55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Morrison wrote:

>Anything over 80 IS reckless driving.

No it isn't.


--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

Jeff Morrison wrote:

> Anything over 80 IS reckless driving.

Hardly. That's the speed of traffic (or maybe 3 to 5 mph faster ) on
many interstates.

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

Bill wrote:

> For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
> out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
> property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
> limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
> not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
> drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
> limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
> passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
> will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
> of federal gold.

Not only that, but they could also stop collecting the federal gas tax
(and lower the gas price a little bit).

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 02:12:30 -0700 (PDT), XOZ
> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 3:56 am, "Matt Wiser" > wrote:
>> Anyone notice Sen. John Warner (R-VA) proposing a National Speed Limit? It's easy for him
>> to do so, as he's retiring from the Senate, and won't have to face the wrath of angry voters.
>> According to AP, he's contacted the Dept. of Energy to ask what speed limit (either 55 or
>> 60) would be most fuel-efficient. 55 may have been OK east of the Mississippi, but here out
>> West (I'm in CA), it stank. Anyone try an L.A. to Salt Lake at the despised double-nickel?
>> Or SF to Dallas or Seattle to Denver? Brock Yates said it best in 1975: The 55 speed limit
>> is/was the dumbest law since Prohibition. Speed limits should be set by the
>> states, period. If CA wants to go to 70 on Interstates and other rural freeways, or AZ, NV,
>> UT, and NM want 75, let them. Like the Sammy Hagar song goes: "I can't drive 55."
>
>How dare any of the speed nazis from Vagina propose anything. Those
>people in the "Commonwealth" should put everybody in the legislature
>out of office for what they're doing to their own citizens with speed
>enforcement. Any return to the 55 MPH is highway robbery, plain and
>simple. And btw, try driving I-16 in South Georgia at 55...it's not
>just those western states that an unreasonable 55 MPH would be a
>police state bonanza for.

Dear Allah in Paradise, are they dredging that dead horse up again? I
guess the old saying is true: those who don't learn from history are
doomed to repeat it. Good thing my frequent flyer account is still
active.
--
"The record run in oil prices is related more to
speculation and a weakening dollar than supply
and demand in the market. In terms of fundamentals,
fear of supply reliability is overblown."

--Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

Jeff Morrison wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:39 am, wrote:
>
>>I would agree, Virginia seems to have a "Hard-On" against speeding
>>more than any state I can think of. They consider anything over 80 to
>>be Reckless Driving and nail you accordingly.
>>
>>Jim K. Georges
>
>
> Anything over 80 IS reckless driving.

It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open
it and remove all doubt. (author unknown, but commonly attributed to
Mark Twain)

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

Bill wrote:
> "XOZ" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Jul 5, 3:56 am, "Matt Wiser" > wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone notice Sen. John Warner (R-VA) proposing a National Speed Limit?
>>>It's easy for him
>>>to do so, as he's retiring from the Senate, and won't have to face the
>>>wrath of angry voters.
>>>According to AP, he's contacted the Dept. of Energy to ask what speed
>>>limit (either 55 or
>>>60) would be most fuel-efficient. 55 may have been OK east of the
>>>Mississippi, but here out
>>>West (I'm in CA), it stank. Anyone try an L.A. to Salt Lake at the
>>>despised double-nickel?
>>>Or SF to Dallas or Seattle to Denver? Brock Yates said it best in 1975:
>>>The 55 speed limit
>>>is/was the dumbest law since Prohibition. Speed limits should be set by
>>>the
>>>states, period. If CA wants to go to 70 on Interstates and other rural
>>>freeways, or AZ, NV,
>>>UT, and NM want 75, let them. Like the Sammy Hagar song goes: "I can't
>>>drive 55."
>>
>>How dare any of the speed nazis from Vagina propose anything. Those
>>people in the "Commonwealth" should put everybody in the legislature
>>out of office for what they're doing to their own citizens with speed
>>enforcement. Any return to the 55 MPH is highway robbery, plain and
>>simple. And btw, try driving I-16 in South Georgia at 55...it's not
>>just those western states that an unreasonable 55 MPH would be a
>>police state bonanza for.
>
>
> For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
> out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
> property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
> limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
> not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
> drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
> limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
> passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
> will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
> of federal gold.
>

Not gonna happen, as if anything states today are more dependent on
Federal highway funds than they were back in 1974.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

On Jul 5, 12:27*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
> > out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
> > property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
> > limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
> > not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
> > drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
> > limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
> > passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
> > will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
> > of federal gold.
>
> Not only that, but they could also stop collecting the federal gas tax
> (and lower the gas price a little bit).

Oooookay, I'm having difficulty understanding this. If you do not take
federal money for roads, you are off the hook for the federal gas tax?
The reason why this sounds wrongs to me is about half the states
receive less than they send to Washington for the federal gas tax, so
the optimal strategy would be to not pay the gas tax, not receive
federal funds, and increase the state tax by an equivalent value. And
you would still lower the gas price a little bit.

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:05:22 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski
> wrote in misc.transport.road:

>On Jul 5, 12:27*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>> > For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
>> > out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
>> > property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
>> > limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
>> > not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
>> > drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
>> > limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
>> > passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
>> > will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
>> > of federal gold.
>>
>> Not only that, but they could also stop collecting the federal gas tax
>> (and lower the gas price a little bit).
>
>Oooookay, I'm having difficulty understanding this. If you do not take
>federal money for roads, you are off the hook for the federal gas tax?

Of course not.

>The reason why this sounds wrongs to me is about half the states
>receive less than they send to Washington for the federal gas tax, so
>the optimal strategy would be to not pay the gas tax, not receive
>federal funds, and increase the state tax by an equivalent value. And
>you would still lower the gas price a little bit.

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

Jason Pawloski wrote:
> On Jul 5, 12:27 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Bill wrote:

>>> For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
>>> out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
>>> property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
>>> limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
>>> not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
>>> drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
>>> limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
>>> passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
>>> will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
>>> of federal gold.

>> Not only that, but they could also stop collecting the federal gas tax
>> (and lower the gas price a little bit).

> Oooookay, I'm having difficulty understanding this. If you do not take
> federal money for roads, you are off the hook for the federal gas tax?

Well, if the federal government *refuses* to distribute funds to a
particular state because they won't enact a specific law (55 mph limit,
21 year old minimum drinking age, etc.), then why should the state
continue to collect the federal gas tax?

55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
 

On Jul 5, 6:29*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Jason Pawloski wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 12:27 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>> For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
> >>> out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
> >>> property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
> >>> limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
> >>> not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
> >>> drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
> >>> limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
> >>> passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
> >>> will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
> >>> of federal gold.
> >> Not only that, but they could also stop collecting the federal gas tax
> >> (and lower the gas price a little bit).
> > Oooookay, I'm having difficulty understanding this. If you do not take
> > federal money for roads, you are off the hook for the federal gas tax?
>
> Well, if the federal government *refuses* to distribute funds to a
> particular state because they won't enact a specific law (55 mph limit,
> 21 year old minimum drinking age, etc.), then why should the state
> continue to collect the federal gas tax?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I mean, I agree in principle, but I don't there is anyway that
argument would ever jive.