🚀 go-pugleaf

Driving faster is safe if a few simple rules are followed.

1. Always keep you car in excellent working condition for optimal
performance
2. Always always and always have good tires
3. Know how to drive
4. Always pass on the left, never never never on the right
5. Always move to the right if someone is coming up behind you fast and
you're in the leftmost lane

If Americans were willing to follow these simple five rules, we could have
our own Autobahn with much higher speed limits.  Unfortuantely, a good
portion of the cars out there are frankly quite dangerous and/or have bad
tires.  In addition, it's too easy to obtain and keep a driver's license.
In addition, people are used to passing on the right, perhaps because there
are so many other drivers, who when faced with a driver rapidly approaching
from the rear, become petty, territorial, beligerant, and exhibit base
primate behavior by not letting the other person pass.

In Europe, these rules are strictly enforced.  That's why they have such
higher speed limits.

Pete


Erica Phillips wrote in message <36491ab1.31513994@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:36:25 GMT, ricktbbn@earthlink.net (JoJo Jo)
>wrote (and I don't know why...):
>
>I'm sorry but I just have to comment.
>
>If you look at page 46 and page 93 of the study you will see that the
>tests have a statistical modeling algorithm that clearly justifies the
>correlation between speed and accidents causing deaths. The graphs
>have been verified by independent agencies including the automotive
>companies and semiconductor companies.
>
>I know that each of you will stop writing replies with various
>opinions after you read pages 46 and 93.
>
>Thank You.
>
>Signed,
>
>Drive Safe (and slow if you want to live longer...perhaps, unless fate
>gets you first)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:36:52 -0500, John Miles
><jmiles@pop.removethistomailme.net> wrote:
>
>>E. Faubion wrote:
>>>
>>> jclemens@big.aa.net (Jonathan Clemens) wrote:
>>>
>>> >* The document makes no reference to numbers of miles travelled in
>>> >each year.
>>>
>>> That was the first thing I noticed too, probably because it was
>right
>>> there at the beginning of the body on page 4.  This allows
>speculation
>>> as to how much impact other factors may have had on the numbers.
>>>
>>> >Any analysis cannot assume that that remains constant,
>>> >yet this report you cite does virutally that--it acknowledges the
>>> >data as unavailable, but then assumes it remains constant.
>>>
>>> A trend is not a constant.  I think that's pointed out in the same
>>> paragraph.
>>>
>>> >I'd certainly laugh at any attempt to foist this document off as
>proof
>>> >positive that speed kills.
>>>
>>> Who is?  The document suggests the historical trends in higher
>speed
>>> limits and traffic deaths continues... nothing I read offers proof.
>>> On the contrary, what this document does is destroy the argument
>used
>>> by some that higher speed limits alone reduce fatalities.
>>>
>>
>>It does no such thing, Earl.  Why can you not understand that this
>>document is nothing but a waste of tax dollars, if its results are
>not
>>corrected against vehicle-miles travelled in the specific areas that
>>seem to "prove" your conjecture?  That document, as written, can't be
>>used to prove ANYTHING.
>>
>>Sure, the number of fatalities went up x% in some parts of the
>country.
>>But if overall traffic mileage in the affected areas increased by
>x+1%,
>>that means the roads are SAFER than they were before.  The odds of
>>accident involvement for any given motorist travelling any given
>>distance on an affected roadway will have DECREASED, in such a
>>hypothetical case.
>>
>>Now that doesn't mean that such a highway didn't experience its share
>of
>>gory crashes, with the consequences of said crashes exacerbated by
>>higher traffic speeds in accordance with the laws of physics.  It
>>doesn't mean that you can't scare your kids at bedtime with gruesome
>>"Faces of Death"-style anecdotes recounting the consequences of the
>>high-speed car crashes that occur on that road.  In other words, it
>>doesn't mean that your job security as an accident investigator is
>>threatened in the slightest.  All it would mean is that, for whatever
>>reason, Joe Driver is safer on that road than he was the last time a
>>similar study was conducted.
>>
>>The trouble is, this particular study lacks the information needed to
>>draw either conclusion.
>>
>>Can you understand that?  Or did they teach you in grade school to
>>compare fractions by the magnitude of their numerators?
>>
>>> How about an individual who has investigated thousands of crashes
>and
>>> has direct access to data on thousands more crashes?  If that
>>> individual believes excessive speed is a factor would that opinion
>not
>>> carry some weight?
>>
>>If by "excessive speed," you mean "driving in a manner inappropriate
>for
>>the conditions," sure.  Agreed 100%, no argument here.
>>
>>But if by "excessive speed," you mean "driving in excess of posted
>>limits," then no, your anecdotal arguments don't carry any weight at
>>all.
>>
>>Think about it, Earl.  If X% of drivers in a given area are found to
>be
>>exceeding the posted limit at any given time, while Y% of drivers
>>involved in traffic accidents in the same area were found to be
>>exceeding the limit at the time of their crashes, your proposition is
>in
>>BIG trouble if Y is found to be less than X in enough cases.  Care to
>>trot out some numbers on that one?
>>
>>-- jm
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
>>------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Signed,
>Erica Phillips
>ricktbbn@earthlink.net
>(23,F,S)
>