Subject: Re: Speed Limits Irrelevant?

From: [email-masked] (John Kennedy)
Date: 17 Jun 1995 23:24:19 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Persepolis) writes:
>John Kennedy ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: the "energy crisis", as it was called, was real.  Nixon wanted to go with
>: As the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) starting realizing that
>: premiums could be raised for everyone breaking this artifically low speed
>: limit, the issue was carefully spun into one of safety and lives.
>
>This is another good point, but it leans more towards an insurance &
>State conspiracy theory-  I can see the point you are making clearly and
>being a kind of a paranoid individual myself I can see merit in this- BUT
>I can counter this with the fact that someone who drives 55 in a school
>zone and gets a ticket & a nice insurance hike for it would be just as
>likely to collide with a child and leave the insurance company libel for

True.  I am strongly in favor of strict enforcement of posted limits in school
zones, and other places where the limit is for a reason.  What I was addressing
previously was the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) that was put into place
in 1974.  This action told the states that their engineers could not post
a speed limit in excess of 55 mph regardless of conditions.  As far as the
insurance-state conspiracy goes, the IIHS is a _very_ strong lobby.  I
attended many a hearing in the Maryland state house re: raising Maryland's
speed limits and observed the lobbyists prevailing year after year.  They
don't seem to have the grip on Glendenning they had on Schaefer, do they?

-- 
John Kennedy                     [email-masked] 
Second Source, Inc.
Annapolis, MD

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 18 Jun 1995 23:56:11 GMT

John Kennedy ([email-masked]) wrote:
: insurance-state conspiracy goes, the IIHS is a _very_ strong lobby.  I
: attended many a hearing in the Maryland state house re: raising Maryland's
: speed limits and observed the lobbyists prevailing year after year.  They

I'm curious to know what their selling point is-  Are they still lobbying
their cause based on their own 'un-biased' studies?  Also, do you have
any $$$$ amounts of their annual backing from the insurance companies?

: don't seem to have the grip on Glendenning they had on Schaefer, do they?

I really like Glendenning- he _seems_ to actually be more on the public side
rather than big government [and BIG BUSINESS, i.e., Schaefer] was.  Then again
it is early in the term- you never know if one could get desperate for 
re-election and would compromise to the SIGs- none-the-less I hope for the best
with Glendenning as he is making some progress; IMHO-

---

From: [email-masked] (Joe Gregor)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 11:10:44 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
(Persepolis) wrote:

>$xxx,xxx,xxx[insert additional ,xxx here].  Is it a way for the insurance
>companies to protect themselves or is it to make money off of a racket?

    Since when are school zones located along full blown interstate highways?
Would not the local goverment be responsible in this case (for the idiocy of
placing a school on I-95S)?

        -- Joe