Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!brian
From: brian@sdcsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Flame against 55MPH speed-limit
Message-ID: <256@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jun-83 05:52:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.256
Posted: Tue Jun 14 05:52:20 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jun-83 04:07:32 EDT
Lines: 57

"Speed kills..." (or does it???)

I suspect that the relative skill of the drivers is far more important
to the fatality rate than is the speed - and the use of alcohol or
recreational pharmaceuticals outweighs both!  I'm just as paranoid
about the person smoking a joint in the car next to me as if he/she
were drinking out of a paper sack - I'll change lanes, pull over,
call them in on the radio, whatever --- they're dangerous, and I
am rather fond of living.

And to the person who calls up visions of blood-spattered bodies
being pulled out of what used to be a car and now looks like an
accordian - yes, I've seen a lot.  As a former tv news photographer,
I've seen a lot of people who found out the hard way that they or
someone else just didn't know how to drive well enough.  Its not
pretty - but I don't think a few mph difference in the law will/has
made much difference.  Considering that a large percentage of
drivers don't obey speed limits unless its convenient, there is
some doubt in my mind as to the advisability of speed limits that
specify any numerical constant.

California has a basic speed law - essentially you may drive as
fast as is safe for the conditions of the road at the time.  There
are some exceptions to this - school zones, residential areas, and
the 55 mph federally-imposed (iron heels on the back of their necks...)
speed limit, but it is a regular occurence for people to have a 
speeding ticket tossed out by proving that they were driving safely, 
even though they exceeded the posted limit.  Of course, factors like 
traffic density, weather, and vehicle condition matter greatly in 
the judge's decision.

But what all this (mild-tempered) flame is intended to add up to
is that a much greater effort to simply keep the crummy drivers
out from behind the wheel would pay back much better than
deciding ex cathedra that 55 angels can dance much better on the
head of pin than can 65 or 70.

Yes, I'm a reasonably skilled driver right now - and when I lose that
as I get older, and my reflexes slow down, I should have to prove more
frequently that I'm still able to drive safely without endangering
others - just as (presumably) I had to prove the same in order to
begin driving.

Those of you who cry about increased costs for testing can go
play on the freeway - a small increase in renewal fees would pay
for it - following the principle of making the people who want
a privilege pay for it, rather than everyone thru taxes.  And
consider the savings in insurance rates!  Consider too, the
savings in lives (I tell you, mangled bodies are NOT nice to
look at), and the expense of medical treatment for those 
injured by incompetent drivers.

Spending more money to enforce laws that arbitrarily fix
a "proper and safe" speed cannot be justified, when we don't
try very hard to have "proper and safe" drivers.

       - Brian Kantor (UC San Diego)  ... sdcsvax!brian