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".