"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
>
> Most people drive within their skill level and their auto's capabilities,
> most of the time.

I don't disagree with that.
>
> > I certainly wouldn't make the assumption that if we raise the speed
> > limit to 85, every inexperienced teenager will choose to drive slower
> > than that
>
> This is not the first time you've mentioned "raising the speed limit to
> 85", which nobody's suggested. As I asked in another post, do you not
> understand the difference between 85 mph and 85th percentile?

Yes I know the difference well. I've read a lot of speed studies pointed out
by folks on this group. Fascinating stuff, and I don't disagree with what
they say.
>

>
> On what basis do you assume that the number on the sign enables or
> prevents any particular driver doing any particular thing?

I don't assume the number on the sign "enables" I assume that it

1) It "permits"
2) It sends a message that that speed is safe for that road.

> of unsupportable assertion that undermines your position.

Which assertion? That many people tend to drive the posted speed limits,
especially some inexperienced teenagers? I think that's true.

>It's just very obvious that not only have you no grasp of the fundamental
principles and
> interactions at work, but also that you haven't given the matter much
> careful thought, if any. Opinions, guesses and preferences are fine, but
> facts and data trump them every time.

Which facts trump which opinions, guesses and preferences? What did I miss
that is so obvious?
>
> > The idea of the roads is NOT to provide a fun park for people who want
> > to drive fast, get thrills, test their hemi or prove their manhood.
>
> Nobody's advocating that. Why do you keep refuting something nobody has
> seriously proposed?

I didn't say anyone is advocating that. I'm saying that some people use the
highways for that and want to be free of law enforcement so that they can
use the highways for that.
>
> > The idea is NOT EVEN to get us from point A to point B as quickly as
> > possible. It is to get us to point A to point B as safely as practical,
> > and that means that some drivers will have to accept being compelled to
> > drive slower than their capabilities
>
> Incorrect. V85 speed limits (which are NOT the same as 85mph speed
> limits!) are known to maximize traffic safety AND minimize travel time. It
> doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

What is incorrect? You are saying the purpose of the highways is to get from
point A to point B as quickly as possible? Then there would be no limits at
all. I totally agree with you that it doesn't need to be an either/or
choice.

I didn't say that I'm opposed to setting speed limits correctly or that the
85th percentile is not the correct limit. I'm saying the speed limit cannot
be set so high that it's beyond the capabilities of driver who meets mimimum
qualifications. That may in fact be the 85th percentile speed. I am NOT say
that speeds to to be set at the lowest speed that minimally qualified
drivers choose to drive.
>
> > And I don't think there is much political will in this country to change
> > it
>
> This is the first reasonably cogent observation I've seen you make in this
> thread.

Thank you. I knew you could find at least one if you read hard enough.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.
>