RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Offtopic - speeding now

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Ross, Matthew wrote:
> 
> > Speeding tickets aren't just for revenue though, speeding is dangerous.
> > The faster you go, the more effect your wheel angle has to how quickly
> > you go off course. This is why it seems "harder" to steer at high speed.
> > Yes, 90% of the time you can handle going 20 over the speed limit, but a
> > single slip-up would be fatal at 90mph.
> 
> Sure, but sometimes you'll be on a straight divided road with three lanes
> in each direction, nice smooth concrete, and the speed limit is 30 mph.
> You go 45 and get a ticket -- they just sit there waiting for you.
>
> I got one for going 79 in a 70.  I didn't think they did that!

So here's my fun fact about speed limits on interstates.  You may
recall that part of the debate that happened before they raised
speed limits in the 90s was that the increase would lead to much
higher death rates.  This didn't happen, and it was at least a
little bit surprising (especially in some places where they *went
down*).  Current theory on this (I think) is that what happened was
that the lower posted (and actual) speed limits on interstate led to
two things.  The first one was greater variability in speeds on
interstates (due to speeders vs. non-speeders), which is dangerous.  
The second one was people "substituting" rural non-interstates for
interstates to avoid speed traps, and a lot of those are the 2-lane
no-shoulder death traps we're all too familiar with around here 
(can anybody else say "WW"?).

So the increase in speed limits reduced highway speed variance, 
which was good, and reduced usage of death trap rural routes, which 
is also good.  Of course, by now we've adjusted to the increase, and 
our death rates are as high as ever...

> Another thing -- the same road in different states would have
> different speed limits.  So my 79 was on I-90 in Minnesota, but if
> I'd been in South Dakota, the speed limit would have been 75 and
> I'd have been over by only 4 mph.

Assuming you were in a region where bother were equally unpopulated,
that does sound annoying.  But if there's anybody who does 79 on
I-70 through Columbia and there's any traffic at all, I want their
head on a stick.  You just *know* that some day there is going to be
a truly spectacular tons o' death multiple car pile-up involving 50 
cars and 3 semis on our local stretch.

jking


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion