Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!ccice6!rdz
From: rdz@ccice6.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: 65 MPH? (why not!)
Message-ID: <425@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Feb-86 12:16:49 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.425
Posted: Tue Feb 25 12:16:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 04:39:38 EST
References: <152@ttidcc.UUCP> <680@ttidcb.UUCP> <379@weitek.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 21

In article <379@weitek.UUCP>, neal@weitek.UUCP (Neal Bedard) writes:
> 
> Could be so, however the thing to keep in mind is that 55 mph is considerably
> lower than the `design speed' (60-70 mph) of most major highways. I would
> infer that if speed limits were instead set at `design speed' and not 55 mph,
> more motorists would drive at or near such speed limits since they would be
> the most `comfortable' for the majority of drivers (certainly the frequency and
> magnitude of deviation in speed would be smaller than is the case presently.)

I'm afraid I have to take exception to this one.  That "design speed" was
determined in the late 1950's and early 60's.  The average automobile was
much larger, higher, heavier and faster in those days.  There have been
many cases where today's econo-boxes have hit a "break-away" post at a
lower point than they were designed for and have been stopped dead in
their tracks.  Also, many approach ramps are too short to allow a modern
car time to get up to highway speed.

This is not to say that I don't agree with raising the limit (I do), but
I think we should be aware that a car, if it came under the same scrutiny
as other consumer products, would probably be outlawed from sale in the US.
I'll pay my money and take my chance, and accept responsibility for driving.