Higher speeds yield fewer injuries
07-08-2006, 03:49 PM
#1
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Higher speeds yield fewer injuries
This was posted on the 928 Forum by F4SGIB. This is consistent with the findings of the Montana Study, excerpts of which I have posted on Rennlist earler. I hope he doesn't mind that I lifted it from that forum to post it here. Notice the particularly conservative source:
Higher speeds yield fewer injuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe at Any Speed
With higher speed limits, our highways have been getting safer.
Wall Street Journal
Friday, July 7, 2006
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial...ml?id=110008621
It's another summer weekend, when millions of families pack up the minivan or SUV and hit the road. So this is also an apt moment to trumpet some good, and underreported, news: Driving on the highways is safer today than ever before.
In 2005, according to new data from the National Highway Safety Administration, the rate of injuries per mile traveled was lower than at any time since the Interstate Highway System was built 50 years ago. The fatality rate was the second lowest ever, just a tick higher than in 2004.
As a public policy matter, this steady decline is a vindication of the repeal of the 55 miles per hour federal speed limit law in 1995. That 1974 federal speed limit was arguably the most disobeyed and despised law since Prohibition. "Double nickel," as it was often called, was first adopted to save gasoline during the Arab oil embargo, though later the justification became saving lives. But to Westerners with open spaces and low traffic density, the law became a symbol of the heavy hand of the federal nanny state. To top it off, Congress would deny states their own federal highway construction dollars if they failed to comply.
In repealing the law, the newly minted Republican majority in Congress declared that states were free to impose their own limits. Many states immediately took up this nod to federalism by raising their limits to 70 or 75 mph. Texas just raised its speed limit again on rural highways to 80.
This may seem non-controversial now, but at the time the debate was shrill and filled with predictions of doom. Ralph Nader claimed that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life." Judith Stone, president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, predicted to Katie Couric on NBC's "Today Show" that there would be "6,400 added highway fatalities a year and millions of more injuries." Federico Pena, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of Transportation, declared: "Allowing speed limits to rise above 55 simply means that more Americans will die and be injured on our highways."
We now have 10 years of evidence proving that the only "assault" was on the sanctity of the truth. The nearby table shows that the death, injury and crash rates have fallen sharply since 1995. Per mile traveled, there were about 5,000 fewer deaths and almost one million fewer injuries in 2005 than in the mid-1990s. This is all the more remarkable given that a dozen years ago Americans lacked today's distraction of driving while also talking on their cell phones.
Of the 31 states that have raised their speed limits to more than 70 mph, 29 saw a decline in the death and injury rate and only two--the Dakotas--have seen fatalities increase. Two studies, by the National Motorists Association and by the Cato Institute, have compared crash data in states that raised their speed limits with those that didn't and found no increase in deaths in the higher speed states.
Jim Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association, says that by the early 1990s "compliance with the 55 mph law was only about 5%--in other words, about 95% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit." Now motorists can coast at these faster speeds without being on the constant lookout for radar guns, speed traps and state troopers. Americans have also arrived at their destinations sooner, worth an estimated $30 billion a year in time saved, according to the Cato study.
The tragedy is that 43,000 Americans still die on the roads every year, or about 15 times the number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq. Car accidents remain a leading cause of death among teenagers in particular. The Interstate Highway System is nonetheless one of the greatest public works programs in American history, and the two-thirds decline in road deaths per mile traveled since the mid-1950s has been a spectacular achievement. Tough drunk driving laws, better road technology, and such improving auto safety features as power steering and brakes are all proven life savers.
We are often told, by nanny-state advocates, that such public goods as safety require a loss of liberty. In the case of speed limits and traffic deaths, that just isn't so.__________________
Ron
1986.5 928S
1970 914/6
1984 Rabbit
Luau feet
Higher speeds yield fewer injuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe at Any Speed
With higher speed limits, our highways have been getting safer.
Wall Street Journal
Friday, July 7, 2006
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial...ml?id=110008621
It's another summer weekend, when millions of families pack up the minivan or SUV and hit the road. So this is also an apt moment to trumpet some good, and underreported, news: Driving on the highways is safer today than ever before.
In 2005, according to new data from the National Highway Safety Administration, the rate of injuries per mile traveled was lower than at any time since the Interstate Highway System was built 50 years ago. The fatality rate was the second lowest ever, just a tick higher than in 2004.
As a public policy matter, this steady decline is a vindication of the repeal of the 55 miles per hour federal speed limit law in 1995. That 1974 federal speed limit was arguably the most disobeyed and despised law since Prohibition. "Double nickel," as it was often called, was first adopted to save gasoline during the Arab oil embargo, though later the justification became saving lives. But to Westerners with open spaces and low traffic density, the law became a symbol of the heavy hand of the federal nanny state. To top it off, Congress would deny states their own federal highway construction dollars if they failed to comply.
In repealing the law, the newly minted Republican majority in Congress declared that states were free to impose their own limits. Many states immediately took up this nod to federalism by raising their limits to 70 or 75 mph. Texas just raised its speed limit again on rural highways to 80.
This may seem non-controversial now, but at the time the debate was shrill and filled with predictions of doom. Ralph Nader claimed that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life." Judith Stone, president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, predicted to Katie Couric on NBC's "Today Show" that there would be "6,400 added highway fatalities a year and millions of more injuries." Federico Pena, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of Transportation, declared: "Allowing speed limits to rise above 55 simply means that more Americans will die and be injured on our highways."
We now have 10 years of evidence proving that the only "assault" was on the sanctity of the truth. The nearby table shows that the death, injury and crash rates have fallen sharply since 1995. Per mile traveled, there were about 5,000 fewer deaths and almost one million fewer injuries in 2005 than in the mid-1990s. This is all the more remarkable given that a dozen years ago Americans lacked today's distraction of driving while also talking on their cell phones.
Of the 31 states that have raised their speed limits to more than 70 mph, 29 saw a decline in the death and injury rate and only two--the Dakotas--have seen fatalities increase. Two studies, by the National Motorists Association and by the Cato Institute, have compared crash data in states that raised their speed limits with those that didn't and found no increase in deaths in the higher speed states.
Jim Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association, says that by the early 1990s "compliance with the 55 mph law was only about 5%--in other words, about 95% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit." Now motorists can coast at these faster speeds without being on the constant lookout for radar guns, speed traps and state troopers. Americans have also arrived at their destinations sooner, worth an estimated $30 billion a year in time saved, according to the Cato study.
The tragedy is that 43,000 Americans still die on the roads every year, or about 15 times the number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq. Car accidents remain a leading cause of death among teenagers in particular. The Interstate Highway System is nonetheless one of the greatest public works programs in American history, and the two-thirds decline in road deaths per mile traveled since the mid-1950s has been a spectacular achievement. Tough drunk driving laws, better road technology, and such improving auto safety features as power steering and brakes are all proven life savers.
We are often told, by nanny-state advocates, that such public goods as safety require a loss of liberty. In the case of speed limits and traffic deaths, that just isn't so.__________________
Ron
1986.5 928S
1970 914/6
1984 Rabbit
Luau feet
07-08-2006, 08:19 PM
#2
I'd like higher speed limits - or none at all in places, but the article is utter crap. There is no control to make a meaningful comparison. Death/Injury/ and accident rates might have fallen even _more_ if speed limits had not been raised.
The NMA study is particularly suspect - I'm a member BTW.
The article is just political pandering - I hope WSJ does a better job analyzing cash flows for a comapny than it did on this.
The NMA study is particularly suspect - I'm a member BTW.
The article is just political pandering - I hope WSJ does a better job analyzing cash flows for a comapny than it did on this.
07-08-2006, 08:38 PM
#3
Instructor
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Osos, Ca
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that we would have seen fewer injuries and deaths regardless of any change in speed limits.
ABS, airbags and crumple zones have done wonders to save life and limb.
I don't like ABS, for me, but I'm glad that most people have it now. The advancements in vehicle safety have mirrored advancements in engine management. 25 years ago, any car putting out huge horsepower was also a huge polluter, but that's not so anymore, I drove a 993TT with serious mods to the smog shop a few years ago, this car had so much power that it would roast all 4 tires in 2nd gear when the turbos kicked in, and it blew perfect smog numbers, 0.00% and 0.01%.
Similarly, in modern cars involved in accidents, it is rare to see ANY injuries unless the car is horribly damaged.
I've spent most of my career in bodyshops, and 20-25 years ago we would often see blood in crashed cars, but now we never see blood in cars anymore unless the car is a total, and damaged nearly beyond recognition.
I too am all for higher speed limits, I feel sick if I'm going less than 75 on the freeway, but the conclusions drawn in that article do not take all of the contributing factors to the change into account.
ABS, airbags and crumple zones have done wonders to save life and limb.
I don't like ABS, for me, but I'm glad that most people have it now. The advancements in vehicle safety have mirrored advancements in engine management. 25 years ago, any car putting out huge horsepower was also a huge polluter, but that's not so anymore, I drove a 993TT with serious mods to the smog shop a few years ago, this car had so much power that it would roast all 4 tires in 2nd gear when the turbos kicked in, and it blew perfect smog numbers, 0.00% and 0.01%.
Similarly, in modern cars involved in accidents, it is rare to see ANY injuries unless the car is horribly damaged.
I've spent most of my career in bodyshops, and 20-25 years ago we would often see blood in crashed cars, but now we never see blood in cars anymore unless the car is a total, and damaged nearly beyond recognition.
I too am all for higher speed limits, I feel sick if I'm going less than 75 on the freeway, but the conclusions drawn in that article do not take all of the contributing factors to the change into account.
07-08-2006, 09:49 PM
#4
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Randy, you might not feel the same way after reading the summary of the Montana Experiment, which is posted on the 993 Forum under this thread topic (identical post). Conclusions mirror the WSJ article, and traffic engineers agree. Politics and vested interests keep the accident rates where they are by ignoring facts like the Montana Study and those of the engineers, as well as this article. If you care to study it, look under the same thread topic and look for my most recent post.
07-09-2006, 12:12 PM
#5
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: new england
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a theory, but it might explain the lower deaths with higher speeds. According to the article 95% of people were disobeying the speed limits. if most people are traveling different speeds it is very unsafe, especially compared to people all traveling the same speed, even if it is faster. sww914's right though, this study has no control category, so it can't be taken too sirously...
07-09-2006, 01:44 PM
#6
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driving at higher speeds promotes a larger degree of attention to driving itself...
That is not to say that Joe Schmoe won't talk on a cellphone, shuffle through the latest paper, sipping their coffee/beverage, while directing their passenger in the correct way to sing the song that is blaring on the radio.
I would say from my own personal observations, those whom i've noticed driving at higher speeds are usually less likely to be engaged in said activities as I pass them.
There have been some interesting reports on the Autobahn and the driving styles which promote safety, the primary difference between us and them being that while driving 150mph+, they're focused on the road, whilst we're focused on the Sports section. (Generalized).
That is not to say that Joe Schmoe won't talk on a cellphone, shuffle through the latest paper, sipping their coffee/beverage, while directing their passenger in the correct way to sing the song that is blaring on the radio.
I would say from my own personal observations, those whom i've noticed driving at higher speeds are usually less likely to be engaged in said activities as I pass them.
There have been some interesting reports on the Autobahn and the driving styles which promote safety, the primary difference between us and them being that while driving 150mph+, they're focused on the road, whilst we're focused on the Sports section. (Generalized).
07-09-2006, 06:37 PM
#7
Instructor
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Osos, Ca
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys have made excellent points about paying closer attention while driving faster and/or more agressively. Anytime I have to get somewhere in a hurry, I put both hands on the wheel in the proper position, tell my kid to be quiet, turn down the radio and so forth so that I can pay attention. I'm sure nearly everyone pays much closer attention at 120 than at 60.
Trending Topics
07-09-2006, 06:56 PM
#8
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
In the Montana Experiment, the drivers that drove at the highest speeds were those that experienced the lowest accident and fatality rates.
07-09-2006, 07:40 PM
#9
I read the Montana study excerpt you posted and the NMA commentary on it. If you know where the actual study is posted, I'll take a look at it.
The data in the above two places are uniterpretable -- one can't tell if they are statistically meaningful or mere artifacts. I like MT hwys but I don't think we can generalize past Wyo. from the MT study even if the data do show stat. sig. differences, and it is not clear that they do.
Just to be clear, I am a NMA member and I'm all for lower speed limits.
The data in the above two places are uniterpretable -- one can't tell if they are statistically meaningful or mere artifacts. I like MT hwys but I don't think we can generalize past Wyo. from the MT study even if the data do show stat. sig. differences, and it is not clear that they do.
Just to be clear, I am a NMA member and I'm all for lower speed limits.
07-09-2006, 08:47 PM
#10
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Randy, try this: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
Also, I need some time off of this topic for awhile, so contact the author if you will please. He is more qualified than I to answer your questions.
It is not the actual survey, but I need more time to get the original, and I don't have time presently. Please excuse me but I need to support Uncle George and my stomach. Thank you.
What has been discovered by all of this, is that removing speed limits doesn't result in everyone suddenly driving at insanely high speeds. When they are removed, most drivers will increase their speed initially, but soon return to the speed at which they feel most comfortable. That speed is usually not much more than the speed at which they felt comfortable before the limits were lifted. Since half the drivers usually drive above limits when limits are in place, (10 to 15 mph over), it is not significant to them whether the signs are there or not; they are simply no longer "criminals". What is MORE relevant, is that when limits are lifted, those same drivers, upon returning to their "comfortable" speeds, do it while STAYING IN THE RIGHT LANE, because they expect faster drivers to be present and they are thus consciously staying out of the faster drivers' way. This results in the safer conditions which are experienced when limits are lifted. And undoubtedly accounts for the decrease of accidents and deaths among the fastest drivers. (Isn't that the case on the autobahns? Then we, in our sophomorish wisdom, already knew it was safer to lift limits). Currently, we obviously have the brain dead drivers who park in the left lane at or near the speed limit, and think no one will be traveling any faster because it is deemed illegal to do so. And accidents and deaths occur. We have known this for years, but ignore it, because we are told since birth that slower and regulated is safer. What a crock!!
Also, I need some time off of this topic for awhile, so contact the author if you will please. He is more qualified than I to answer your questions.
It is not the actual survey, but I need more time to get the original, and I don't have time presently. Please excuse me but I need to support Uncle George and my stomach. Thank you.
What has been discovered by all of this, is that removing speed limits doesn't result in everyone suddenly driving at insanely high speeds. When they are removed, most drivers will increase their speed initially, but soon return to the speed at which they feel most comfortable. That speed is usually not much more than the speed at which they felt comfortable before the limits were lifted. Since half the drivers usually drive above limits when limits are in place, (10 to 15 mph over), it is not significant to them whether the signs are there or not; they are simply no longer "criminals". What is MORE relevant, is that when limits are lifted, those same drivers, upon returning to their "comfortable" speeds, do it while STAYING IN THE RIGHT LANE, because they expect faster drivers to be present and they are thus consciously staying out of the faster drivers' way. This results in the safer conditions which are experienced when limits are lifted. And undoubtedly accounts for the decrease of accidents and deaths among the fastest drivers. (Isn't that the case on the autobahns? Then we, in our sophomorish wisdom, already knew it was safer to lift limits). Currently, we obviously have the brain dead drivers who park in the left lane at or near the speed limit, and think no one will be traveling any faster because it is deemed illegal to do so. And accidents and deaths occur. We have known this for years, but ignore it, because we are told since birth that slower and regulated is safer. What a crock!!
07-11-2006, 01:50 PM
#11
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ron_H
Randy, try this: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
Also, I need some time off of this topic for awhile, so contact the author if you will please. He is more qualified than I to answer your questions.
It is not the actual survey, but I need more time to get the original, and I don't have time presently. Please excuse me but I need to support Uncle George and my stomach. Thank you.
What has been discovered by all of this, is that removing speed limits doesn't result in everyone suddenly driving at insanely high speeds. When they are removed, most drivers will increase their speed initially, but soon return to the speed at which they feel most comfortable. That speed is usually not much more than the speed at which they felt comfortable before the limits were lifted. Since half the drivers usually drive above limits when limits are in place, (10 to 15 mph over), it is not significant to them whether the signs are there or not; they are simply no longer "criminals". What is MORE relevant, is that when limits are lifted, those same drivers, upon returning to their "comfortable" speeds, do it while STAYING IN THE RIGHT LANE, because they expect faster drivers to be present and they are thus consciously staying out of the faster drivers' way. This results in the safer conditions which are experienced when limits are lifted. And undoubtedly accounts for the decrease of accidents and deaths among the fastest drivers. (Isn't that the case on the autobahns? Then we, in our sophomorish wisdom, already knew it was safer to lift limits). Currently, we obviously have the brain dead drivers who park in the left lane at or near the speed limit, and think no one will be traveling any faster because it is deemed illegal to do so. And accidents and deaths occur. We have known this for years, but ignore it, because we are told since birth that slower and regulated is safer. What a crock!!
Also, I need some time off of this topic for awhile, so contact the author if you will please. He is more qualified than I to answer your questions.
It is not the actual survey, but I need more time to get the original, and I don't have time presently. Please excuse me but I need to support Uncle George and my stomach. Thank you.
What has been discovered by all of this, is that removing speed limits doesn't result in everyone suddenly driving at insanely high speeds. When they are removed, most drivers will increase their speed initially, but soon return to the speed at which they feel most comfortable. That speed is usually not much more than the speed at which they felt comfortable before the limits were lifted. Since half the drivers usually drive above limits when limits are in place, (10 to 15 mph over), it is not significant to them whether the signs are there or not; they are simply no longer "criminals". What is MORE relevant, is that when limits are lifted, those same drivers, upon returning to their "comfortable" speeds, do it while STAYING IN THE RIGHT LANE, because they expect faster drivers to be present and they are thus consciously staying out of the faster drivers' way. This results in the safer conditions which are experienced when limits are lifted. And undoubtedly accounts for the decrease of accidents and deaths among the fastest drivers. (Isn't that the case on the autobahns? Then we, in our sophomorish wisdom, already knew it was safer to lift limits). Currently, we obviously have the brain dead drivers who park in the left lane at or near the speed limit, and think no one will be traveling any faster because it is deemed illegal to do so. And accidents and deaths occur. We have known this for years, but ignore it, because we are told since birth that slower and regulated is safer. What a crock!!
By far the worst driving experience is the right-to-left lane, no blinker, speed limit maintaining shift while you're driving casually at 10-15 higher than the posted and coming up on them wth 4-5 people behind you.
Also, unless you have a rocket on the back of your minivan, it's probably not a great idea to cut someone off in said fashion.
07-11-2006, 06:12 PM
#12
Team Owner
I know we are drifting off topic here but having driven in the UK and Europe as well as North America I have to agree with the above POST.
Accidents as well as road rage is generally caused by someon wanting to go faster than the flow of traffic. In Europe and the UK there seam to be a lot of Public service announcements about " keep right unless to past " , and if you try to pass on the inside you are likely to get run off the road.
In north Americe very little if anything is done to enforce this law. People "sit" in the fast lane and just won't move. They think they are doing the speed limit and are fine in the fast line. This causes impatience, erratic driving, road rage and accidents. Ifpeople stayed out of the pasing lanes and were ticketed for not pulling in when passing . The police would catch there speeders, there would be less road rage, and everyone would get home safe ..
..... end of rant ...
Accidents as well as road rage is generally caused by someon wanting to go faster than the flow of traffic. In Europe and the UK there seam to be a lot of Public service announcements about " keep right unless to past " , and if you try to pass on the inside you are likely to get run off the road.
In north Americe very little if anything is done to enforce this law. People "sit" in the fast lane and just won't move. They think they are doing the speed limit and are fine in the fast line. This causes impatience, erratic driving, road rage and accidents. Ifpeople stayed out of the pasing lanes and were ticketed for not pulling in when passing . The police would catch there speeders, there would be less road rage, and everyone would get home safe ..
..... end of rant ...
07-12-2006, 11:03 AM
#13
Three Wheelin'
Iceman in the above post is correct--in America, I don't think that holding up traffic or not moving right to allow traffic to pass is even a ticketable offense. That is a large part of the problem. The funny thing is, most of the idiots doing it either A. Think they are doing their public citizen duty by forcing everyone to go the speed limit or what that person deems a "safe" speed [I don't have to move as I am already going 5 over--you can be happy behind me and thank me for keeping our roads 'safer']; or B. They have no freakin clue that they are not supposed to be in the left lane or just refuse to use their mirrors like 85% of our country.
Another thing that probably adds to the fact that people won't allow faster traffic to pass is that our signs here say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT". With the freakin inferiority complex sooooooo many Americans have, no one is going to think they are going "slow". The signs should read "LEFT LANES FOR PASSING ONLY--KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS".
Anyhow, our Country is too full of litigious ingrates and vultures, and if the speed limits were raised or done away with, you'd have idiots that shouldn't have a driver's license in the first place injuring themselves in accidents, then suing the government for creating an 'unsafe' situation.
Another thing that probably adds to the fact that people won't allow faster traffic to pass is that our signs here say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT". With the freakin inferiority complex sooooooo many Americans have, no one is going to think they are going "slow". The signs should read "LEFT LANES FOR PASSING ONLY--KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS".
Anyhow, our Country is too full of litigious ingrates and vultures, and if the speed limits were raised or done away with, you'd have idiots that shouldn't have a driver's license in the first place injuring themselves in accidents, then suing the government for creating an 'unsafe' situation.
07-12-2006, 02:44 PM
#14
928 Barrister
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Texas and Colorado now have changed their signs to read "Keep Right Except to Pass", thankfully. Now if the rest of the nation would simply adopt that wording might be on the road to improvement.
The cynic in me says: "But what makes you think anyone in a position to effect a change wants a change?" Why would the insurance companies want to stop accidents and traffic citations? It's easy way to increase rates. The legal profession surely wouldn't want traffic to flow properly: think of all the revenue they would lose. And don't even think about the courts and judges and prosecutors who have a license to steal as it is. Then there are the body repair shops, parts suppliers, rental car companies, psychiatrists, surgeons, hospitals and emergency rooms, and finally....mr. Bear who loves to break the boredom by laughing at the misfortune and subservience of others, and to justify their job by compiling more and higher crime statistics. (of course I'm generalizing, and there are exceptions, though few).
But the real culpability rests with each of us. We run this country if we choose to do so. We can raise a stink if we really care. Our representatives are sensitive to public opinion. We have the facts now (traffic engineers have known the facts for years, and the latest studies prove the need for change in attitudes and practice), and can make our indignation known by being actively involved in demanding change. We can also resist to let the system victimize us by challenging it. Most of all, we can cease telling everyone else what they want to hear. Here is a start: http://www.bhspi.org/ This group is about effecting change through legal action to set precedent on which real reform may be built. It is about removing the blank check that has been given to the "enforcement and judicial system" that continues to pervert and milk the
populace. I will send copies of the Montana Study to my legislators, and the newspapers. Keep the pressure up. End of sermon.
The cynic in me says: "But what makes you think anyone in a position to effect a change wants a change?" Why would the insurance companies want to stop accidents and traffic citations? It's easy way to increase rates. The legal profession surely wouldn't want traffic to flow properly: think of all the revenue they would lose. And don't even think about the courts and judges and prosecutors who have a license to steal as it is. Then there are the body repair shops, parts suppliers, rental car companies, psychiatrists, surgeons, hospitals and emergency rooms, and finally....mr. Bear who loves to break the boredom by laughing at the misfortune and subservience of others, and to justify their job by compiling more and higher crime statistics.
(of course I'm generalizing, and there are exceptions, though few).But the real culpability rests with each of us. We run this country if we choose to do so. We can raise a stink if we really care. Our representatives are sensitive to public opinion. We have the facts now (traffic engineers have known the facts for years, and the latest studies prove the need for change in attitudes and practice), and can make our indignation known by being actively involved in demanding change. We can also resist to let the system victimize us by challenging it. Most of all, we can cease telling everyone else what they want to hear. Here is a start: http://www.bhspi.org/ This group is about effecting change through legal action to set precedent on which real reform may be built. It is about removing the blank check that has been given to the "enforcement and judicial system" that continues to pervert and milk the
populace. I will send copies of the Montana Study to my legislators, and the newspapers. Keep the pressure up. End of sermon.
07-12-2006, 04:35 PM
#15
Instructor
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Osos, Ca
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very rare that anyone ever recognizes what the meaning of someone behind them in the fast lane flashing their brights at them, I used to do it all the time, but most people wouldn't move over, they'd just flip me off, so now I drive with my brights on all the time on the freeway.
Now they think that I'M the moron, but at least they move over more often.
Now they think that I'M the moron, but at least they move over more often.