Nation speed limit increase
henning
> > One thing I've never seen on here is any kind of variance analysis of just
> > how much the speed limit change DID affect the fatality rate.
> > Surely SOMEBODY (insurance company, govt. organization
> > or whoever) has statistically isolated the speed limit change. I think this
> > information would be quite interesting!
> >
**** ****
From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh
1955 26,100 2.7 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle-miles
1960 38,137
1965 49,163
1970 54,633
1973 55,511
**************** 55 MPH *******************
1974 46,402
1975 45,853 1.3 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle-miles
*********** Light-weight Cars *************
1978 52,411
1979 53,524
1980 53,300
1981 51,500 3.1 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle-miles
1982 46,000
The statistics are from some dusty almanacs. The comments
are my own, but compacts and subcompacts have 3 times the
fatality rate of the rubber-wheeled tanks of the 60's and
early 70's.
rgr...@pogo.uucp
[Raising speed limit discussion deleted]
>
>I can't argue against making our streets safer, but I object to blanket
>'easy' answers that don't look at the real situation. Time to dump
>the double nickel and try something else.
>
>
> Ron
I couldn't agree with you more Ron. After all if the arguement for keeping
55 is "it saves lives compared to 65 -70" then the same logic could be
carried to its extreme. That is: If 55 saves more lives than 70, then 30 would
save more lives than 55; we could save all lives by making the speed limit
zero. The point that I think that several people have been making is that
a logical approach is to weigh the risks against the benefits. Since I haven't
seen anybody advocating that we outlaw driving completely, I assume that most
people are willing to accept some risk for the benefit of traveling by car.
If this is indeed true, we should should set speed limits at a level such that
the benefits and risks are balanced. I am certainly willing to trade the
increased risk of a 70 mph speed limit for the faster travel. I think that
many, if not most people, would also provided the road is designed for it.
There are some people who probably feel that 25 or 30 is the speed limit that
best suits the risk they are willing to take. I hope that they do not
represent a strong enough influence to have the speed limit lowered. I also
believe that any law that is violated by a majority of people is a bad law
and, as the 55 MPH speed limit is broken regularly by what I believe is well
over 50% of the drivers on the road, well as you said, "Time to dump the
double nickel and try something else."
Robert Grove
!tektronix!pogo!rgrove
John Plocher
>> has statistically isolated the speed limit change.
I'd like to know how many accidents are on interstates as -vs- other
state/county roads. In light of Congress wanting to raise non urban
interstate speeds to 65mph the nay-sayers are quoting the above stats.
I would *think* that the fatality rate on I's is low; that the
accidents are on lesser highways and in cities. (no this is not a
flame against cities, some of my best friends live in cities... :-)
--
harvard-\ /- uwmacc!uwhsms!plocher (work)
John Plocher seismo-->!uwvax!<
topaz-/ \- puff!plocher (school)
"Never trust an idea you get sitting down" - Nietzche