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