1) A lower speed limit means a lower death and injury rate. Presumably, your life has some value.
2) There ARE other forms of transportation. You have heard of trains, planes, buses and the like, right?
3) We are at war, and money for oil in foreign hands is one of the weapons against us in that war. If we the people decide that you must sacrifice your precious time, or stop using your vehicle so much, well that's democracy for you.
Other than that, nice post
Congressman Billybob
First in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual"
See post #7.
I hope that was sarcasm, because it sounds like you are advocating socialism.
Speed limits should be based on engineering, not social engineering.
lololol.
A lower limit on BAC levels would also mean a lower death an injury rate. But if you've spent any time at all on some of FR's infamous pro-drunk driving threads, you know - without a doubt - that many FReepers are in FAVOR of abolishing all DWI laws.
After all, nobody but MADD nanny-staters are in favor of imposing drunk driving restrictions on us, right?
If we simply reduce the demand curve to a point lower than the supply curve, the bidding dies down and the price declines.
Even though I can't do much as an individual to affect the supply curve, I can do things that affect the demand curve, and which improve my MPG. One is to drive slower. Another is to drive prepared for action. We don't know how bad this is going to get so it may be necessary for a peacetime highway militia to rise up and make sure everybody slows down.
No need for the government to get involved either. All they should do is report to the scene of "incidents" to pick up the pieces, and then retire to their police enclaves along the major highways.
Now remember, I said that's if it gets real bad ~ at the moment it's just a nuisance but it will get worse before it gets better as long as the Democrats are in power.
You can get the same efficiency by add a couple of pounds of air pressure to your tires.
You must never have driven between cities in the western states, otherwise you would see the folly in bringing back the double nickel.
I can only assume by your statement above you live in an area with federally subsidized mass transit that includes bus or train and have an airport close at hand. Sorry Charlie, those are not options for tens of millions here in the USA.
That's just it -- WE THE PEOPLE aren't being allowed to decide. Between wacko environmentalists and power hungry politicians, drilling for oil and building new refineries has been taken off the table.
It is absurd to force us to accept the negligible savings of a lower speed limit when the most obvious solutions are being trounced.
Your point that a lower death and injury rate may be true, but that is not the main reason being given for lowering the speed limit.
Also, you cannot impute a charge of one's whole life to this calculation. The only amount that can be imputed in a statistically valid manner, for any given trip at highway speeds is
(T / L) x abs(( DP55 - DP70) x V)
where:
T is the time elapsed, in minutes, while driving at highway speeds
L is the age of the person, in minutes
V is the value of the life of the person in question
DPX is the probability of death occuring when driving at X miles/hr.
You will find this number, should you run the calculation and depending on what value you assign to V, to be something on the order of .00001, certainly nowhere near 1 penny pertypical trip.
That was an argument when the speed limit was raised from 55 to today's limits. The reports of highway carnage were grossly exaggerated - the death toll didn't rise, and IIRC, it fell. Perhaps people are less fatigued after driving 7-8 hours than they are driving 10 hours while covering the same distance.
There's a big, big difference between "we the people" and "we the politicians". The people will NEVER voluntarily settle for the 55 mph limit, if it would ever be put to a vote. The politicians, however, will gladly shove it down our throats once again.
Not necessarily true. Purdue: 70 mph limits safe as 65 mph
1. You can go to the netherworld.
2. You call yourself a conservative? I bet you’re pro-mccain too.
3. Fat chance anyone here will vote for you.
I am sure we all understand that definition of "Democracy"...You know the one, involving three wolves and one sheep?
Dear Congressman:
I've always appreciated your postings and have concurred 100% on all of them except this one. I suffered thru the Carter debacle and the so-called 55 speed limit years and found both Carter and the reduced speed limit nothing but crap and nothing more than an income generator for the highway patrols.........
People are naturally going to exceed whatever mandated speed limit whether its 55 or 70 and statistics prove that most of the fatal accidents are "in city" rather than expressway. And as for the expressway accidents, most of them occur during the winter months due to snow and icy conditions totally unrelated to posted speed limits since most of the drivers were driving below posted speeds yet in excess of the safety margins afforded the weather conditions.
You know darn well that this reduced speed limit proposal by Congress (as well as my state governor Granholm) is nothing more than a useless feel good proposal in order to make the ignorant believe that the U.S. Govt. is looking out for us.
You, Congressman Billybob, above all people, should be ashamed of yourself........./
No particular evidence to back this up. When the odious 55 was dropped the highway death rate continues to drop. Sorry Charlie try sticking to facts.
2) There ARE other forms of transportation. You have heard of trains, planes, buses and the like, right?
Once again dunno what you're smoking, and I'm not sure I want to try any. But I don't live near an airport, train station, or bus line. I could drive 6 miles one way to the nearest marta rail station, take the train in the transfer point and take the other train out to the station nearest work, and then walk a mile and a half one way taking about 1 1/2 hours each way. OR I could just drive the 12 miles one way taking 20 minutes each way.
) We yadda yadda , well that's democracy for you
Wow dude, you sound like Obama with his sacrifice stuff. The purpose of this nation is (or at least it used to be) to provide everyone the freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of happpiness, not to provide resources for our masters (but not betters) in Wash DC to squander on moronic central planning ideas right out of the former soviet union.
It has probably escaped your notice, but we don't live in a democracy. We theoreticlly live in a constitutional republic where there are limitations on the tyranny of the majority. For example if a majority of the posters on this thread voted that "congressman Billybob" should buy everyone on the thread steak dinner with champaign, you would of course feel absolutely no moral obligation to do so because it is contrary to your interests. There are limits to democracy.
No particular evidence to back this up. When the odious 55 was dropped the highway death rate continues to drop. Sorry Charlie try sticking to facts.
2) There ARE other forms of transportation. You have heard of trains, planes, buses and the like, right?
Once again dunno what you're smoking, and I'm not sure I want to try any. But I don't live near an airport, train station, or bus line. I could drive 6 miles one way to the nearest marta rail station, take the train in the transfer point and take the other train out to the station nearest work, and then walk a mile and a half one way taking about 1 1/2 hours each way. OR I could just drive the 12 miles one way taking 20 minutes each way.
) We yadda yadda , well that's democracy for you
Wow dude, you sound like Obama with his sacrifice stuff. The purpose of this nation is (or at least it used to be) to provide everyone the freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of happpiness, not to provide resources for our masters (but not betters) in Wash DC to squander on moronic central planning ideas right out of the former soviet union.
It has probably escaped your notice, but we don't live in a democracy. We theoreticlly live in a constitutional republic where there are limitations on the tyranny of the majority. For example if a majority of the posters on this thread voted that "congressman Billybob" should buy everyone on the thread steak dinner with champaign, you would of course feel absolutely no moral obligation to do so because it is contrary to your interests. There are limits to democracy.
Up to this point Billybob I had an ounce or two of respect for your position, but unless I missed the /sarcasm in this one, you lost me completely. Time is money, and a 55 limit previously imposed did absolutely nothing but convince thinking folks of the inanity of such a law/rule.
The real hypocrisy lies in not banning aircraft passenger flights which exceed 55 and suck up a whole lot of fuel. Same with any transportation means exceeding said 55.
An automobile trip across country at 55 vs 75 unfortunately it can’t yet be legally done because of various state speed restriction, but if it were possible, would cost you another day of travel the expense of which would exceed the fuel saving by some degree.
The big 5 5 scam is nothing more than window dressing, smoke and mirrors, and pc feel good. The Congress needs to get on with providing real solutions to the foreign oil purchases by not standing in the way of drilling, refining, our own, instead of someone else’s, and providing incentives for development of energy sources like nuclear etc.
Wind and solar are pipe dreams until the distribution network, and storage problems can be overcome, not to mention 30% efficiency at best.
There are at least a dozen more realities related to safe travel in America, none of which relate in any way to the five five. The formula for time speed and distance says the faster you go the faster you get there. Airplanes other than ultralights, do not fly well at 55. They do get improved fuel mileage by slowing down, to a point, but when you are invested in getting people where they need to go, speed is more important than economy.
We have the safest roads generally, and automobiles are far faster safer and reliable than in the past, everything from a technological standpoint says to me we ought to be able to go at least ten miles an hour faster in any speed zone, than we do now, and do it safely.
An effort that I believe would pay far greater dividends in the long run is develop a traffic system that keeps people moving, vice the daily view I get at numerous intersections, where no one is moving.
Watch and see, for example yesterday at one there were forty five cars and trucks stopped with no one going anywhere, and when they got a light one lane moved to turn left, five cars got through forty were still stopped.
I’m quite sure large cities are much worse, and all stopped except perhaps Prius owners had their engines running, that is zero miles per gallon while stopped.
Wonder how long the stupidity of 55 will last this time if it comes to pass. We can only hope that sanity prevails. I’m not holding my breath.
I have a lot of respect for you but I must chime in on this one.
Since the 55 was dropped the death rate has steadily decreased and that is with a HUGE increase in miles driven per year.
Other forms of transportation:
Trains do not go where most people need to go and then they must rent a car if they need to get around. Many, including myself, cannot afford to rent cars all the time when they travel.
The cost of fuel is making airlines increase their ticket prices and then many, including myself, will not subject themselves to the degradation encountered while being strip searched at the airports by near brain dead government employees and then being treated like cattle and criminals by flight attendants. Plus you must get to the car rental thing again.
Buses? No way! Bus trips takes so long that almost nobody can afford the time it takes to stop at every little village to pick up riders. Plus the car rental thingy comes up again.
Sure, we are at war and quite a bit of the cash goes to our enemies but most people know it and are willing to trade that for now. Too bad Congress didn't do the right thing about drilling on our soil and off the coasts.
As an aside: AAA sponsored a 25 year long (If I remember) study that concluded speed limits were not the factor in accidents but “speed differential” between vehicles.
When the differential exceeded ten miles per hour the risk of accidents became much greater.
This study was published sometime in the 1990’s and was promptly buried by the media and AAA itself.
Highways were, and still are, designed for safety at the 80th percentile speed (the speed that 80 percent of vehicles travel) and are designed for 80 miles per hour. Remember that the designs were implemented when cars were not designed as well and did not have the great suspensions and tires they have now.
Studies have been published (I do not have time to find them but they are there) showing that 70 MPH was a comfortable speed for most drivers.
In the hundreds of thousands of miles I have driven on the interstates I can put in my anecdotal evidence that 65-70 is very comfortable for me and it seems that most of the people on the roads around me agree as I pass very few cars and get passed by few.
At 55 MPH I remember cars flying by at very large differential speeds and I still do not consider the speeders as criminals deserving of a ticket. They were law abiding citizens traveling at a comfortable and DESIGNED rate of speed and the limits were jacked down to promote a supposed savings but really became a huge source of income for governments and to let them chip away at our liberties.
55 MPH is not a comfortable speed. It makes for great extra income for Government though.
It may take a few years but cut the 55 talk and drill here, drill now. We will walk the razors edge until we can run on mostly our own oil.
Take care and thank you, sir.