Re: Fuel efficiency versus speed

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

 Bernard G. Cleyet wrote, in part:

> /// the unexpected concomitant 55 speed result, very
> reduced accident rate. ///


At 18:01 10/7/00 -0500,
Rick Tarara responded:
> I've always considered this argument for lower Interstate speed limits to be
> phony.  How many Interstate Highway accidents are a result of excessive
> speed?  I live very near the Indiana Toll Road and in fact drive it daily.
> Over the past 20 years I don't remember a single accident along this road
> that was solely speed related--speed and adverse weather maybe--but not
> speed.  ////
> Rick
>
> **************************************************
> Richard W. Tarara
> Associate Professor of Physics
> Department of Chemistry & Physics
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> 219-284-4664
> rtarara@saintmarys.edu
>
> FREE Physics Instructional Software
> www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara
>
> Win9.x, WinNT/2000,  Win3.x, Dos, Mac, and PowerMac
> New: Student versions of the Animated Chalkboard
> Windows and Mac  CD-ROMs  now available.
> ****************************************************


I don't have the statistics in front of me - but there
is some evidence supporting Rick's position.

The accidents we like least are the fatal events.
 This requires that vehicles at different speeds, or vehicles
in different directions, collide.

The divided highways with controlled entrances and exits are
good in this respect. Allowing 100mph plus here could hardly
contribute many deaths  - mostly the tire failures, median
crossings, and foggy pileups, I imagine.

 Uncontrolled sideroads onto fast undivided highways are
certainly worse. Allowing no more than 10 mph here would certainly
 steeply reduce the traffic deaths - but at too great a social
cost, I fear.



brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>  Altus OK
                Eureka!