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.