🚀 go-pugleaf

Craig.Wagner@p2.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Craig Wagner) writes:


>  ER> [Moderator's Note:  You're underlying assumption is that breaking
>  ER> speed limits is dangerous.  This is not necessarily true.  

>While it's true that it's "not necessarily true," it's _not_ the case that a
>driver can _know_ that it's _not_ dangerous, and therefore shouldn't be doing
>it.  He may see no other cars on the road, and the driving conditions may be
>perfect, but he has no way of knowing precisely the road conditions ahead of
>him, or whether or not there's a driver waiting to turn onto the road, and
>expecting any oncoming traffic for which he may be looking to be no further away
>than could be expected based upon the posted speed limit.

This assumes that the government's posted speed limit is the correct
speed limit to be able to observe such things based on the road 
conditions.  The current max of 65 (still 55 in most places) has 
nothing to do with road conditions or reaction times but rather
with some vague in-defensible (IMHO) federal government policy.

You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
if they were actually set based on local road conditions and 
necessary reaction times.  Many roads with which I am familiar
would have limits closer to 100 MPH than the current 55 MPH.
Which leads me to the opinion that speed limits are designed to
further revenue enhancement policies than allowing the free
movement of individuals. IMO, if you want to cut back on traffic
accidents and allow free movement you should remove most speed limits
and replace them with drastic fines for unsafe lane changes,
tailgating, etc.  I doubt that you will find many accidents caused
solely by excessive speed, but rather by some other contributing
factor such as whipping in and out of lanes or following two closely
for the speed being driven.

Just my $.02 worth.

Dave Dargo   (ddargo@oracle.com)