Just think how smooth freeway driving would be if the SL was 55 and strictly enforced

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend, > was motivated
to say this in rec.autos.driving on 27 Nov 2005 08:33:15 -0800:
> HAHAHAHA. Listen to the loony. He thinks being a speed criminal is
> good because it promotes diversity!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Die ****ing aryan swine!

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> There's a section
> of I-8 just east of Yuma where the speed limit drops from 75 MPH to
> 65. There was one Sloth in a diesel Mercedes who was plodding along at
> 70 MPH in the 75 MPH zone. When the SL dropped to 65, he just kept
> right on plodding along at 70. These geezers are completely ****ing
> oblivious to everything and need to be taken off the road before they
> kill somebody.

Perhaps the guy thought 70 was a comfortable speed, so drove
that speed regardless of what the numbers on a sign said.
That would make him a good driver, according to the prevailing
opinion in this NG. (I'm assuming he wasn't LLBing, since you
didn't mention it).

Does the road actually become more dangerous when the SL
changes to 65, thus warranting a slow-down?

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, > was motivated to
say this in rec.autos.driving on Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:53:14 GMT:
> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension
>

A strictly enforced minimum speed of 55 on the highways (with a penalty
of having to live with you for an hour) does sound like a good idea.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Sir Ray wrote:
>
> > >>The speed limit argument has to do with the efficiency of the engine at certain speeds/gears. Back when the 55mph speed limit was introduced in the US, that was the most efficient speed for the majority of cars at the gear required to drive at highway speeds. It's since been bumped to 60-70mph most places around the country because cars engines have improved (since the '50's, but not much more). Thus, driving 20% faster isn't merely a matter of being 20% less fuel efficient (otherwise your argument would follow that driving at 45mph would be ideal -- and it's not). It's about driving at the speed that MOST cars are most efficient because of the gears in transmissions.
>
> That's a lie and you know it. As long as you're in top gear slower
> gives better gas mileage due to less wind resistance. BTW - if you
> could read, you'd see that this thread isn't about gas mileage anyway.
> The claim is that a 55 mph SL strictly enforced would result in
> everyone driving the same speed and traffic would thus flow more
> smoothly and safely.

And you're full of sh*t and you know it. I and many others have said
it, and I'll say it again (why I'm doing this is I don't know): Using
your "theory" of "As long as you're in top gear slower gives better gas
mileage due to less wind resistance" would make a person conclude that
going 5 MPH in 5th gear is more fuel efficient than going 55 MPH in 5th
gear. You know that's false, and so do I. So why do you continue to say
this?

Allen Seth Dunn

Old Wolf wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> > There's a section
> > of I-8 just east of Yuma where the speed limit drops from 75 MPH to
> > 65. There was one Sloth in a diesel Mercedes who was plodding along at
> > 70 MPH in the 75 MPH zone. When the SL dropped to 65, he just kept
> > right on plodding along at 70. These geezers are completely ****ing
> > oblivious to everything and need to be taken off the road before they
> > kill somebody.
>
> Perhaps the guy thought 70 was a comfortable speed, so drove
> that speed regardless of what the numbers on a sign said.
> That would make him a good driver, according to the prevailing
> opinion in this NG. (I'm assuming he wasn't LLBing, since you
> didn't mention it).
>
> Does the road actually become more dangerous when the SL
> changes to 65, thus warranting a slow-down?

I've performed this behavior 25+ years before AARP membership. It's
because Kearny Villa Rd (old US-395/I-15 across MCAS Miramar in San
Diego) goes from 65 mph to 50 mph a few hundred feet before it should,
even though an auxilary lane goes to 65 mph CA-163 comfortably enough
I've followed 60k lb gravel trucks at over 65 mph the entire way.

I just maintain speed the whole time, in the rightmost lane, at a
comfortable pace relative to nearby traffic. (**** you LBMHBF, you
psychotic school zone maniac.)

Dave

On 27 Nov 2005 19:52:23 -0800, "Old Wolf" >
wrote:

>Perhaps the guy thought 70 was a comfortable speed, so drove
>that speed regardless of what the numbers on a sign said.
>That would make him a good driver, according to the prevailing
>opinion in this NG.

Only if his opinion matches 85% of the other drivers on that road.

> (I'm assuming he wasn't LLBing, since you
>didn't mention it).

Nope, he was in the right lane. His one saving grace.

>Does the road actually become more dangerous when the SL
>changes to 65, thus warranting a slow-down?

In the case of Yuma, it does: the DPS (AZ's highway patrol) often have
"sting" operations in the vicinity. One cop runs the radar gun, and
another half-dozen or so DPS cruisers are used for pursuit. I've
driven through and seen them all lined up on the right shoulder, each
with their wallet-vacuums reaching into a different motorist's pocket.

So yes, there *is* a danger which warrants slowing down.

Allen Seth Dunn wrote:
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> And you're full of sh*t and you know it. I and many others have said
> it, and I'll say it again (why I'm doing this is I don't know): Using
> your "theory" of "As long as you're in top gear slower gives better gas
> mileage due to less wind resistance" would make a person conclude that
> going 5 MPH in 5th gear is more fuel efficient than going 55 MPH in 5th
> gear. You know that's false, and so do I. So why do you continue to say
> this?

Nobody drives 5 mph in 5th gear you moron. Hell - with an AT it can't
even be done. And no one drives 5 mph on a freeway anyway. You have
zero brains.

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
> speed. No jams and no crashes.

And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend, > was motivated
to spew forth the following bull**** in rec.autos.driving on 28 Nov 2005
09:32:01 -0800:

> You have zero brains.


Which is more brains than you could ever hope to have, mother ****er.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
>> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
>> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
>> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
>> speed. No jams and no crashes.
>
> And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?

or 150mph?