🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NIGEL.92Jul17204210@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov> nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
><stuff elided>  Granted something of a degenerate scenario but I
>think that getting hit less often is much better than getting smacked
>more often at 10 mph less closing speed.

See, I believe that people tend to drive a road at a speed they find 
comfortable, moderated in some cases by the cost of the fine for a 
particular speed.  I do this.  But I don't believe that the resulting
differential in speeds is the cause of many accidents.  I don't believe
that a person going 55 who is struck by a faster car during a lane change
is at fault because of his speed.  I think the fault belongs to people who
drive erratically, aggresively, without signals, without looking, tailgating
and in similar ways.  Since this behavior causes accidents, I reason that
while the rate *may* change, the severity of accidents will increase with
an increased limit.  In other words, 55 keeps some idiots at 65 rather than
75. :-)
<more of my own stuff cut out>
>Hmmn...I suspect that the Autobahn has even worse problems with speed
>differentials.  I doubt anyone really wants unlimited speed limits on
>a day to day basis (I'd like to try it once in Germany ;-) but how
>about going the speed roads were designed to go and strictly enforcing
>all driving regulations (like yielding, turn signals, tailgating, etc)?

Those roads were built in the 30's.  What was their design limit?  Bet it
is not 65 or better...
>
>To twist a phrase "drive smarter not slower".  At any rate the
>statement above is simply means that you will never support faster
>speeds period to which the logical response is don't drive...0 mph
>wins hands down safety wise.  What if someone could show that with
>technology X you can drive 70 and be at less risk than at 55 before
>technology X came along?  In which case 70 mph might "suddenly become
>safer".

This is of course the problem.  I have seen cars go through houses,
off bridges, under trucks, etc., at the current speed limits.  I don't 
support faster speeds for the simple reason that damage people can do at
those speeds is worse than the current speeds.  And the logical reduction 
of my position is "Don't drive", but the logical expansion of yours is
"Drive as fast as you can, if you feel skilled enough".  You know that no
one actually holds those views, so let's drop that part of the discussion,
okay? :-)

As for driving smarter, not slower, I have never known a bad driver to 
improve with the addition of speed...and rarely to admit that they are bad.
I guess I figure that 60-65 is indeed fast enough.  I don't want to encourage
people to go faster, by raising the limit, since most people are dangerous
enough as it is.
>Nigel Tzeng

			   David Pipes