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