🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16753@oasys.dt.navy.mil> mackinto@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Mackintosh) writes:
>In dc.general, karl@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl A. Anderson) writes:
>>
>>They're welcome to spend _my_ money on that.  Keeping the limit at 55
>>mph saves gas, keeps pollution (including greenhouse gases) lower, and
>>saves my money by keeping accident rates lower, thereby keeping
>>insurance claims and thus premiums lower.  Oh, yeah - it save lives,
>>too.
>Believe me, 55 won't keep rates lower, but millions spent on lobbying
>against what *the people* want sure won't help.
>
Another point to consider.  There was a U.S. government study which was 
reprinted in Road and Track several months ago.  I do not remember the whole
thing, but the bottom line was that most drivers will find a "natural" 
speed for a road, and that setting the limit below this only increases the
number of people who do not comply with the posted limit.  This is of course
great for those states who use ticket revenues to help support themselves with
ticket revenues, but it is hard on the average citizen.  The study 
recommendation was to monitor the speed of cars on a road and then set 
the limit so that 90% or so of the drivers would be driving at or under this
number.  That way, the police can concentrate on the ones who do drive too
fast for road conditions.

My personal experience supports the study findings.  I used to drive I81
in VA regularly, both before and after it became 65mph.  The average speed on
the road was usually in the neighborhood of 63-64 before the change and
was about 65-66 after the change.  I base this on the fact that these are
my average speeds, and I to drive with traffic.

					-- GDD

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Drew                          | Watch for coming attractions 
gdrew@trellis.cs.umd.edu           |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------