Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!naz
From: naz@sdcrdcf.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame
Subject: Re: Penis Substitutes
Message-ID: <343@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jun-83 13:49:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.343
Posted: Wed Jun 22 13:49:13 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jun-83 18:17:14 EDT
References:  <407@ritcv.UUCP>
Reply-To: naz@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Norman Azadian)
Organization: System Development Corporation--a Burroughs Company
Lines: 14

I too used to favor the 55 speed limit.  There is no denying the benefits
of lives and gasoline saved.  I changed my mind when I read an excellent
article about the associated COST.  Out on the open road, you have to sit
in your car longer at 55 than you do at 70.  I don't know about you, but
my time is valuable.  A boring ride at 55 on an open road isn't exactly
my first choice of ways to spend my time.

If you think 55 saves lives, how about 45, 35, 20, 10?  Each of these would
save even more lives.  Since you have to draw the line somewhere, why not
where the traffic engineers designed the Interstates for, 70.  Studies have
shown that there are much more EFFICIENT ways to save lives than by reducing
the speed limit.

					NHA