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