🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:

>"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>>Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 6, 1998
>>http://www.gatewayva.com/rtd/virginiaapwire/e1495.htm
>
>>"BUCHANAN, Va. (AP) -- A car carrying a young couple and four children
>>skidded across Interstate 81 in heavy rain and into the path of a fuel
>>tanker traveling in the opposite direction, killing all six in the car
>>and the truck driver".
>
>Tragic indeed.   In Kansas this weekend a crash also killed seven.
>
>>A tragic example of driving too fast for conditions.  :-[
>
>That's how it looks.

But how fast were they going?  Were they going faster than traffic
around them?  Was there a large puddle that they hit?  The deaths are
tragic, but what makes them worse is your willingness to use their
deaths to prove the dangers of something completely unrelated.

>What's funny is that if we abolish speed limits as many would like to
>do then the Basic Speed Law is all we have left and each individual
>driver will decide for his/herself what is best.  I'm willing to bet
>the driver of the Honda in this crash thought his speed was reasonable
>and prudent at the time too. 

As speed limits have increased, speeds have *not* risen at the same
pace.  For a view of Michigan's results of 70 mph speed limits and the
effects on actual speeds traveled, check this one out:

http://web.egr.msu.edu:80/~nolf/download.html

Let us know how that relates to your theory of speeders speeding for
the sake of speeding vs our theory of people driving at a comfortable
pace regardless of speed limits.  Also, why do you think that
compliance rates with speed limits are rising?
-- 
Brandon

"Spooooooooooonnnnn!"