Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Fortune) 6/7/84; site dmsd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!dmsd!bass
From: bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Congressmen propose relaxation of 55mph speed limit in rural
Message-ID: <186@dmsd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 14:13:06 EST
Article-I.D.: dmsd.186
Posted: Thu Apr  4 14:13:06 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Apr-85 01:46:27 EST
References: <1545@ut-ngp.UUCP> <215@osiris.UUCP>
Distribution: net.consumers
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.legal:1529 net.auto:6323 net.consumers:2123

I also find the 55mph frustrating and inconsistant with the rest of
congressional policy. Over the last 11 years I have tallyed up 6 years
driving in excess of 50k miles a year -- much of it ignoring the 55
at a great savings in time. In calif we don't have the CHP using radar
and up until they started flying enforcement was minor - result was
getting stopped once a year or so.

If they really wanted to save gas they would ban from the road any passenger
car with less than 20mpg -- including the police cars. They would also
concentrate on getting heavy trucks above 5mpg and improving rail for
cross country service.

Granted that 55 does save lives and reduce serious accidents -- but I doubt
somehow that the real number is as large as 10k/year -- I wonder how many
of those are DUI accidents. If they really thought that saving lives in
america was a HIGH priority they would impose a manditory 6month jail term
and $5k fine for first timers caught DUI -- with no parole or plea bargining.
Flat out -- Drive DUI and go to jail. Doubling the sentence with each
violation would drive the point home. I know SEVERAL persons caught DUI
driving with a revoked license or with hardship wavers -- and still driving DUI.
Lastly they could save 100 times more lives by stopping the production
subsidies for tobaco growth, putting 10% of that money into education on
smoking, drinking and drugs. They would save 4-5 times that sum in reduced
public aid for elderly cancer care and disablity care. They would also
see an increase in us productivity and a resulting increase in taxable
revenue.

The real issue the that the congress feels it must DO SOMETHING to save lives
and the 55 supporters provide a cheap out since most americans aren't very
vocal on this subject. The smoking and drinking lobbies pay the bills of
some congressmen (campain and other expenses) so why rock the boat??
I say we rock it for them -- write, call, and be active.

John Bass