|
|
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
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. |
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." > > > 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. Hell, the DC Beltway or Dulles Toll Road is downright dangerous at 55 (even though that's the posted speed limit.) Don't blame Virginians, we know better. Just blame this one guy that had a dumbass idea. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
As far as I know, though I'll admit to not being the most educated on this,
we don't have a supply problem, we have a price problem. The Nixon Memorial Speed Limit won't do anything to help that. Just moar smoke and mirrors to deflect attention away from the real issue: namely hueg erl company profits. -- Comrade Otto Yamamoto http://mryamamoto.50megs.com Guaranteed 100% Fabricated! |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
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 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. |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On 2008-07-05, 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. What a crock of ****. Go to Germany and ride with someone who lives there and has a decent car. a 100mph+ is perfectly safe. What's reckless is the stupid lane and other behavior that is permitted on US roads. |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
"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. |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On Jul 5, 12:40*pm, 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. Not True! On an urban interstate in moderate to heavy traffic, weaving in and out OK, but on a rural Interstate, staying in your lane with a speed limit of 65 or 70 among minimal traffic in perfect weather conditions, no, it's not reckless. Jim K. Georges |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On Jul 5, 1:04 pm, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-07-05, Jeff Morrison > wrote: > > > Anything over 80 IS reckless driving. > > What a crock of ****. Go to Germany and ride with someone who lives > there and has a decent car. a 100mph+ is perfectly safe. No, it's often true. Evidently you are unaware of the definitions of "perfect" and "safe" (what are those, words learned in 5th grade? Elementary school anyway). But, 80mph is "relatively safe", depending on where. You are not permitted to drive 80 through or around major German urban areas, same as in the US. > What's reckless > is the stupid lane and other behavior that is permitted on US roads. On that we agree, where we differ is what constitutes reckless and stupid. ----- - gpsman |
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
|
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. |
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. |
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
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
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com