Conflict of Interest 3168

Arif Khokar

Did you drive in the 60's? I think not. Roads constructed then were far superior in terms of smoothness and durability. Bridge transitions were often barely perceptible. I hit a portion of I-29x(?) in Chicago as they were moving the barrels to allow access to a newly constructed R lane. The surface was so undulating I felt as if none of my tires were in contact with the pavement at all times. I slowed from 55 to 45 and detected no improvement so moved back into my previous lane.

My cousin has made asphalt since the 60's. Material intended for public road use must have specific properties and an inspector checks to see if both the raw and finished materials meet specs. Then he leaves. The material is then "stretched" by adding dirt and dust that inhibits the materials bonding and cuts the contractors expenses thereby increasing his profit. Addition of 3-6 tons in 20-40K lb. "batches" is common.

Objective data? Who needs that to know people are using cell phones, PDA's, TV's, CD players and maybe their vehicle's own computer while driving, stuff that wasn't even available then? AFAIK there is no objective data concerning drivers skill levels or safety consciousness so I'm left to my own perceptions. But we didn't need terms like road rage, aggressive driver, MFFY, LLB, Sloth, etc. because there just weren't that many of 'em. People unpleasant womaned about Sunday Drivers but I think most recognized and respected a person's right to drive as they saw fit, within the law. I don't see much of that atbreastude on the road today or in this NG.

I guess... That prediction is based on the 15 mph over that many states use to qualify a speeding offense as more serious. 1:1 is not the ratio though.

Simply asking that question places in doubt your ability to understand the answer. It's because we all have to share the road. Drivers of various abilities are on the road, old people with slower reaction times, new drivers with rapid reaction times but little experience, drunk drivers, stupid drivers, the list goes on. To set the limit for "ideal conditions and an open road" is simply stupid because conditions are *usually* not ideal. At night, for example!

And because so many stupid people are on the road. Many CA drivers drive in packs. You should see it. Hundreds of cars side-by-side going 70-80 mph with about 20 feet between 'em. If the car in the next lane's bumper should get in front of the bumper a driver is "stuck" behind they feel compelled to execute a ridiculously dangerous lane change to move their bumper 6 inches further ahead! Of course traffic is ever fluctuating so in a moment or two the space they just vacated might become more "advantageous". It would be hilarious if it wasn't so goddamm dangerous. And it f***s up their traffic to no end. And it happens day after day after day with few, if any of 'em ever getting a clue. Personally, I don't want these knuckleheads permitted to drive even faster.

Prevailing speeds are what they are due to a lack of enforcement. There's your de facto increased limit, I'd enjoy it if I were you. I'd like to see all drug laws repealed. I'd like to be permitted to put anything in my body that I choose in the privacy of my own home. I want to walk into a pharmacy and ask for a bottle of Xanax or a bundle o' spliffs. There's no harm in it except perhaps to myself. People want a lot of things. I'm never gonna get that and you're never gonna get speed limits raised based on "people drive that fast anyway" or "the 85th percentile drives that fast" or "the people demand it". Those just aren't logical basis for making law. -----

- gpsman