Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!neal
From: neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Fast driving
Message-ID: <314@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 19:39:45 EST
Article-I.D.: denelcor.314
Posted: Wed Feb  8 19:39:45 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 03:45:01 EST
References: <244@erix.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO
Lines: 25

**************************************************************************

>Trying to show balance off the number lives saved by lowering a speed limit
>against how much extra time is used in lives is ridiculous. Ask the people
>in hospital who are there because someone drove to fast. Also try looking at
>the total cost in time, money and lives of road accidents. Any reduction
>leads to large savings.

Au contraire, any other approach is ridiculous.  If you consider the
extreme case, obviously there would be no traffic fatalaties if there were
no traffic.  Since this is not acceptable, we need to find some way of
balancing number and severity of accidents with our desire (or need) to
get where we want to go.

Given that some sort of balance is needed, we might as well approach it
rationally.   (I realize that since we're involved with laws and therefore
politics, that will never happen; but I can dream.)  Balancing lives saved
by not being in an accident with lives wasted by taking (e.g.) twice as
long to get where you want to go sounds like a reasonable first approach
to me.

			Regards,
				Neal Weidenhofer
				Denelcor, Inc.
				!denelcor!neal