RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Offtopic - speeding now

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> 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"?).

Ugh. I had that going back and forth to Rolla two years. It wouldn't be so bad if it were straight, but its almost all S-curves the entire way.

We still did have speed variability though. People who were speeders before went the speed limit, as did the "good" drivers, but that left a lot of panicked and elderly drivers going 50mph in a 70. Just this morning I passed someone going 50 on my way to Fulton. 

I believe A) they should re-test senior citizens every time they renew their license, and B) they should give an insurance rate hike for parents. Parents are worse drivers than drunks. I know the screaming brat in the back is distracting, but its no excuse for taking your eyes off the road for 2 minutes at 60+mph. To add to that, Pet and Cell Phone owners should also have an insurance rate hike for the same reason as parents.

> 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...

Are you refering to Columbia's new record?

> 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.

If they're going 79mph through there, the case is a bit different. That stretch of I-70 is 60mph. :-P

The stretch just south of the Stadium exit on 63 is far worse than that, and its already at 70mph. I know its had some rather bad accidents. Then you have all the odd-ball turns on the road after that. The 70/"Business" 70 split on 63 has probably killed a few people.

I can't count the number of times that I escaped Columbia with God's intervention. Its always disconcerting to hear on the radio about a big accident blocking southbound traffic out of Columbia before you even get to Ashland.. 

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