Government considering raising motorway speed limit to 80mph 'toshorten journey times and help economy'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...p-economy.html

On Feb 28, 8:49*pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...

Clearly the minister had watched the latest Top Gear (Season 16/ep 6)
where the crew were mocking the Motorway speed limits in the News
portion, with Jeremey mocking it as a 'temporary measure' - 40 years
later and it's still a temporary measure.

On Feb 28, 6:49*pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...

I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. Lowering speeds
would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.

People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.

In article
>,
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
> wrote:

> On Feb 28, 6:49*pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...
>
> I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
> speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. Lowering speeds
> would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
> medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>
> People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
> brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.

Hahahahahahaha. Gawd, lefturds are stupid.



snicker

On Feb 28, 10:08*pm, Harold Burton > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 6:49 pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin....
>
> > I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
> > speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. *Lowering speeds
> > would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
> > medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>
> > People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
> > brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.
>
> Hahahahahahaha. *Gawd, lefturds are stupid.
>
> snicker

ahem.
you're familiar with the accident decline during the double nickle
years?
very well documented.
not like the stall door/walls where you get your bulletproof data and
facts.

On Mar 1, 2:06*am, big john whine > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:08*pm, Harold Burton > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 6:49 pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...
>
> > > I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
> > > speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. *Lowering speeds
> > > would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
> > > medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>
> > > People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
> > > brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.
>
> > Hahahahahahaha. *Gawd, lefturds are stupid.
>
> > snicker
>
> ahem.
> you're familiar with the accident decline during the double nickle
> years?
> very well documented.
> not like the stall door/walls where you get your bulletproof data and
> facts.

And when the speed limits went up, no spike up- please explain.


Dave

On 2011-03-01, big john whine > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:08*pm, Harold Burton > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> *Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > On Feb 28, 6:49 pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
>> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...
>>
>> > I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
>> > speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. *Lowering speeds
>> > would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
>> > medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>>
>> > People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
>> > brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.
>>
>> Hahahahahahaha. *Gawd, lefturds are stupid.
>>
>> snicker
>
> ahem.
> you're familiar with the accident decline during the double nickle
> years?
> very well documented.
> not like the stall door/walls where you get your bulletproof data and
> facts.

It was fatalities not collisions... anyway...
A long covered and closed subject in r.a.d. In 1974 there were a number
of factors which combined to create fatality data that was uncomparable
to previous years. First, the method of the counting was changed.
Essentially this new method reduced what was counted as a fatality. This
alone makes data before 1974 not comparable to any number after.

The other factors had to do to the lack of fuel and high price there of
thanks to political doings such as the embargo and price controls. This
meant a lot less driving and a lot less driving at night. Both brought
down the number of fatalities.

Lastly the early 1970s saw the implementation of various crash standards
in new automobilies. With cars not lasting as long as they do today this
had a much more immediate effect than it would have today. It's likely a
small factor, but it is one that is neglected.

The final large factor is that the 55mph NMSL was largely ignored. Few
if any people actually drove that speed. The government statistics
behind compliance were a work of creativity from year one that required
more and more creativity to get numbers that looked 'good' every year.
This is documented in books such as Mark Rask's "American Autobahn".

On Mar 1, 9:34*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-03-01, big john whine > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:08 pm, Harold Burton > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > On Feb 28, 6:49 pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
> >> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...
>
> >> > I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
> >> > speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. Lowering speeds
> >> > would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
> >> > medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>
> >> > People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
> >> > brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.
>
> >> Hahahahahahaha. Gawd, lefturds are stupid.
>
> >> snicker
>
> > ahem.
> > you're familiar with the accident decline during the double nickle
> > years?
> > very well documented.
> > not like the stall door/walls where you get your bulletproof data and
> > facts.
>
> It was fatalities not collisions... anyway...
> A long covered and closed subject in r.a.d. In 1974 there were a number
> of factors which combined to create fatality data that was uncomparable
> to previous years. First, the method of the counting was changed.
> Essentially this new method reduced what was counted as a fatality. This
> alone makes data before 1974 not comparable to any number after.
>
> The other factors had to do to the lack of fuel and high price there of
> thanks to political doings such as the embargo and price controls. This
> meant a lot less driving and a lot less driving at night. Both brought
> down the number of fatalities.
>
> Lastly the early 1970s saw the implementation of various crash standards
> in new automobilies. With cars not lasting as long as they do today this
> had a much more immediate effect than it would have today. It's likely a
> small factor, but it is one that is neglected.
>
> The final large factor is that the 55mph NMSL was largely ignored. Few
> if any people actually drove that speed. The government statistics
> behind compliance were a work of creativity from year one that required
> more and more creativity to get numbers that looked 'good' every year.
> This is documented in books such as Mark Rask's "American Autobahn".

you're probably right and upon further reflection who can believe
government data.
but i still wonder if the auto insurance industry lobbyists might have
tried over the years to make things safer.
surely, lousy cars and high speed limits do nothing for their profit
expectations.
dp their rates go up or down in relation to current conditions on the
Nation's Highways?
perhaps even now their pleas for Action fall on deaf ears as they
continually try to Make America Safe.

or...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7786388.

Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Apr;27(2):207-14.
Impact of the 65 mph speed limit on accidents, deaths, and injuries in
Illinois.

Rock SM.

Department of Economics, Western Illinois University, Macomb 61455,
USA.
Abstract

At the end of April 1987, Illinois raised the speed limit from 55 to
65 mph on rural interstates and limited-access highways. This paper
examines the effects of this change. It applies ARIMA techniques to a
monthly time series of accidents, injuries, and fatalities dating from
five years before the limit increase to four years after. Two types of
rural highways are examined: those where the speed limit was raised
and those where it remained at 55 mph. The impact of higher limits on
mean speeds, speed variance, traffic diversion, traffic generation,
speed spillover, and issues of benefits and costs are considered. The
findings suggest the higher limit led to 300 additional accidents per
month in rural Illinois, with associated increases in deaths and
injuries. This impact was apparent on both 65 and 55 mph roads. There
is some evidence of traffic diversion from 55 to 65 mph highways plus
traffic generation and speed spillover.

PMID: 7786388 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

MeSH Terms
MeSH Terms:

* Accidents, Traffic/mortality
* Accidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical data*
* Automobile Driving/legislation & jurisprudence*
* Automobile Driving/statistics & numerical data
* Humans
* Illinois/epidemiology
* Models, Statistical
* Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology
* Wounds and Injuries/etiology*

LinkOut - more resources

universities are impeccably linked to The Truth, right?

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 04:38:57 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 2:06*am, big john whine > wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 10:08*pm, Harold Burton > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> > *Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > On Feb 28, 6:49 pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
>> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...
>>
>> > > I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
>> > > speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. *Lowering speeds
>> > > would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
>> > > medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>>
>> > > People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
>> > > brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.
>>
>> > Hahahahahahaha. *Gawd, lefturds are stupid.
>>
>> > snicker
>>
>> ahem.
>> you're familiar with the accident decline during the double nickle
>> years?
>> very well documented.
>> not like the stall door/walls where you get your bulletproof data and
>> facts.
>
>And when the speed limits went up, no spike up- please explain.

Not only that, but about the same time that the NMSL was imposed on
the proletariat, wasn't there a sharp decline in miles driven - what
the OPEC oil embargo, spiking gas prices and lines and all?

--
S&DDAM admits to being drunk and to possible drunk driving by way of
a sentence with the poor grammar of the double negative:

"I ain't not never been drunk none in my life. "

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," a.k.a. LBMHB, lb-VH,
Pride of America, aunt millie, Judy Diariya etc...
May 1, 2007, 1331 hrs EDT

Ref: http://snipurl.com/1j04u
Message ID: et

On 2011-03-01, big john whine > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:34*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-03-01, big john whine > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 10:08 pm, Harold Burton > wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> >,
>> >> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 28, 6:49 pm, Lil Abner > wrote:
>> >> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-considerin...
>>
>> >> > I just read another UK article where they're talking about lowering
>> >> > speed limits to reduce consumption and thus prices. Lowering speeds
>> >> > would also save lives of course and also a fortune now spent on
>> >> > medical bills and property damage due to speed-related crashes.
>>
>> >> > People should be screaming for lower limits but they've been
>> >> > brainwashed by the auto industry into thinking fast driving is cool.
>>
>> >> Hahahahahahaha. Gawd, lefturds are stupid.
>>
>> >> snicker
>>
>> > ahem.
>> > you're familiar with the accident decline during the double nickle
>> > years?
>> > very well documented.
>> > not like the stall door/walls where you get your bulletproof data and
>> > facts.
>>
>> It was fatalities not collisions... anyway...
>> A long covered and closed subject in r.a.d. In 1974 there were a number
>> of factors which combined to create fatality data that was uncomparable
>> to previous years. First, the method of the counting was changed.
>> Essentially this new method reduced what was counted as a fatality. This
>> alone makes data before 1974 not comparable to any number after.
>>
>> The other factors had to do to the lack of fuel and high price there of
>> thanks to political doings such as the embargo and price controls. This
>> meant a lot less driving and a lot less driving at night. Both brought
>> down the number of fatalities.
>>
>> Lastly the early 1970s saw the implementation of various crash standards
>> in new automobilies. With cars not lasting as long as they do today this
>> had a much more immediate effect than it would have today. It's likely a
>> small factor, but it is one that is neglected.
>>
>> The final large factor is that the 55mph NMSL was largely ignored. Few
>> if any people actually drove that speed. The government statistics
>> behind compliance were a work of creativity from year one that required
>> more and more creativity to get numbers that looked 'good' every year.
>> This is documented in books such as Mark Rask's "American Autobahn".
>
> you're probably right and upon further reflection who can believe
> government data.
> but i still wonder if the auto insurance industry lobbyists might have
> tried over the years to make things safer.
> surely, lousy cars and high speed limits do nothing for their profit
> expectations.
> dp their rates go up or down in relation to current conditions on the
> Nation's Highways?
> perhaps even now their pleas for Action fall on deaf ears as they
> continually try to Make America Safe.
>
> or...
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7786388.
>
> Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Apr;27(2):207-14.
> Impact of the 65 mph speed limit on accidents, deaths, and injuries in
> Illinois.
>
> Rock SM.
>
> Department of Economics, Western Illinois University, Macomb 61455,
> USA.
> Abstract
>
> At the end of April 1987, Illinois raised the speed limit from 55 to
> 65 mph on rural interstates and limited-access highways. This paper
> examines the effects of this change. It applies ARIMA techniques to a
> monthly time series of accidents, injuries, and fatalities dating from
> five years before the limit increase to four years after. Two types of
> rural highways are examined: those where the speed limit was raised
> and those where it remained at 55 mph. The impact of higher limits on
> mean speeds, speed variance, traffic diversion, traffic generation,
> speed spillover, and issues of benefits and costs are considered. The
> findings suggest the higher limit led to 300 additional accidents per
> month in rural Illinois, with associated increases in deaths and
> injuries. This impact was apparent on both 65 and 55 mph roads. There
> is some evidence of traffic diversion from 55 to 65 mph highways plus
> traffic generation and speed spillover.
>
> PMID: 7786388 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> MeSH Terms
> MeSH Terms:
>
> * Accidents, Traffic/mortality
> * Accidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical data*
> * Automobile Driving/legislation & jurisprudence*
> * Automobile Driving/statistics & numerical data
> * Humans
> * Illinois/epidemiology
> * Models, Statistical
> * Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology
> * Wounds and Injuries/etiology*
>
> LinkOut - more resources
>
> universities are impeccably linked to The Truth, right?

1) essentially nobody in Illinois obeys the NMSL era speed limits. They
didn't in 1987 and they don't now. So the study is flawed because the
speed limit simply isn't a factor in most people's driving.

2) Illinois depends on speeding ticket revenue which is why now well
into the 21st century most of the state's population is stuck with Nixon
era speed limits. Speed limits for 21st century cars lower than they
were in the 1950s (and probably 1930s).

3) WIU is a state school. Publishing research against the state wouldn't
be wise.

4) Their chosen measure is collisions per MONTH. This makes no sense
because to compare safety before and after it should be per mile driven
or per passenger mile. The most likely cause of 300 more collisions per
month is more people driving on the roads more often. Considering their
time span is 1982 to 1991, a per month value is simply nonsense.