                               \ ASCII piano by Keith Wright /
                                *---------------------------*

---

From: [email-masked] (Juan M. Courcoul)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 18:22:21 -0600

In article <[email-masked]>, Mark Badger <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
>  I was kind of shocked when 
> I first got to the US by how little distance people put between

I always get the impression that US drivers approach driving as an
activity that you do without thinking much about it, like walking,
breathing or shitting. Much of this mentality is certainly fostered by the
somnolient 55 MPH speed limit on roads capable of sustained 75+ MPH
speeds.

This feeling gets confirmed on every US holiday, when hordes of US
tourists flock down to Mexico, driving in their usual
autopilot-mind-left-elsewhere mode, and face the "interesting" driving
conditions down here, thereby increasing the Mexican national accident
rate several tens of percentage points. I guess we could call it a
"learning experience"... >:) (Latest instance, the July 4 holiday)

On the other hand, the higher speed limits in Europe tend to weed out the
incompetents (following Darwin's proven laws of natural selection) and
breed generations of safer drivers.

-- 
Juan M. Courcoul                       [email-masked]
Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey     [email-masked]
Campus Queretaro

---

From: John Reece <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Jul 1995 17:30:19 GMT

Mark Badger <[email-masked]> wrote:
>travelling faster than 90mph. 

Furthermore, slower traffic usually moves to the slow side (left
there, right here), and faster traffic passes only on the "safe" side 
(right there, left here).  This eliminates a lot of the chaotic
lane-jockeying one sees on freeways and interstates here.  This
form of chaos, or its absence, is an obvious factor in freeway accidents.  
And although traffic authorities here are aware of the principle for some 
reason they refuse to follow through on it.

>When they were travelling at higher speeds it was

I just spent two weeks on a business trip there. Listening to the traffic 
reports on the radio there seemed to be far fewer fender-benders on 
greater London motorways than on Bay Area freeways.  

-- 

John Reece             
Not an Intel spokesman