The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 18)

/p>

Eric Peters is too sanguine about the risks of speeding on our highways. Although many drivers have the skills and equipment to safely travel 75-80 mph, there are many more who do not. I see too many distracted drivers talking on cell phones traveling at unsafe speeds. I doubt that some of them have checked their tire pressure in months, just to mention one equipment-related factor.

p>As to the reduction in highway deaths, don't forget that there have been great improvements in the trauma response apparatus during this time; some of this reduction actually reflects better survival DESPITE high speed crashes. br> -- Joseph Hamad , M.D. br> Cincinnati, Ohio /p> p> I agree with your article ("Safe At Any Speed") with one observation. There appears to be a polarization of traffic patterns associated with the change back to "high speed" driving. It seems there are only two types of drivers these days, those that drive below the posted speed limit (with a cell phone attached to an ear, and the seat set in the "waaaay back" position) and the rest of us at 5 to 10 mph over the posted speed limit. This creates some dangerous situations, especially on the interstate system. Along with higher speed limits we need a better system of training young folks merging into the driving scene and monitoring older folks driving abilities more frequently after age 65 (OK, 70, well OK, 75, or maybe 80). I'm sure AARP loves this topic. I don't have the answer but I know we can't continue to just issue licenses to anyone that can parallel park and call them qualified nor can we continue to allow older folks to drive through grocery stores that don't have drive-through service. It's not about restricting young folks just because they're young or getting rid of the older folks just because they're old. It's a matter of recognizing and accepting the fact that young folks are simply less experienced drivers and eye/hand coordination as well as our faculties decrease with age. I'm sure none of this makes for a good 15-second sound bite, so it probably has no political legs. br> -- unsigned /p>

I certainly admire Mr. Peters's tenacity and single-minded purpose. This article, after all, being his 427th published on Spectator online in the last six months pushing the exact same agenda. I don't disagree with Mr. Peters at all. Normally on a highway I settle in at a comfy 70-75 mph if traffic allows. I find that to be a perfect speed for me, not too fast and not too slow. Yet there is something in his logic that strikes me as odd. Mr. Peters concludes that since fatalities have gone down since speeds have gone up, that must mean that faster speeds are safer. Come on, man. Don't you think the more likely reason there are fewer fatalities is that the cars themselves are safer? That would seem to make more sense.

topics:
Education, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Federal Budget, Religion, Islam, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Israel, Alaska, Unions, Medicare