If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what is the dumbest thing u have ever been pulled over for? | ricer1991 | Driving | 32 | August 18th 07 08:16 AM |
South Dakota to impose total alcohol prohibition on anyone convicted of drunk driving. | Brent P[_1_] | Driving | 19 | March 3rd 07 02:24 AM |
This may very well be the dumbest question ever posted but here goes... | Leslie | BMW | 8 | January 10th 06 01:24 PM |
Dumbest car commercial ever | 223rem | Driving | 32 | November 18th 05 09:23 PM |
Survey: Northeast has dumbest [sic] drivers | Arif Khokar | Driving | 3 | May 28th 05 03:36 AM |