View Single Post
  #7  
Old February 15th 05, 01:14 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And even on the autobahn, it has been shown that lower speeds result
>>>> in fewer accidents and fatalities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have obliviously never driven on the autobahn. Our NYS Northway
>>>> is much better designed for speed, with wider lanes, physical
>>>> divisions between traffic moving in different directions, and better
>>>> marked and planned exits. It was designed with an assumed posted
>>>> speed of 75 mph and a designed enforcement limit of 85 mph.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is true, but I have driven in both England (lived there for 4
>>> months) and France. Their highways were in much better shape than
>>> almost anything in NY or PA. I live in PA and work in NY and drive
>>> extensively in both states.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But I agree that it is best to have traffic all moving in the same
>>>> direction at about the same speed and would not like to see the
>>>> limits removed from our roads; except for me of course.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind higher limits as long as they would strictly enforce
>>> the limits, both too fast and too slow. It is the differential that
>>> kills more so than the absolute speeds.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt

>>
>>
>>
>> Objectively speaking, people exceeding the speed limit in their
>> vehicles are not a major reason for accidents and deaths on the
>> highway. Number 1 is likely falling asleep at the wheel, followed by
>> lack of full attention to the road [including having sex or eating or
>> both, while driving], following too close, driving too fast for
>> environmental conditions [rain, snow, ice and lack of adequate sight
>> distances], and last but not least, legal and illegal drug and mood
>> enhancement substances and beverages that impact attention and
>> reaction times.

>
>
> I don't doubt that a bit. I think all of these should be addressed to
> the extent possible. However, I don't think that ignoring a chronic
> speeder just because "there are worse things out there" is the answer.
> Does that mean we shouldn't look at cures for the flu just because that
> more people die from cancer and heart disease?
>
> Matt


Speed generally isn't a problem *at all* - it's not a matter of
prioritizing, it's a matter of some things being problems and other
things not being problems.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Ads