Lower speed limit to 55

My cars goes from getting 34 mpg to 41 mpg when I drive 55 mph
instead of 70 mph. It is safer, quieter, less stressful, and more
relaxing. So what kind of edyot would drive over 70? It's the people
with self-inflated egos who think saving 10 minutes is worth
sacrificing all the advantages I mentioned. It is interesting that
such people tend to come from the lower socio-economic ranks of
society !?

wrote:

> My cars goes from getting 34 mpg to 41 mpg when I drive 55 mph
> instead of 70 mph.

I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your car
and ride, idiot.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your
car > and ride, idiot.

Do you know what an incremental change is? The problem with people on
usenet is they are so stuck in one way that they can not see the
merits of any change except a drastic one.

And when you include the cost of food and bike wear and tear, your
bike does not get more than 100 mpg . By the way I bike 70 miles a
week so you are barking at the wrong dog.

wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your
>> car and ride, idiot.

> Do you know what an incremental change is?

Look, I already ride a bike as it is, so it's not an incremental change
for me. When I drive, I still go 80 to 90 mph on highways.

> usenet is they are so stuck in one way that they can not see the
> merits of any change except a drastic one.

I don't see any merit in slowing down when driving. I save more than
enough fuel by not driving most of the week.

> And when you include the cost of food and bike wear and tear, your
> bike does not get more than 100 mpg .

Hmm, I only spent about $30 in bike parts in the last year (after riding
it about 1200 miles). That amount won't fill the 16 gallon gas tank in
my car (which I only drive once a week anyway). My food bill is
probably around $250 a month give or take. If I drove instead, my gas
bill would be at least $200 a month and my food bill wouldn't decrease
all that much.

> By the way I bike 70 miles a week so you are barking at the wrong dog.

You do realize that you outed yourself as a dog (as the saying goes "on
the internet, nobody knows you're a dog").

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>
>> My cars goes from getting 34 mpg to 41 mpg when I drive 55 mph
>> instead of 70 mph.
>
> I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your car
> and ride, idiot.
>

Uh,Arif,this NG is rec.AUTOS.DRIVING,not a bicycle NG.

and you're ignorant (or elitist) if you think everyone can switch to a bike
for transpo,or that they would even want to.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

>>> My cars goes from getting 34 mpg to 41 mpg when I drive 55 mph
>>> instead of 70 mph.
>> I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your car
>> and ride, idiot.
>
> Uh,Arif,this NG is rec.AUTOS.DRIVING,not a bicycle NG.

If the traffic slowed down from the regular speeds to "Drive 55", riding
a bicycle would be the only reasonable choice because the traffic would
be stopped. The only way to make the traffic go slower is to decrease
the number of cars. It is impossible to avoid a traffic jam otherwise.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote in
> :

>> I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your car
>> and ride, idiot.

> Uh,Arif,this NG is rec.AUTOS.DRIVING,not a bicycle NG.

Which is why stupid suggestions such as forcing people to drive 55 mph
or slower on the threat of legal extortion won't fly here. I just made
an equally practical suggestion to switch to riding, since it would save
more gas anyway. In fact, I just traveled 25 miles today without even
using a single drop of gasoline.

On Jun 18, 5:24 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:

> Look, I already ride a bike as it is, so it's not an incremental change
> for me. When I drive, I still go 80 to 90 mph on highways.

Good luck avoiding the deer from out of nowhere at those speeds. It's
good you ride a bike, one less spedyot on the road.

On 2008-06-18, > wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> I get infinite miles per gallon when I ride my bicycle. Sell your
> car > and ride, idiot.
>
> Do you know what an incremental change is? The problem with people on
> usenet is they are so stuck in one way that they can not see the
> merits of any change except a drastic one.

You and your 55mph control freakness is unacceptable. This is supposed
to be a free country, it's not supposed to be what it has become,
one where control freaks and sheep.

We need to have free trade, not a nanny-state control grid. There is
nothing wrong about driving faster than you control freaks think is
optium. Everyone has a different idea. Just keep right except to pass
and be done with it.

If there were any significant savings driving 55mph I might consider it.
But there isn't. It's nothing more than a rule of thumb that hasn't been
even close valid since nearly every vehicle on the road in the USA was
brick with carb and a 1:1 top gear. My car is 11 years old, and driving
at 55mph requires a lot more time in 4th gear because it's really too
slow to accelerate in 5th gear from around there... the term escapes me
at the moment... anyway it's bad for fuel economy.

Plus it puts me something like three standard deviations below the mean
traffic speed and that is very dangerous. Saving $2 a gasoline while
having my car totalled and ending up in the hospitial is not worth it.
And do you know how much energy it takes to manufacture a car? It makes
the savings of speed A vs. speed B insignificant.

There is no way central control can come with an optimum. Everything it
decides will be a disaster for one way or another.

On Jun 18, 8:45 pm, Brent P >
wrote:

> We need to have free trade, not a nanny-state control grid. There is
> nothing wrong about driving faster than you control freaks think is
> optium. Everyone has a different idea. Just keep right except to pass
> and be done with it.

Making an incremental change to the speed limit is hardly indicative
of a nanny-state. Most people are stupid so we need these kind of
laws.

> If there were any significant savings driving 55mph I might consider it.

I have already mentioned several advantages, which do you have issue
with?

> But there isn't. It's nothing more than a rule of thumb that hasn't been
> even close valid since nearly every vehicle on the road in the USA was
> brick with carb and a 1:1 top gear. My car is 11 years old, and driving
> at 55mph requires a lot more time in 4th gear because it's really too
> slow to accelerate in 5th gear from around there... the term escapes me
> at the moment... anyway it's bad for fuel economy.

Why are you accelerating on the highway?

> Plus it puts me something like three standard deviations below the mean
> traffic speed and that is very dangerous. Saving $2 a gasoline while
> having my car totalled and ending up in the hospitial is not worth it.
> And do you know how much energy it takes to manufacture a car? It makes
> the savings of speed A vs. speed B insignificant.

How is it dangerous to drive 55 ? Every day tens of thousands of
bicyclists assert their right to the road by taking the lane at speeds
far less than the posted speed limit. Nobody hits them, so why would
someone hit me doing 55 ?

> There is no way central control can come with an optimum. Everything it
> decides will be a disaster for one way or another.

Is this opinion or fact?