Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!orion!houca!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece From: preece@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Another 55 mph flame - (nf) Message-ID: <2266@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Jun-83 22:55:40 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2266 Posted: Fri Jun 17 22:55:40 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jun-83 14:19:41 EDT Lines: 30 #R:pur-ee:-92400:uicsl:4300026:000:1433 uicsl!preece Jun 17 09:53:00 1983 I cannot take issue with the notion that statistics can be used to support just about any statement you care to make. Nor will I dispute the lack of logic in the statements that dilley objects to. But let's just look at the physics of speed limits. If you're going 70 and strike a fixed object you've got a lot more energy to dissipate than at 55. If you roll your car at 70 it's going to make more revolutions than at 55. If you have a sudden mechanical failure at 70 you have significantly less time to deal with it than at 55. If your capability is diminished at 70 your room for error is much less than at 55. Those are simple and obvious observations. The setting of a speed limit is a tradeoff between those simple observations and the clear benefit of spending fewer hours driving down the road. I think that the tradeoff is better placed at 55 than at 70. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm happy that the evidence indicates that the majority of the people agree with me and the Congress. Sorry - somebody's opinion has to win. Now if you can get manufacturers to produce cars that enhance survivability and reliability and can get legislatures to come up with effective means of reducing the number of unsafe cars and unsafe drivers on the road and can move the tradeoff to a different point on the curve, I'd love to reduce the number of hours it takes to get from here to there. Good luck. scott preece