Subject: Re: Writing a Speech for raising 55mph to 65mph..

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:57:18 MST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Steven Tegeler) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Steven Tegeler)
>Subject: Writing a Speech for raising 55mph to 65mph..
>Date: 3 May 1995 00:58:16 GMT

>I'm in a speech class and need to argue raising the national speed limit 
>to 65mph.  What I need specifically:
>1.  Statistics on the death rates of states that have raised their 55 to 65
>2.  Fuel consumption statistics (if any)
>3.  Anything else anyone has to say that could help me.

>I'm about to get off the phone and call RADAR to see if they have 
>anything that could help me.  Are there any books out there? Reports? WWW 
>stuff?

>The speech is on May 11th so I need responses fast.

>Thanks a bunch,
>Steve

You might compare the "lost" life due to accidents versus the "gained" life 
due to people getting where they are going sooner and not wasting their time 
draggin ass at 55.  The 55 limit has wasted an enormous amount of peoples time.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert G. Plantz)
Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 12:21:32 -0800

> draggin ass at 55.  The 55 limit has wasted an enormous amount of
peoples time.

I don't like the 55 MPH speed limit, but let's look at some numbers. I
think the average mileage is about 15,000 per year. Let's assume that
10,000 of those are at the prevailing speed limit. At 55 MPH that would
take 181.8 hours, and at 65 MPH it would take 153.8 hours, for a savings
of 28 hours per year. I'm a little hesitant to call an average savings
of 4.6 minutes a day "an enormous amount of peoples (sic) time."

Bob

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:26:31 MST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Robert G. Plantz) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Robert G. Plantz)
>Subject: Re: Writing a Speech for raising 55mph to 65mph..
>Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 12:21:32 -0800

>Bob

You stopped too soon.  28 hours at an average cost of time of $10 per hour for 
365 days per year for 100,000,000 people (about 40% of the population) sums to 
a waste of $28 BILLION.  There are about 50,000 fatalities a year and even if 
a wildly overstated estimate of decreased accidents of 10% is used that's a 
reduction of 5000 fatals.  Just to come even you would have to value each 
fatal at $5.6 million which is about 4 times what is usually used if memory 
serves.  If you use any kind of reasonable estimates for these figures I don't 
see anyway to avoid the conclusion that the 55 limit is a horrendous waste of 
time/money with insufficent offsetting savings of life.  Unless you belong to 
the school of thought that goes "if it saves one life it's worth it" the 
numbers just don't support the 55.

---

From: [email-masked] (daniel smead)
Date: 4 May 1995 23:42:51 GMT

>> >3.  Anything else anyone has to say that could help me.

There was a study  written a few years ago for NHTSA by Samuel Tignor and 
Davy Warren called something along the lines of "Driver Speed Behavior on 
US streets and Highways" Basically, it says that the speed limits should 
be raised by 10-15 mph. It was reprinted in Car and Driver in 91, but I 
don't remember the month. 

Good luck!

Dan 
-- 
======================================================================
Dan Smead                          I am obviously using this computer    
[email-masked]              for educational purposes only.
Bowling Green, OH ====================================================

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:57:18 MST

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Larson)
Date: 9 May 1995 04:59:18 GMT

Robert G. Plantz ([email-masked]) wrote:

: I don't like the 55 MPH speed limit, but let's look at some numbers. I
: think the average mileage is about 15,000 per year. Let's assume that
: 10,000 of those are at the prevailing speed limit. At 55 MPH that would
: take 181.8 hours, and at 65 MPH it would take 153.8 hours, for a savings
: of 28 hours per year. I'm a little hesitant to call an average savings
: of 4.6 minutes a day "an enormous amount of peoples (sic) time."

My time is valuable enough that I don't need to waste a day and a half of 
it per year.

You shouldn't be arguing 55 vs. 65, you should be arguing for 80-90 mph 
that our nation's freeways were designed for.

	-- Scott Larson

---

From: [email-masked] (AFC DavidF)
Date: 11 May 1995 03:48:30 -0400

> that our nation's freeways were designed for.

Wasn't a bill proposed that'd eliminate speed limits altogether?

--AFC DavidF
Apple Forum Consultant

---

From: [email-masked] (Jon N. Steiger)
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 07:31:36 GMT

AFC DavidF ([email-masked]) wrote:
: > You shouldn't be arguing 55 vs. 65, you should be arguing for 80-90 mph 
: > that our nation's freeways were designed for.

: Wasn't a bill proposed that'd eliminate speed limits altogether?

: --AFC DavidF
: Apple Forum Consultant

   Now that would be great.  (But will it actually happen in this country?)

 On a related note:  If the feds eliminated speed limits, could the 
states legally enforce their limits?

    It seems like the states have most of the power, since there are 65mph 
speed limits, which are not "allowed" by the federal govt.

   But anyway, whats this about eliminating speed limits?  I didn't hear
about that... 

							-Jon-

+=========================================================================+
||Jon N. Steiger  -  DoD# 1038  -  USUA# A46209  -  KotWitDoDFAQ      _  ||
[email-masked]                                , _.o..__  / \ || 
||http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/                   +********=++-' ||
||-------------------------------------------------       ` o/           ||
||'91 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 / '91 Yamaha FZR600R                  Oo.   || 
||Current lust:  TEAM Inc. 1100R Mini-Max (FAR103 Rotax 277)       |     || 
+=========================================================================+

---

From: [email-masked] (Ed Tuthill)
Date: 14 May 1995 23:35:17 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> speed limits, which are not "allowed" by the federal govt.

The federal government now "allows" speed limits up to 65mph on
"rural" interstates.  This happened a year or two ago.

- --
/===< [email-masked] >===+==================================\
|  Ed Tuthill, Archbishop Polygon | For PGP key, finger me at        |
|  "No faith without laughter."   | [email-masked]          |
|"Peace through superior humour." | Key fingerprint =                |
| "It's not grave-robbing if the  | BF 53 C9 30 49 C2 E3 AD          |
|  body hasn't been buried."      | AB A0 E8 EF 7A C5 86 34          |
\=================================+==================================/

-- 
-Ed Tuthill ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (AFC DavidF)
Date: 15 May 1995 03:45:39 -0400

>     It seems like the states have most of the power, since there are
> 65mph  speed limits, which are not "allowed" by the federal govt.
> 

Yeah, there's no way it'd happen. It >sounds< great, but it wouldn't
be...people are idiotic enough at a 55/65 mph speed limit.

In fact, they're even starting to put speed restrictions up around the
Autobahn, I guess due to the declining driver skill over there...

I believe I saw this on MTV News, but I don't remember for sure. :)

--AFC DavidF
Apple Forum Consultant

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Goudreau)
Date: Mon, 15 May 95 19:56:08 GMT

Not quite.  The latest Senate transportation bill contains a provision
inserted by Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) that would repeal the 21-year
old *national* speed limit law.  That law allows the federal government
to withhold federal highway funds from states that don't set and
enforce a 55 mph speed limit (or a 65 mph limit on roads that became
eligible for the higher speed under the 1986 amendment to the law).
If the law eventually gets repealed, states will once again be free
to set their own limits, just as they are now for sub-55 mph roads,
and just as they were for all roads prior to 1974.  For states like
Nevada and Wyoming, this may mean a return to the "reasonable and
prudent" rule for rural roads.  For other states (especially those like
PA and NJ that don't avail themselves of the 65 mph option even now),
this may mean no change at all.  It would be completely up to each
state's legislature, as it was until 21 years ago.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau			Data General Corporation
[email-masked]		62 Alexander Drive	
+1 919 248 6231			Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 15:53:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (Bob Goudreau) wrote:
>For states like
>this may mean no change at all. 

The problem is that many of the congresscritters from states like 
PA and NJ simply can't stand the thought of people in Montana or Nevada
being able to drive 65+.  They're the ones who've been blocking 
repeal of the limit all these years.

Furthermore, repealing the national speed limit goes against
President Clinton's philosophy of government.  This philosophy
holds that every problem is a federal problem requiring either
federal regulation or federal spending, preferably both.

John Reece
Not an Intel spokesman

 It would be completely up to each

---

From: [email-masked]@atlanta.com
Date: 27 May 1995 02:17:50 GMT

>repeal of the limit all these years.

Or, they get paid off every election year by the insurance industry.

Why?  Not for safety reasons, but so you'll get lots of speeding tickets.  
The insurance companies love speed limits to be so low (55) that 90% of the
drivers exceed them.  That way, millions of them get tickets every year, 
giving them the opportunity to levy "unsafe driving" surcharges.  
If the speed limit were raised, they'd lose this money.

A call to anyone with access to the databases of a major car insurance provider:

Analyze the number of accident claims from drivers with speeding tickets on 
their records vs. those who don't have tickets.  You may find that the speeders 
actually have a lower or equal accident rate than the others, just the opposite 
of what the insurers have been telling us.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jon N. Steiger)
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 03:46:00 GMT

[email-masked]@atlanta.com wrote:
: In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes:
: >In article <[email-masked]>,
: >   [email-masked] (Bob Goudreau) wrote:

: >The problem is that many of the congresscritters from states like 
: >PA and NJ simply can't stand the thought of people in Montana or Nevada
: >being able to drive 65+.  They're the ones who've been blocking 
: >repeal of the limit all these years.

: Or, they get paid off every election year by the insurance industry.

: Why?  Not for safety reasons, but so you'll get lots of speeding tickets.  
: The insurance companies love speed limits to be so low (55) that 90% of the
: drivers exceed them.  That way, millions of them get tickets every year, 
: giving them the opportunity to levy "unsafe driving" surcharges.  
: If the speed limit were raised, they'd lose this money.

: A call to anyone with access to the databases of a major car insurance provider:

: Analyze the number of accident claims from drivers with speeding tickets on 
: their records vs. those who don't have tickets.  You may find that the speeders 
: actually have a lower or equal accident rate than the others, just the opposite 
: of what the insurers have been telling us.

     And guess how police departments get all those high-tech toys like
radar/lidar guns?  Yup.  Donations from your friendly local insurance
company.  (All in the interest of protecting the public, of course!)   :-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.   |     ||
+=========================================================================+