Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: speed limits and proposals to *really* save lives
Message-ID: <680@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jun-83 03:38:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.680
Posted: Thu Jun 16 03:38:39 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jun-83 19:31:31 EDT
References: <556@hou5e.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 99

If you want to prove that 55 saves gas you are out of luck. You may
be able to prove that it is possible to build an engine that is as
efficient at 75 as current ones are at 55; I do not know. However,
having built that engine you might discover that it too ran more
efficiently at 55 than 75...

if you want to prove that 55 doesnt save lives then you are in business.
Take your statistics on the number of people killed the year before 55
became the official speed limit. Take the figures the year after 55
became the limit. Run a physics curve fit on the figures for various States.
Do the same thing for several years within one state. You will notice that
the number of people dying on the highways decreased when 55 became the
limit.

Before you jump to the conclusion that 55 saves lives, go back and do the
same curve fitting using the number of vehicles on the highway and the number
of people who died. Guess which one gives the better fit? Bingo.

Now you see why 55 saves lives -- because gas was expensive, the government
decreased the speed limit. Because gas was expensive, more people stayed
home, or used the bus, or train. Less vehicles on the road mean less fatalities.
The government is now patting itself on the back and people are believing them.
Alas, we are not saving any more brothers. Now that people realise that there
is going to be gas in 1985 (remember when we were told there wasnt?) and they
have become used to the gas prices they are going back to the road. And they
are getting killed at 55 miles per hour all the same.

Now let us talk about saving people's brothers. First, let us not deny
that if you drive there is a chance that you will be killed. No one wants
it to happen to them but pretending that driving is perfectly safe, or
perfectly safe as long as you drive well, isnt going to help anyone. There
is always some drunken fool who can kill the perfect driver.

Assume that we are not going to spare expense to save lives. This may be
unrealistic, but I dont have any cheap solutions.

If people want to make cars travel so slowly that they are likely to survive
a head-on collision then the speed limit is going to have to be less than 30
miles an hour. Even then, there are people who manage to kill themselves, but
at 30 there are a lot less of them. At 55, there is no appreciable difference
than at 70 from the figures I have seen, so 55 isnt helping. Unfortunately,
if 30 mph is the speed limit, noone can live out of town and commute to work.
City congestion breeds crime including murder, not to mention that most cities
could not accommodate such a large increase in people necesitated by such a
speed limit change. Money would have to be spent on the housing industry, and
in temporary housing solutions. The prices of houses in the cities would soar,
making it hard for poorer people to live. They too might become dependant on
government aid for low-quality, inexpensive housing.

Have I made my point? Lowering the speed limit enough to limit fatalities is
going to be expensive. This doesnt even touch matters of unemployment in the
trucking industry when it becomes faster to use the train.

For the time being, i will scratch this solution. It also doesnt save brothers
on bicycles or walking, or young ones that run out in front of cars. 

Let us make driving an extreme luxury, not something that anyone wealthy
enough to buy a car and over the driving age effectively can do. Make
car drivers pass the same tests that the bus drivers do, and then the one
that the large truck drivers do (we have separate tests in Ontario, your
state/province of residence may be different). Prevent the reckless, stupid,
and foolish from driving. If you are caught driving recklessly, or while
drunk, or while your car was a menace to others on the road, revoke your
licence permanently.

This is not going to be one of the most popular laws of all time.

the government had better provide a lot of public transport to and from
work, including out of town. Getting people to like this is another
matter. It also isnt cheap.

I need not elabourate on the problems with this proposal. I have one more.

Most fatalities occur on the highway. (as opposed to most accidents, which
dont). Set up the highways so that you hook your car only a conveyor much
as they have in some car washes. You dont drive on the highways, you get
towed along at 70 mph. Traffic planning becomes simpler. In the city, you
can drive your car, and there can be stretches of highway dedicated to
people who like driving cars. If automobile driving was a recognised sport
(like motocross or skidooing) then people who love to drive would be able
to drive with other enthusiasts, and leave those who see cars as merely
functional vehicles behind. best of all, people who have to drive a long
way to work each morning could leave the driving hassles to the routing
computer and spend the time reading or perhaps even sleeping.

I dont think that AI is up to building a self-driving car. If I am wrong,
correct me, in which case the self-driving cars could replace the car-wash
mechanism I mentioned.

I saved this one for last because I like the idea. It is also as expensive 
as h*ll. On the other hand, having had close friends killed in car accidents,
I tend to think any cost is worth their lives. This may be idealistic but
untrue, alas.

What do you think of these ideas, folks? Any other ones to start *really*
saving lives?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura