Newsgroups: ont.general
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!mart
From: mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle)
Subject: Re: Lawbreakers (was Radar Detectors (was Highway Driving Rules))
Message-ID: <8905172121.AA19911@genie.csri.toronto.edu>
Summary: The anti-speed lobby needs to clearly state what they want to optimise
Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI
References: <9584@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <3217@looking.UUCP> <3225@looking.UUCP> <264@sickkids.UUCP> <1942@yunexus.UUCP> <89May17.145618edt.11073@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Distribution: ont
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 17:21:44 EDT


The people who are against raising the speed limits back to their pre-OPEC
oil crisis levels are really not being very fair to the rest of us, by making
subjective arguments as to the METHOD that society is required to use in
saving fuel and/or lives.  Clearly saving fuel and lives is A Good Thing,
and no-one is trying to argue the case that we should squander fuel and
kill people.  However, the issue that the anti-speed lobby chooses not to
address is the following.

Given that society decides to reduce the amount of fuel consumed by motor
vehicles by some factor X, or to reduce the deaths attributable to motor
vehicle accidents by Y, is it really the case that reducing the speed limits
was/is the most effect way to do this?

Advancing technology, changing consumer tastes, and government pressure
tactics (c.f. the CAFE requirements in the U.S.) have saved a lot more
fuel than just forcing everyone to drive their 5000 lb. 7 litre V8 powered
gas guzzlers at lower speeds on the highway.  So what's wrong with society
choosing to save its fuel by driving quickly in aerodynamic 16 valve 4
cylinder Chevy/Honda/BMW/insert-your-favourite-modern-car-here, instead
of continuing to drive slowly in big clumsy gas guzzlers?

Similarly, one can save some lives and reduce injuries and property damage
via inconveniencing society by enforcing slow[er] highway travel.  However,
for a *given* level of interference/inconvenience, could we not chose to
impose it via strict enforcement of our seat belt laws, or drunk driving
laws? ...Or by making it more difficult to get [and maintain] a license
in the first place?  It seems to me that "nailing speeders" is the easy
way out, since it makes our elected representatives look good (i.e.,
they're clearly against waste and death, the money from fines is always
welcome...) and it's technologically easy to catch the speeders without
inconveniencing the non-speeders (i.e., you don't need random spot checks
to stop people and make them submit to a lie detector test to see if they
were speeding, the way you must stop random people and give them a breath
test to catch drunk drivers -- too bad we can't just pass a law saying that
all cars must be equipped with a flashing purple light on the roof, that
can be easily spotted from an airplane, when operated by a drunk driver).

It seems pretty clear that most "anti-speed" people are not uniformly
anti-speed in the general case, or else we'd have cries of horror that
commercial airplanes travel at almost *ten times* the speed limit on 401.
But that's OK, because we have strict controls on pilot training, aircraft
airworthiness, etc., right?   So what's the problem with considering the
idea of improving the corresponding "quality controls" on the highway
so that for the same (or lower) loss rate we get to drive a little faster???

Mart L. Molle
Computer Systems Research Institute
University of Toronto
(416)978-4928