[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: