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

Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!



In article <48cp9s$9eu@calvin.bellahs.com>, esmith@oacis.com (Eric Smith) wrote:

> >Imagine this. No radar detector, travelling 55 MPH, and the cop drives by.
> >No problem.
> 
> Imagine this:  You are driving at 55mph from Texas to California.  You fall 
> asleep at the wheel because it's taking so long.  You run off the road
and kill 
> yourself, or, better yet, you run into the oncoming lane and kill
someone in an 
> oncoming vehicle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No argument at all.

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

No you don't.

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

Not at lower speeds.

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

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

> >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.
> >
> 
> Then what is safe, huh?  

Not driving. :-)

> Where do you set the limit? 

Don't ask me.

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

So true.

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

Could be true.

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

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

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

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

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

I can agree with this.
-- 
Randy


References: