Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!ut-ngp!werner From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: 55MPH - How did we get into this mess, and can we get out? Message-ID: <376@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Jun-83 02:21:44 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.376 Posted: Sun Jun 26 02:21:44 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jun-83 05:58:06 EDT Lines: 123 I might be mistaken ( or fooled by the "silent majority" ) , but it seems, that the majority of opinions voiced here were in favor of raising the speed-limit on "limited-access-roads" to 70MPH (+/-5MPH), but of keeping some limit, nonetheless. I consider this "significant" in a way, however, it is easy to be fooled, because the ones in support of the "status-quo" are, usually, reluctant to spend their energy arguing their case, unless they feel REALLY threatened by a high probability of unwanted change. Nonetheless, it seems justified, to conclude that this discussion seems to indicate a definite tendency favoring a speed-limit somewhat higher than 55. Given that the people weren't given a voice (vote) when the speed-limit was lowered to 55 (I don't remember any public hearings, do you?), how, then can we get the limit changed? Ever since the speed-limit was imposed in 74, I have been wondering why that happened. Was it just the governing bodies trying to demonstrate that they were doing something (anything) about the oil-crisis? And which powerful lobbies pushed the proposal? My theory is, that nothing ever gets done in Washington without some lobby pushing it, so that I must assume there was some lobbying going on. Where to look, and whom to suspect? Whoever benefitted of the change, of course. First, there was the "general public", supposedly, demanding some govern- ment reaction to the oil-shortage. But, funny, I don't remember a public outcry for a reduced speed-limit, so I must assume that the motivation for it came from elsewhere. I AM impressed by the fatalities, however, but I don't remember any outcry either. Then, there was the Nixon administration in deep Watergate troubles. They would have done ANYTHING to look good, and what was needed was some emergency to make the people unite behind their government and forget their naughtiness. A war (the usual method - see Falklands/Malvinas) was not fashionable at the time, so a significant oil-crisis had tremendous potential ..... It has since become quite clear, that the Nixon government not only did nothing to avoid the oil-troubles, but that various individuals might have collaborated with the powers that instigated and controlled the oil shortage and resulting price-hikes. And believe what you want, a Kissinger does not consult for free, the Sha's hospitality and "gifts of friendship" (most of us could retire from the proceeds of a single one of those) plus long-term benefits (after government) might have enticed even me to support oil-price hikes and 55MPH. - So were they collaborating and interested in increasing the oil-price? - Did they try to convince the public of the seriousness of the situation, and soften them up for price-increases by reducing the speed-limit? I considered both 55MPH and the price increases an incredible shock to this automobile-based society and expected a very angry "vox populi", but -- the people running the show must have had a better insight what they could get away with, I guess. The consumer paid and suffered and, rather quietly surrendered. The truth is, that at the time and ever since, I could not come up with an effective approach to oppose it either. Powerful interest groups, probably, supported the idea of 55MPH more than anyone else, like insurance, airlines, oil, possibly even Detroit. >From the beginning I suspected the insurance companies, assuming that they could reduce their expenses without reducing insurance premiums. It seemed a very reasonable assumption, that both price increase and the 55MPH speed-limit would reduce their expenses, as higher costs and lower speeds made driving less attractive, reducing the number of miles driven, resulting in fewer accidents, maybe, even cheaper accidents. I don't believe that they were then or are now that concerned about "saving lives". Call me a cynic if you want, but they are good managers and very profit-motivated, and with hospital-costs what they are today, a fatal accident just might turn out to be cheaper. Ah, but what wonderful P.R. "saving lives" makes, especially if you don't have to prove cause and effect relationship. Airlines. They had an incredible slump from 68 to 72, and the prospect of making driving unpleasantly time-consuming created new customers for them. Naturally, the oil-price hike was not to their liking, but remember we are talking why 55MPH, not why oil-problems. There are other reasons why the "real powers" in the airline-industry might have gained more than they lost through the oil-crisis, but that is another discussion topic. Big Oil. You better believe that they did nothing to discourage the shortages, on the contrary. It was quite obvious then (and is crystal-clear today) that Big Oil was making big profits via the oil-crisis, both short- and, even more, long-term. They make percentage-profits, remember. And what about 55MPH? Oil-savings, my foot. Scare people so they don't get ideas about protesting is more like it. The automobile industry. Well, I can just imagine their sales VP saying "we have to create a need for a totally different car, to encourage faster turn-over". 55MPH creates a need for a different car than 75 which most everyone was driving, routinely, at the time. Overly fantastic, you say? Well, if they did not come out lobbying for it, at the time, they should have; it makes perfectly good business sense. So how do we get rid of the 55MPH speed-limit then? The opposition looks awful, I must say, and I just don't see how to motivate enough people to invest their energy and money to get it done. Most important, what powerful lobby would benefit by a raise in speed-limits? If we can't find any, we might as well forget it. The truckers? Little chance. The independents, who hurt most, originally, don't have a whole lot of power, besides, by now, the business contractions are over, and things are "normal", i.e. the customer is again accustomed to paying a certain price, based on the cost of trucking at 55 (speeding is gravy - and it might be argued that speeding X MPH represents a greater percentage gain in profits with 55MPH then with 70 - and is easier to get away with, in most places) Nonindependents did not hurt much in the first place, less and for a shorter period than the independent trucker, anyway. Make the government put it up for a vote? People already are voting with their foot, and, that does not impress anyone, it seems. So they know already by counting the "outlaws" plus making an assumption that there is a certain percentage who respect the law, even when disagreeing with it. It looks rather discouraging, knowing who benefits of 55MPH and how. Let's not forget the police of cities, counties, and states, who are able to generate revenues at will by putting up speed-traps. As far as I can tell, you could keep the whole police-force busy continuously, just running speed-traps. To sum it up, it looks quite hopeless - and that frustrates the hell out of me. The interstate could be such a convenient way of going places ...... Anyone got any good ideas? We flamed enough in frustration - let's do something about it! I'd like to own a fast car again, but can't afford the frustrations of tickets and resulting high insurance premiums, on top of the ordeal of going SSSOOOOOOOOOOOO SLOOOOOOOWWWW.