🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Mar18.131757@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov> karl@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl A. Anderson) writes:
>  Keeping the limit at 55 mph saves gas, keeps pollution (including greenhouse gases) lower,

Not as much as electric cars would.  Of course, speeders are easier
targets than the auto industry lobby.

> and saves my money by keeping accident rates lower

Not as much as ticketing bad (as opposed to fast) drivers would.

Things I'd like to see cops give tickets for: twits who don't signal
when they change lanes or turn; lane jockeys; twits who drive slow in
the left lane; twits who pass on the right; people who don't avail
themselves of turn lanes and come to a stop in the middle of traffic
before turning; people who don't speed up in the merge area of the
freeway entry lane but come to a stop and wait for a mile-long gap;
cluelessness in general.

Folks in this state (and this entire country, for that matter) don't
know how to drive.  Driver education is much more rigorous in other
countries (like France and Italy, to name two) and their drivers are
far more competant.  You want safety?  You'll need more than the
band-aid solution speed limits constitute.

> keeping insurance claims and thus premiums lower.

Maryland has the highest automobile insurance rates in the country,
despite having lower speed limits in general.

> Oh, yeah - it save lives, too.

Not as many as banning cars entirely would, contusions from slipping
on horse poop notwithstanding.

>  Banning radar detectors would help to enforce the lower limit,
>  obviously.

Yes, and banning red meat would lower our health insurance costs by
greatly reducing heart disease and all the problems brought on by the
hormones and antibiotics they pump up the cattle with.  All for the
greater good, right?

-Scott (bodarky@cme.nist.gov)| "Laughter is the closest distance
			     |  between two people."
  The National Institute     |  
 of Standards & Technology   |  	-Victor Borge