
85 Mile Per Hour Speed Limit in Texas: Approve?
Fef
2012/06/07 16:33:18
The Texas Department of Transportation said today a toll road being built from San Antonio to north of Austin could be the first road in the country to have a posted 85 mile per hour speed limit.
"It was designed under extremely high design parameters," said Darren McDaniel, the Speed Management Director for the department, which builds and manages all Texas highways.
Toll road two thirds completed runs from I-10 east of San Antonio to Georgetown, north of Austin
Read More: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.htm...
Top Opinion
-
DM Twin 2012/06/07 16:54:20Approve






















Sometimes we treated severely injured victims in the ER and they still died. Sometimes they died en route, bypassed the ER, and went directly to the morgue. And sometimes the bodies were bagged at the scene and were taken to the mortuary. Those we heard about from the Ambulance Drivers and Police Officers who had the unenviable job of being first on the scene.
In virtually all cases, the biggest determining factor of how bad the injuries were was speed: the higher the speed, the worse the accident and associated injuries.
Interestingly, though, a negative factor in injury severity is alcohol. A drunk driver (or passenger) is frequently LESS severely injured than other passengers in the same car or other cars involved in the same accident. The reason: drunk people are more relaxed at the momen...
Sometimes we treated severely injured victims in the ER and they still died. Sometimes they died en route, bypassed the ER, and went directly to the morgue. And sometimes the bodies were bagged at the scene and were taken to the mortuary. Those we heard about from the Ambulance Drivers and Police Officers who had the unenviable job of being first on the scene.
In virtually all cases, the biggest determining factor of how bad the injuries were was speed: the higher the speed, the worse the accident and associated injuries.
Interestingly, though, a negative factor in injury severity is alcohol. A drunk driver (or passenger) is frequently LESS severely injured than other passengers in the same car or other cars involved in the same accident. The reason: drunk people are more relaxed at the moment of impact while people who are sober and aware of what's happening tend to tense up and, at the least, get more fractures of the long bones. (Being asleep when the accident happens can give the same results.)
I suppose, if you wanted to, you could try to make the case that driving while drunk or asleep is safer than sober and alert.
Your tale of driving 80 - 85 mph on the roads of West Texas and being passed by women in ranch pickups is interesting but hardly compelling. I've driven in rural, Upstate New York where rush hour consisted of three cars on the same 20 mile stretch of road at the same time. I've been in 5:00pm traffic on the George Washington Bridge going from Manhattan into New Jersey. That was when the National speed limit was 55mph, but God help the poor soul doing less than 70 in that traffic!
I've had the same and similar experiences driving in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and I5 going through the San Joaquin Valley, as well as the freeways of the foothills of the Los Angeles Basin.
Ditto Eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana vs Portland, Or and Seattle, Wa.
Granted, improvements in technology and design have improved gas mileage and the crash worthiness of more modern vehicles. But that doesn't change physics and the way the human body responds to the stresses and strains of an mva. And, all other factors being equal, the one thing you can count on is: More speed equals more injuries and deaths.
So you walk and the rest of us will enjoy improve equipment and lowering death rates,even while speed of travel increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...
The data presented in the wikipedia article you reference correlates deaths, miles traveled and population. Two glaring flaws in using this data to support the claim that "it's safer to go faster" is that, 1) there is absolutely NO data about vehicle SPEED, which is the topic of this discussion; and 2) there is the caveat stated at the top of one of the tables: "The table does not include injuries resulting from accidents in which no fatalities occurred."; meaning it's not only not correlated to the topic, but also incomplete.
That's what we expect to hear from politicians.
Me: I predicted that increased speed will result in more severe accidents, injuries and deaths.
You: Accused me of using pseudo-science. Claimed that reality shows that inreased speed resulted in decreased deaths.
Me: I gave you my credentials and the experience from which I draw my conclusions.
You: Restate my conclusion. Then restate yours. Then reference a wikipedia article.
Me: After reviewing the article you cite as your authority, I point out that it's not even on-topic, much less supportive of your premise.
You: "OK, ignore the data I cited. It's not important, now. Just trust me."
Me: I make a somewhat snide reference to politiciations.
You: Now reference your experience in sales, with over 1.5 million miles traveled.
So now we're down to your experience vs my experience. And you expect me to believe and accept that your 30 yrs. and 1.5 million miles of driving experience as a salesman somehow trumps my 20 yrs. of ER experience dealing with the wide array of traumatic injuries, suffering and deaths caused by mvas, the severity of which was directly related to speed..... Sorry, that's not going to happen.
Without apology, I claim my experience to be more valid than your experience. Yours can only claim that (apparently) in 30 yrs. and 1.5...
Me: I predicted that increased speed will result in more severe accidents, injuries and deaths.
You: Accused me of using pseudo-science. Claimed that reality shows that inreased speed resulted in decreased deaths.
Me: I gave you my credentials and the experience from which I draw my conclusions.
You: Restate my conclusion. Then restate yours. Then reference a wikipedia article.
Me: After reviewing the article you cite as your authority, I point out that it's not even on-topic, much less supportive of your premise.
You: "OK, ignore the data I cited. It's not important, now. Just trust me."
Me: I make a somewhat snide reference to politiciations.
You: Now reference your experience in sales, with over 1.5 million miles traveled.
So now we're down to your experience vs my experience. And you expect me to believe and accept that your 30 yrs. and 1.5 million miles of driving experience as a salesman somehow trumps my 20 yrs. of ER experience dealing with the wide array of traumatic injuries, suffering and deaths caused by mvas, the severity of which was directly related to speed..... Sorry, that's not going to happen.
Without apology, I claim my experience to be more valid than your experience. Yours can only claim that (apparently) in 30 yrs. and 1.5M miles, nothing bad happened to you. Mine demonstrates, beyond any doubt in my mind and the minds of those who shared or had similar experience, that people involved in car accidents get hurt. And the faster they're going when it occurs the worse the damage to the human body.
I will stipulate that many salesmen might agree with you. But I will assert without hesitation that the majority of Hospital ER, EMT and Law Enforcement Personnel will echo my conclusion.
At 65 mph a car gets (x-13%) miles per gallon.
At 75 mph a car gets (x-22%) miles per gallon.
At 85 mph a car gets (x-39%) miles per gallon.
If the person want to pay a toll so they can get 39% less miles per gallon Fine. Let them.
BUT just remember most cars cannot travel a 85 mph for extended periods unless properly maintained AND has the correct tires on it. That single item should be enough not to allow this.
BUT since it is a private toll road FEDERAL SAFETY LAWS DON'T APPLY.
Frankly I think it is stupid.