NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/seattle/general/4308

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 6.7 KB | 126 lines

Newsgroups: seattle.general
Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!jhgrud!eskimo!alpinist
From: [e-mail] (David Butler)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE, WA.<=
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:41:23 GMT
Lines: 115

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Myrto) writes:
>Harold - don't you recall that the DESIGN speed limit was 70 when the
>freeways were made?  The 55 speed limit was imposed supposedly to reduce
>fuel consumption (something that it does not do in more than a few cars).

It's been a while since I've seen the statistics but there is a big
correlation between speed and gas consumption.  It is a lot more than
just a few cars.

>A reduction (temporary, mostly) in accidents and fatalities was a spin
>off.

The state insurance commisioner issued a report a couple years back showing
a large correlation between increased gas prices and reduced number of
accidents.  The theory being that when gas prices are up people both drive
less and drive more carefully to get better mileage which reduces the chance
of getting into an accident.

>Lighten up, if you are in the far left (passing/fast) lane, and cars
>are accumulating behind you, YOU are creating an unsafe condition,
>because YOU are blocking the flow of traffic.  If you want to drive
>slower, fine.  Move to the slower lanes.  But you really have no right
>to try to make others go the speed you feel is right by blocking the
>road, and getting upset when someone flashes their lights at you.  On
>the other hand, if you are NOT in the left/passing lanes, and they flash
>their lights at you, when they could go on around, screw 'em - because
>now THEY are trying to force you to meet THEIR standard (not to mention
>trying to be obnoxious).  <insert 1/2 :-)>

I agree.  If cars are passing you on the right then you are going too
slow for the lane you are in and need to move over.  There is a difference
between driving what you think is a safe and reasonable speed and
trying to enforce your speed on others by driving in the wrong lane which
only creates an increased hazard on the freeway.  Personally, I wish the
cops would give tickets to anyone doing more than 5 mph above the speed
limit.  Unfortunately the speed which is ticketed has crept up an
additional 5 or 10 mph than that over the last decade.
The fact that the freeways were origionally designed for 70 mph is often
mentioned but what is ignored is that was for the traffic levels of over
20 years ago.  Drive between Seattle and Olympia any day of the week any
day of the year any time during normal waking hours and there will be at
least one major slowdown where you have to go below the speed limit.  At
70 mph the number of accidents that these slowdowns cause would increase
greatly (and there are already a lot of accidents caused by the big
slowdowns).  The freeways simple cannot handle 70 mph at current traffic
levels.

>However, if the traffic is heavy, all lanes are full, go what the flow
>is.  Remember, a cop CAN write a ticket for blocking/impeding traffic,
>EVEN IF YOU ARE GOING ABOVE THE POSTED LIMIT, if you are causing congestion
>behind you.  I forget what the number is (six seems to come to mind,
>but this is not certain), but the yardstick is if you have more than N
>cars backed up behind you, you are REQUIRED to move over and let them
>go around.

Yes, if more than 5 cars are behind you on any single lane road in
Washington (even though only a few roads are marked) you are required
to pull over and let them by.  This is the law.  Unfortunately this
law is obeyed only about as much as the law that says if a pedestrian
steps off the curb all cars, even in the far lanes, are required to
stop and wait for the pedestrian to cross.

>Even more hazardous is the bozo that insists on diving into the safe
>interval one is trying to maintain behind the car in front.  That is
>what these chain-reaction accidents are caused by.  The yardstick for
>following too close used by many cops is a two-second interval.  Sheesh,
>its difficult sometimes to keep a HALF-second interval open.  And this
>is for GOOD conditions.  It should be much larger if ice, etc is on the
>roads.  Another hazard is the one who darts in and out, making sudden
>and unexpected moves.

Yes, I've noticed that all the major slowdowns on the freeways are
caused by the idiots who keep changing lanes to catch the lane that
happens to be moving slightly faster at that second.  The idiot slows
down a bit to fit into the space, the car behind him has to slow down,
the car he pulls in front of has to slow down, the car behind that, etc.
When traffic slows down pick one lane to drive in and STAY IN THAT LANE.
Someone who changes lanes a lot I can't come up with enough swear
words to tell them what a dickheaded idiot they are and how they should
be cursed with accidents and pain.

>The driver who wants to avoid getting tickets (and accidents) is the
>driver who will not drive so as to stand out (draw attention).
>  Although it isn't right, even
>COLOR is a factor - some colors, I am willing to bet, draw more tickets
>than other colors on the average (perhaps someone can come up with some
>figures?).
> Cars that don't get noticed don't
>get tickets.  Driving so as to not aggravate allready touchy tempers
>resulting from a crawling mass of cars enhances everyone's chances of
>getting to a destination in one piece.  Trying to be an unofficial
>enforcer of an often arbitrary speed limit increases the chance of an
>accident, IMO.

I agree with this.  The car that stands out by the way it drives gets
more tickets and the person driving too slow for the lane causes accidents.

>  Incidentally, a side effect of driving to not be noticed,
>keeping the intervals open, etc., not only is enhanced safety, but lower
>insurance rates (not a trivial consideration these days).  The cost of
>liability, collision, comp, etc. can be enough to give anybody a coronary.

Actually this isn't true.  The car that isn't noticed is more likely to
be hit.  The most common excuse for an accident is "I didn't even see him".
I don't know statistics on the color of cars and tickets, but I do know that
red cars are statistically less likely to get into an accident than any other
color - the theory being that they are easier to see.  Likewise drab colors
(Tan and black) are more likely to get into accidents.


--
--------- Dave ---------------- [e-mail] ---------------
=   The Red Queen shook her head, `You may call it "nonsense" if  =
= you like,' she said, ` but I'VE heard nonsense, compared with   =
= which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!'-Lewis Carroll =