🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert S. Frangooles wrote in message <6n95au$1p8$1@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Mark Folsom (folsomman@redshift.com) wrote:
>: E. Faubion wrote in message <3597c47e.7275192@news.okc.oklahoma.net>...
>: >grimrod@mindless.com (Brandon Sommerville) wrote:
>: >
>: >>If the old wife was a mathematician named Julie Anna Cirillo, then
>: >>you're absolutely right.
>: >
>:
>: You obviously missed the fact that the original reference was to
freeways.
>: --
>: Mark Folsom, P.E.
>: Consulting Mechanical Engineer
>: http://www.redshift.com/~folsom
>
>
>OK, I have no problems believing that on freeways, there is correlation
>between drivers who exceed the average speed by a certain amount having
>fewer accidents, but what's the point?
>

The point is to stop uncritically repeating the mantras and slogans of the
safety nannies and the insurance lobby and start thinking rationally.

>I would think that if more people started driving at this speed, the risk
>of accident would increase, in other words, only a certain number of

West German autobahns have about the same fatality rate as US freeways.
Montana's average and 85th percentile speeds went up by only about 2 or 3
mph when they changed their daylight freeway limit from 55 to "safe and
prudent."  I don't think you can reasonably defend demonizing drivers whose
only offense is driving faster than average on freeways.  I don't recommend
that everyone start driving 12 mph above the average speed of
traffic---because it's impossible.  I do recommend that people stop acting
like those of us who drive faster than average on freeways are the main
cause of accidents and fatalities, because we are not.  I also recommend
that traffic enforcement be concentrated on the really dangerous
drivers---zombies, readers, unsafe lane changers, clueless mergers, macho
crazies and tailgating semi's---not on the easy ticket money, namely
speeders.

>people can benefit.  Are you saying we should have a lottery, and a
>certain group of people should have an exemption from the speed limit and
>be able to drive 12 miles an hour faster?  Or that insurance companies
>should lower rates if you state that you trabvel that speed above the
>average?
>

As the Montana example shows, most of people wouldn't go significantly
faster if speed limits were removed or just advisory (on freeways only) or
were raised above the 90th percentile.  Then the self-righteous left lane
blockers would likely move to the right (and mope and sulk because the world
had gone to hell in a handbasket) and the rest of us could get on with
getting somewhere more safely than we do now.  Also, some enforcement effort
would be well spent on educating or removing those who obstruct traffic or
aren't aware enough of their surroundings to avoid being a hazard.

>I'm coming into this discussion late, but i I guees I just don't
>understand the relevance of the study.  Not, flaming just curious.
>
>Bob
>
>

The citation of the study was relevant when it was first posted.

--
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer
http://www.redshift.com/~folsom