[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!



In article <48acrd$rvt@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, kevintap@mail.utexas.edu
(Kevin Tapperson) wrote:

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

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

> 
> Now imagine this without the speed limit law...
> 
> You pass by the cop doing 110, nothing happens.  No squeeling tires, no
> chance of crashing in the ditch.  (You also saved money because you
didn't have
> to buy that radar detector.)

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

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

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

> 
> ..based on a true story...
> 
> Kevin Tapperson
> kevintap@mail.utexas.edu
-- 
Randy


Follow-Ups: References: