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

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:29:51 -0400, Arif Khokar >
wrote in misc.transport.road:

>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?

Where did you get the idea that the state collects the revenue for the
feds?

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

In article >,
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?

Because the Feds have an army. (What, did you really think it came
down to anything other than force in the end?)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

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

Eighty is wreakless driving. A lot of the drivers are too in-experienced and
ignorant of the rules of the road to drive that fast. If the speed limit is
dropped to 60 MPH, it should be strictly enforced with oppressive fines.
Repeat offenders should have their driving privileges revoked.
> wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 5:12 am, 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.

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

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

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"

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

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.

I have always encountered very light traffic on I-77 in VA north of
I-81 in Wytheville, that's where I got nailed back in 2004 doing 80+
in a 65 Zone.

Jim K. Georges

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

On Jul 5, 9:29*pm, 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?

Because Federal troops will occupy the state if they don't collect
it. Precedent set by George Washington.

As you may recall, the Articles of Confederation was a failure. So
they came up with a new system which a much stronger central national
government.

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

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. This is part of why disaster relief has been so FUBAR since
2001 and getting more so.

In theory a state could assert itself. However Lincoln pretty much
outlined the federal response to that.

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

On 2008-07-06, BSMack > wrote:
> Eighty is wreakless driving.

wreakless?

> A lot of the drivers are too in-experienced and
> ignorant of the rules of the road to drive that fast. If the speed limit is
> dropped to 60 MPH, it should be strictly enforced with oppressive fines.

Why not enforce the rules of the road instead of worrying about speed?
After all the problem as you just stated is an ignorance of the rules of
the road. This ignorance is because of the focus on speed and BAC. Shift
the focus to proper lane usage and other rules of the road. When right
of way and lane usage rules are followed, speed on a limited access
highway is not relevant.

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

On 2008-07-06, > wrote:

> 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?

70mph in the average 1950s sedan with bias-ply tires and 4 wheel manual
drum brakes and manual steering.

> West Texas allows 80 MPH during the day.

Back in the 1930s, some people knew what limited access highways were
for:
http://geocities.com/american_autoba...speedsells.jpg

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

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.

--
You can trust me; I'm not like the others.