🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert S. Frangooles wrote in message <6nb846$4v1$1@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Mark Folsom (folsomman@redshift.com) wrote:
>: Robert S. Frangooles wrote in message <6n95au$1p8$1@brokaw.wa.com>...
>: >
>: >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.
>:
>
>Ok, so really the only point is that you feel villafied and don't want
>people calling you names anymore :-)
>

My dictionary doesn't have "villafied" in it and I certainly don't feel that
way (whatever it is).

>We obviously have to have some sort of speed limit.

We do not obviously need speed limits on all freeways.  Montana gets by
without them as does Germany.  Most people don't want to drive in an unsafe
manner because they are afraid of injury and death.

>If you want to
>continue driving at 12 miles an hour above average highway speed, go for
>it.  If you happen to get tickets for that it's obviously a risk you are
>willing to take in order to get a increase in safety and get there faster.

It certainly has paid so far.  Ticket costs for me average well under $1.00
per hour saved.  Since I can charge from $60. to $100. for my time, it's
well worth it.

>I personally tend to think that safety reason is really not a motivating
>factor, since you have probably been speeding since well before such a
>study came out.

Actually, I spent a number of years trying to stay very near the speed limit
until I got a whole string of nonsense tickets and began to question what
the jerks were really doing.  But, if it makes you feel better to be cynical
about my motivation, have at it and be comfy.

>
>It sounds like this really little more than airing pet peeves about
>highway travel and the frustrations involved in it.  The only real rule I
>try and follow is to maintain as a large a buffer around me and all
>other vehicles...I could care less if I save or lose five minutes of
>travel time.
>

I guess that proves that you're superior and much better adjusted than many
of the rest of us.  Congratulations.

>Bob
>
>: >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
>:
>:
>: