On Nov 18, 5:14*am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:28:24 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
"Perhaps by 2030 we'll be able to lawfully drive as fast as we should have
been allowed to drive back in 1990. But don't count on it. There's too much
revenue at stake."
and ...
"If it was "safe" and "reasonable" for a 1958 Chevy with drum brakes and
bias-plys [and independent suspension, non-independent rear axle, anti-sway
bars, etc.) to operate at 70, what of a 2013 Chevy with high-performance
four-wheel disc brakes and 17-inch alloy wheels shod with modern radials
designed for safe travel at continuous speeds in excess of 130 MPH? There
isn't a new (or recent vintage) car that isn't inherently safer (more
controllable, less likely to crash) at 90 MPH than any car of 1958 -- or
1968 (or 1978) -- was at 70. Yet speed limits are, for the most part, just
about back to where they were circa 1970."
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/1...-a-speed-limit
Regardless how good the cars are made, I think the weak point is
people's reflexes and reaction times. * The only fallacy to this is
that I have also seen speed limits change back and forth for given
stretches of roads. * FWIW, many years ago I was told out in west
Texas, people used to drive at 90+ mph minimum tho the speed limit was
less. *This was where it was desert and straight boring roads.
Re rflexes/reaction time. Those went out the window when it became
standard to tailgate. 90% of the cars I see in moderate to dense
traffic are way to close. Just eyeball the next clump of cars you
see.
Re 90+ Back then, just as today, such claims are 90% BS I spent many
years in
the 60/70s in Central Tex (San Angelo/San Antonio) Traffic on those
wide open,
straight streches were the usual 'posted plus 10%' which is common in
every state
I live on a major 2 lane hiway and edveryone says "drive 65 and you'll
get run over (posted is 60). Odd, I hit that highway for a 50mile
trip, set my speedo at 64/65 and will be passed at most by two
vehicles and will pass maybe 3 in that 50 miles.
Harry K