Remember back in the 1960s and ‘70s when motorists could cruise along at 70 miles per hour on Interstate highways? It’s not a done deal yet, but drivers might be able to legally go 70 again soon.
Gov. Mitch Daniels has said he does not oppose and would sign into law a bill that would increase the speed limit on rural Interstate highways to 70 miles per hour for cars and 65 for trucks. The only thing that would make more sense would be to allow trucks and cars to go the same speed. Traffic going at different speeds causes more accidents than the speed itself.
The bill passed out of the Senate's Commerce and Transportation Committee last week. It must still be approved by the full Senate and House and then signed by the governor before it becomes law. The bill’s chances for passages were unclear.
Higher speed limits are opposed by the insurance industry and by safety advocates who believe that higher speeds will increase accidents and insurance rates. They say increasing the speed limit will only tempt motorists to go faster than they already do.
But that belief is unsupported. Twenty-nine other states have already increased speed limits to at least 70 miles per hour. There is no indication that drivers in those states are speeding more often than they are in Indiana.
It’s true that the fatality rates for accidents in some states with the highest speed limits are greater than in Indiana. But it’s only common sense that if you crash into something going 70 or 75 you’ll be more likely to die than if you’re only going 60 or 65. It still should be up to the driver to decide if they want to take that extra risk.
I’m not a speed demon. Generally, I don’t drive more than five miles per hour over the speed limit. I still get passed more often than I pass others. But I do believe that Interstate highways were built for speed. They are generally safe as long as all traffic is moving along at approximately the same speed. Increasing the speed limit will make that happen.
Ideally, trucks and cars should all be allowed to go 70 miles per hour on rural Interstate highways. Obviously, motorists should reduce their speeds during inclement weather or during times of high traffic. But going 70 or even 75 miles per hour on a lightly-traveled rural stretch of highway is not that dangerous.
It won’t happen this year, but in addition to increasing speed limits on rural Interstates, consideration should be given to increasing speed limits on some multi-lane divided highways other than Interstates, too. For example, the speed limit on U.S. Highway 31 south of Franklin is only 55 miles per hour. This seems unnaturally slow for that stretch of highway. A speed limit of 65 would make more sense.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Gregory D. Server, R-Evansville. He said that people are going 70 anyway. We might as well make the law fit what people are doing.
It probably would bring more motorists into compliance with the law. More importantly, it would allow drivers to cruise along at the speeds that Interstate highways were built to support.
Speed limits increased every decade from the time the car was invented until 1973 when the Arab oil embargo prompted the federal government to mandate a nationwide 55 mile-per-hour limit in order to conserve gasoline.
That ban was eased in 1987 when Congress allowed higher speeds on rural Interstates. It eventually was lifted completely. And most states quickly increased their speed limits to pre-1973 levels. Indiana also increased its speed limit, but only to 65.
It’s time for us to take the final step and allow motorists the freedom to go 70 again.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Cell Phones and Driving
If you’re a young adult, talking on a cell phone while driving will make you drive as though you were 70. So says a new study conducted by the University of Utah. “"It's like instant aging,” said author of the report David Strayer.
Most people have always assumed that talking on a cell phone while driving makes you a worse driver. This is one of the first studies that prove it. In fact, the Strayer study said cell phone use actually makes you less responsive than driving while legally drunk, with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent.
What is somewhat surprising is that using a hands free device made no difference. Being actively part of a conversation is apparently what causes the increase in driver response time. So it’s not really cell phones, per se, that are the culprits; it’s talking.
Advocates who are pushing for a ban on cell phone usage while driving are using the Utah study as ammunition to push their cause through state legislatures. But before governmental bodies respond with knee-jerk reactions, it might be prudent to determine just what the risks of using cell phones really are.
The study showed a driver talking on a cell phone was 18 percent slower in breaking. But that is measured in milliseconds. Although a few milliseconds might be enough to cause an accident, there really isn’t very much of an increase in reaction time because of cell phone usage.
There may be other driving distractions that have an even greater impact, but which nobody is pushing to ban. For example, if talking causes an increase in reaction time, does listening?
If you are heavily engaged in listening to your favorite song on the radio are you more likely to have an accident? If so, maybe radios should be banned from cars.
Does hauling children around cause enough of a distraction that accidents are more likely to happen? If so, maybe there should be a law against kids riding in cars.
Certainly smoking a cigarette while driving is one of the worst offenders in causing distractions. Why are there no advocacy groups demanding a ban on smoking and driving?
And if it is the conversation itself, not the cell phone, then perhaps it should be against the law to talk and drive.
The study showed that young drivers are instantly aged by using cell phones. Yet there is no law against a 70-year-old driving. If fact, older people do not show an increase in their reaction time as a result of cell phone usage; only younger drivers are affected.
It’s true that cell phone usage is something that is best done while not driving. Anything that causes a distraction might lead to an increased risk of having an accident. But that doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. It should be left up to people’s common sense.
The best way to avoid a traffic accident is to drive defensively. Drive under the assumption that every other driver on the road is an idiot that you have to avoid running into. And be patient. Don’t be one of those aggressive drivers that are always in a hurry.
The cautious driver will avoid using cell phones as much as is feasible while driving. But there may be some cases in which time and convenience warrants a slight increase in accident risk, especially if the driver is otherwise undistracted.
We have enough laws that limit personal freedoms, such as the seat belt laws. We don’t need another one.
Most people have always assumed that talking on a cell phone while driving makes you a worse driver. This is one of the first studies that prove it. In fact, the Strayer study said cell phone use actually makes you less responsive than driving while legally drunk, with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent.
What is somewhat surprising is that using a hands free device made no difference. Being actively part of a conversation is apparently what causes the increase in driver response time. So it’s not really cell phones, per se, that are the culprits; it’s talking.
Advocates who are pushing for a ban on cell phone usage while driving are using the Utah study as ammunition to push their cause through state legislatures. But before governmental bodies respond with knee-jerk reactions, it might be prudent to determine just what the risks of using cell phones really are.
The study showed a driver talking on a cell phone was 18 percent slower in breaking. But that is measured in milliseconds. Although a few milliseconds might be enough to cause an accident, there really isn’t very much of an increase in reaction time because of cell phone usage.
There may be other driving distractions that have an even greater impact, but which nobody is pushing to ban. For example, if talking causes an increase in reaction time, does listening?
If you are heavily engaged in listening to your favorite song on the radio are you more likely to have an accident? If so, maybe radios should be banned from cars.
Does hauling children around cause enough of a distraction that accidents are more likely to happen? If so, maybe there should be a law against kids riding in cars.
Certainly smoking a cigarette while driving is one of the worst offenders in causing distractions. Why are there no advocacy groups demanding a ban on smoking and driving?
And if it is the conversation itself, not the cell phone, then perhaps it should be against the law to talk and drive.
The study showed that young drivers are instantly aged by using cell phones. Yet there is no law against a 70-year-old driving. If fact, older people do not show an increase in their reaction time as a result of cell phone usage; only younger drivers are affected.
It’s true that cell phone usage is something that is best done while not driving. Anything that causes a distraction might lead to an increased risk of having an accident. But that doesn’t mean there should be a law against it. It should be left up to people’s common sense.
The best way to avoid a traffic accident is to drive defensively. Drive under the assumption that every other driver on the road is an idiot that you have to avoid running into. And be patient. Don’t be one of those aggressive drivers that are always in a hurry.
The cautious driver will avoid using cell phones as much as is feasible while driving. But there may be some cases in which time and convenience warrants a slight increase in accident risk, especially if the driver is otherwise undistracted.
We have enough laws that limit personal freedoms, such as the seat belt laws. We don’t need another one.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Groundhog Day
As I write this, it is only a week until Groundhog Day. That's right, only 7 more shopping days before that furry creature pops his head out of the ground and tells us if we can put our winter coasts away.
We don’t have a beaver day or a raccoon day or even a bald eagle day. So why does the groundhog get a day of his own, not to mention a Hollywood movie starring Bill Murray?
The groundhog's day is February 2. Granted, it’s not a federal holiday; nobody gets off work. But still, to have a day named after you is quite a feat. But what is special about the groundhog?
It stems from the ancient belief that hibernating creatures were able to predict the arrival of springtime by their emergence. The German immigrants known as Pennsylvania Dutch brought the tradition to America in the 18th century. They had once regarded the badger as the winter-spring barometer. But the job was reassigned to the groundhog after importing their Candlemas traditions to the U.S. Candlemas commemorates the ritual purification of Mary, 40 days after the birth of Jesus.
Candlemas is one of the four "cross-quarters" of the year, occurring half way between the first day of winter and the first day of spring. Traditionally, it was believed that if Candlemas was sunny, the remaining six weeks of winter would be stormy and cold. But if it rained or snowed on Candlemas, the rest of the winter would be mild.
If an animal "sees its shadow," it must be sunny, so more wintry weather is predicted: The groundhog and badger were not the only animals that have been used to predict spring.
Other Europeans used the bear or hedgehog, but in any case the honor belonged to a creature that hibernated. Its emergence symbolized the imminent arrival of spring.
Traditionally, the groundhog is supposed to awaken on February 2 and come up out of his burrow. If he sees his shadow, he will return to the burrow for six more weeks of winter. If he doesn’t see his shadow, he remains outside and starts his year, because he knows that spring has arrived early.
In the U.S., the “official” groundhog is kept in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Every February 2, amid a raucous celebration early in the morning, “Punxsutawney Phil” as the groundhog is called, is pulled from his den by his keepers, who are dressed in tuxedos. Phil then whispers his weather prediction into the ear of his keeper, who then announces it to the anxiously-awaiting crowd. Of course, this is for show.
It’s a fun celebration and a great tradition. But Phil's keepers secretly decide upon the "forecast" in advance of the groundhog's arousal.
Besides, spring always arrives on or near March 21, so whether the groundhog decides to return to his den or remain above ground, the sad fact is spring will always have to wait at least six more weeks.
We don’t have a beaver day or a raccoon day or even a bald eagle day. So why does the groundhog get a day of his own, not to mention a Hollywood movie starring Bill Murray?
The groundhog's day is February 2. Granted, it’s not a federal holiday; nobody gets off work. But still, to have a day named after you is quite a feat. But what is special about the groundhog?
It stems from the ancient belief that hibernating creatures were able to predict the arrival of springtime by their emergence. The German immigrants known as Pennsylvania Dutch brought the tradition to America in the 18th century. They had once regarded the badger as the winter-spring barometer. But the job was reassigned to the groundhog after importing their Candlemas traditions to the U.S. Candlemas commemorates the ritual purification of Mary, 40 days after the birth of Jesus.
Candlemas is one of the four "cross-quarters" of the year, occurring half way between the first day of winter and the first day of spring. Traditionally, it was believed that if Candlemas was sunny, the remaining six weeks of winter would be stormy and cold. But if it rained or snowed on Candlemas, the rest of the winter would be mild.
If an animal "sees its shadow," it must be sunny, so more wintry weather is predicted: The groundhog and badger were not the only animals that have been used to predict spring.
Other Europeans used the bear or hedgehog, but in any case the honor belonged to a creature that hibernated. Its emergence symbolized the imminent arrival of spring.
Traditionally, the groundhog is supposed to awaken on February 2 and come up out of his burrow. If he sees his shadow, he will return to the burrow for six more weeks of winter. If he doesn’t see his shadow, he remains outside and starts his year, because he knows that spring has arrived early.
In the U.S., the “official” groundhog is kept in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Every February 2, amid a raucous celebration early in the morning, “Punxsutawney Phil” as the groundhog is called, is pulled from his den by his keepers, who are dressed in tuxedos. Phil then whispers his weather prediction into the ear of his keeper, who then announces it to the anxiously-awaiting crowd. Of course, this is for show.
It’s a fun celebration and a great tradition. But Phil's keepers secretly decide upon the "forecast" in advance of the groundhog's arousal.
Besides, spring always arrives on or near March 21, so whether the groundhog decides to return to his den or remain above ground, the sad fact is spring will always have to wait at least six more weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)