Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uicsl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!ashwin From: ashwin@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: danger region: nonintercepted speeds - (nf) Message-ID: <26900002@uicsl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 13:13:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uicsl.26900002 Posted: Tue Aug 7 13:13:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Aug-84 02:45:26 EDT References: <413@tesla.UUCP> Lines: 19 Nf-ID: #R:tesla:-41300:uicsl:26900002:000:887 Nf-From: uicsl!ashwin Aug 7 12:13:00 1984 #R:tesla:-41300:uicsl:26900002:000:887 uicsl!ashwin Aug 7 12:13:00 1984 <> I think you missed the point of the discussion, Tom. I agree with what you have to say, but we were looking for a "safe speed vs. zone (or state)" distribution based on people's experiences. I do *not* advocate religiously setting the ol' cruise control to 62; however, at speeds of approximately 62mph under average conditions and circumstances you have a good chance of not being stopped in IL, IN and OH. The "approximately" qualification covers speedometer error, abnormal traffic or road conditions, and the cop whose wife had a headache the night before. Incidently, in California they don't seem to have any speed limits. I recently drove over 2000 miles in a round-the-state trip, and I didn't see a single vehicle stopped for speeding, even though the traffic was moving at speeds between 60 and 90. 70 to 75 appeared to be the best speed to "stay with the traffic".