Article View: nj.misc
Article #45Re: Traffic court: anyone been there?
From: 22501-sohl
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 16:27
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 16:27
38 lines
2852 bytes
2852 bytes
In article <1992Oct9.144712.9223@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> wolit@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Jan Wolitzky) writes: > >As an emergency medical technician who tries to piece together the >results of their callous disregard for human life, I think people who >speed, run stop signs, drive drunk, etc., represent a far greater >deteriment to the quality of life than the traffic summonses that >attempt to keep them from wreaking their havoc. Jan, speed, in and of itself, is not a problem. It is only when excessive speed is involved that your medical background might get involved. That should not mean that traffic on NJ highways shouldn't have speed limits that reflect the safe, reasonable and acceptable limits the public wants. For most NJ highways, that is clearly not 55mph. Answer this, why is it OK to drive 55 on a two lane undivided highway and not 65 on a 4 (or 4+) divided highway? Before you answer, consider that an head to head crash between a large truck and a passenger vehicle on a the two lane will result in the passenger car absorbing the bulk of the energy, thus the resulting impact for the passenger car is more akin to hitting a stone wall at a far greater speed than the 55 it was going. Driving 65 on a highway is not likely to result in head-to-head crashes at that speed, nor is anyone likely to hit a brick wall going 65 on the GSP or NJ Turnpike. Those of us (myself included) that are calling for a raising of the HIGHWAY speed limits are NOT asking to see speed limits on other roads increased. You, yourself, are probably aware that most serious accidients happen at intersections and on undivided roadways, NOT on the highway system. Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct9.162757.12839@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!know!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!dsinc!gvls1!rutgers!bellcore!walter!porthos!dancer!whs70References:
<Oct.8.15.46.48.1992.16463@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu> <1992Oct9.140422.29304@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992Oct9.144712.9223@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!know!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!dsinc!gvls1!rutgers!bellcore!walter!porthos!dancer!whs70 From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) Newsgroups: nj.misc Subject: Re: Traffic court: anyone been there? Message-ID: <1992Oct9.162757.12839@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> Date: 9 Oct 92 16:27:57 GMT References: <Oct.8.15.46.48.1992.16463@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu> <1992Oct9.140422.29304@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <1992Oct9.144712.9223@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software) Distribution: nj Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Lines: 38