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

On 2008-07-06, 1100GS_rider > wrote:
> Brent P > wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-06, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Effectively, the states are not what they were any longer. Today's model
>> is that of an empire. The post-911 set up has a top-down follow orders
>> set up where state and local agencies take their orders from the federal
>> government.
>
> That started a long time before 9-11-01.

Yes. That's why I mentioned President Lincoln in the part you cut out.

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

BSMack wrote:

> Eighty is wreakless driving.

Where do these semi-illiterate trolls or sock-puppets come from? I
haven't seen this one post before in either r.a.d. or m.t.r.

> A lot of the drivers are too in-experienced and
> ignorant of the rules of the road to drive that fast.

Perhaps you're one of them, but the rest of us aren't.

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

On Jul 6, 2:29 am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> BSMack wrote:
>
> > A lot of the drivers are too in-experienced and
> > ignorant of the rules of the road to drive that fast.
>
> Perhaps you're one of them, but the rest of us aren't.

His assertion is obviously fact, supported by your own reports.

Yours is obviously false, and extremely unlikely to include you, if we
only compare how stupid you are to assert his assertion is false, as
his assertion is supported by your own reports.

As many people get less practice driving due to driving fewer miles
his assertion will most likely become more factual, as yours becomes
more false.

Apparently, the cognitive dissonance illustrated by constantly
complaining about the plethora of bad drivers while simultaneously
asserting they are exceedingly skilled and competent is lost upon many
if not most, if not all "knowledgeable" r.a.d. driving experts... all
of whom coincidentally share nearly the exact same driving education
and "qualifications"... that they, of course, may simultaneously
denigrate as wholly insufficient.
-----

- gpsman

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

wrote:

>On Jul 5, 11:34*pm, H.B. Elkins >
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:02:23 GMT, BSMack wrote:
>>
>> >Eighty is wreakless driving.
>>
>> Bzzt. Sorry, wrong, but thanks for playing.
>>
>> If 80 is, what about 79? 78? 77? 76? 75?
>>
>> You get the picture -- well maybe you don't if you think 80 is reckless per se.
>>
>> --
>> To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
>
>80 Reckless?
>
>Well if I'm correct the Interstates are designed for safe travel at 70
>MPH in rural areas, that being the case, if 70 is safe, how is 80
>reckless? West Texas allows 80 MPH during the day.

Some are designed for that speed; I've seen interstates designed for
lower speeds in rural areas as well.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

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

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?

Good luck with that, Arif; I'm sure that the government will see it
the same way as you do.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

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

>>> Eighty is wreakless driving.
>> Bzzt. Sorry, wrong, but thanks for playing.
>
> I drive 80 all the time and I'm completely wreckless.

I am also a wreckless driver, and I drive at over 80 mi/hr quite often.
Almost the only times that I have had problems is when some Sloth is
blocking the passing lane or failing to yield to traffic on the roadway.
Traffic usually moves along at 80 mi/hr and faster quite safely.

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

Jeff Morrison > wrote in

m:

> 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.

You must be a politician, pulling some arbitrary number out of your
ass like that.

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

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."

In the UK, the Department for Transport has recently run simulations that showed that congestion
(and presumably associated fuel use/waste ) would be minimised by a RISE in the National Speed
Limit from 70 to 80 mph.

Thiss would incidentally accord with the typical mainland Europe speed limit on motorways of 130
km/h (but unlimited still on some German highways).

Graham

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

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.

80 is barely 'ticking over' in my book.

How many more accidents would occur at 50 due to boredom / falling asleep at the wheel ?

Graham

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

Jeff Morrison wrote:

> 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.

You must be a VERY poor driver.

In a total of 35 years driving I have exceeded that speed regularly to the
extent in one extreme instance of 55 mph i.e. 135 mph.

I have a totally CLEAN licence. Not a single endorsement on it EVER. That's
because I drive *safely*. Low speed DOES NOT ensure safety.

Graham