I can't drive 55

that it is designed to generate revenue via tickets.
With the average traffic flow (non-commute) here at 75mph, posted at 65mph, dropping it down to 55 will just cause problems.

Some dumba$$es will never get a clue I'm afraid...

JD, I heard that story about Michigan wanting to change the speed limit on the radio this morning and "I can't drive 55" by Sammy Hagar came to mind.

Another thought comes to mind every time this subject is broached. I wonder how much fuel is wasted every day while people are sitting at traffic lights waiting for 4 or 5 minutes while the light gives every other lane it's turn when there's no cars in those lanes. It seems to me a lot of fuel could be saved by "smart" traffic lights that could sense when there are no cars in a particular lane and skip on to the next lane and so on.

On my morning commute, rarely is there an opportunity to drive at the limit - of my nearly hour commute, maybe 10 minutes are at highway speeds, but 3/4 of my distance is on a major highway.

On long trips, I've been using my cruise control, and if I can, I have it above the limit, but well below what the "real" limit is - the speed at which the cops will stop you.

When I drive in the US, I assume that the limit is enforced, except in California.

James

...thing I've heard from the US government in days!! ;)

Seriously, this is just ridiculous. If anyone can consistently hit 55MPH during rush hour in the Chicago area (among the highest gas prices in the nation, thanks to the Mobster Mayor tax, the Crook County tax, etc...so much for 55MPH cutting fuel costs) during rush hour, hats off to you. If you're getting 30MPH, you feel lucky.

I would imagine just about any objective researcher would be able to show that gridlock is far worse than is cars going 75MPH on the open road. (pollution, wasted gas, wear&tear, etc)

What's next, requiring that everyone driving under 45MPH roll down the windows as opposed to using the AC???

Why oh why do we not require that people running for office be subjected to a comprehensive battery of standardized tests (televised, of course, for major positions)?? We require more of our PE teachers than we do of our public officials!!

Well, it's rather simple to identify, but not really so simple to implement.

The federal government cannot mandate state speed limits, state seat belt laws, or any other state highway law. What they have done in the past, however, was to pass legislation that would deny federal highway funds to any state that does not follow some established federal guideline.

The feds do it all the time: your doctors and hospitals will behave a certain way, or you won't get federal Medicare/Medicaid dollars; you'll have mandatory seat belt laws (or a maximum speed limit of ## MPH), or you'll be denied federal highway funds; you'll teach certain things a certain way in your public schools, or you'll not get federal education dollars.

Solution: STOP SENDING MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Get people to understand the sovereignty rights of their own state. Elect your state's U.S. Representatives and Senators who will work to pass federal legislation to untangle and release the strangle-hold the federal government has over state governments and their citizens. (Fat chance!) Instead, we see people who continue to support measures that do nothing but yield even more power to the federal government, freely giving up their very own state's rights and their own individual rights - like those who want to abolish the individual state elections for president, and instead hold a national election!

In the case of jd's example, the individual states could, in concert, snub their collective noses at the federal government, refusing to comply. If enough states would resist, the federal measure would probably not pass. If it did pass anyway, the respective states' legislators could seek ways to keep its citizens dollars from going to the federal government in the first place. (Again, fat chance.) In the meantime, call your U.S. Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote against the measure. (If they'll listen, that is. But most of them were elected in the first place because they presumed to know what was best for the individual - and the individual bought into it and sold his/her vote.)

But states standing up to the federal government was a concept that was pretty much lost in the 1860s, and their fate became sealed with the passage of the 16th Amendment, some 50 years later. That one amendment gave the federal government the power to control you - and to blackmail you - with your own money! I truly don't understand people who freely give up their rights to people in the federal government who presume to know better than the state or the individual. That is, in essence, what they do. Repealing the 16th Amendment would be the best way to wrest individual and state power back from the federal government.

Man, why don't they teach this in the public schools? Oh yea, the feds hold tightly onto the education purse strings, and states' school boards will capitulate in order to get their own money returned to them. And they probably only get part of it back!

[i]blatant attempt to generate "revenue" via excessive speeding tickets.[/i]

due to the economic times cities are facing... by enforcing the existing limit more strictly. Tickets are being handed out for 2 or 3 miles over the limit! Many jurisdictions are adding a fuel charge too (for what, the idle time while they're writing up the ticket? Shut the damn thing off!), so ANY speeding ticket is going to cost you at least $125. Be careful if you up-size your tires!

"Should this be allowed to go through, or should we stand up and demand the feds back off? ... it is moving to a more oppressive government. "

There's nothing new about what you're calling 'oppression'. The feds effectively set the limit now by controlling the allocation of highway funds. If enough voters in a state decide they want a speed limit higher than the federal standard, they can elect state officials to set the rate the voters want and turn down the federal money. As long as they're funding the interstates, they have the power of the purse to back up their standards.

As to excessive speeding tickets, almost speeding tickets are due to choices each individual driver makes. If you don't want to pay the ticket, don't exceed the speed limit. Sorry, no sympathy.

This is what people get when they start screaming at Congress to do something about gas prices. I personally don't have a problem with a 55 mph limit. It was done in the '70s and the Four Horsemen didn't ride.

an excellent utility for staying within the speed limit. Having a lead foot, I speak from experience.

Too many of our citizens have either not been voting, or voting single issue vs. overall national climate, voting out of fear, self-interest for too long. We are simply harvesting the fruits of decades of mis-managed citizenship.

Apparently, most cops in my neck of the woods have lead feet, too. Suckers zip past me and the other law abiding drivers like we're standing still. No cherries, no sirens, just because they can.

have reasonable limits.

When laws are unreasonable, they are most often broken.

Just the principle behind it seems flawed.

"Hey, we've failed to mandate fuel efficient cars, though the rest of the world has no problems with it. We don't want to increase production capacity, and are unable to move towards any substantial alternatives. So, we're going to make like Elway, and pass this buck right back to you, our constituents."

If they came out and said that, at least I'd respect the honesty of it.

Drinking it was not made illegal by the letter of the law, though I grant that the spirit forbade spirits for their unreasonable results.

So personally have I experimented with unreasonable speed. Damn near paid for it, too.

Such is reason. The reasoner needs the underside, too, meaning there to be something else in the works besides that and the obverse.

Thus do I contend, uncommitted either way until I have to be.

when it is posted 70 or 75, how fast do you drive?

why should you have to drive in fear of law enforcement, based upon an arbitrary law? Lets get them chasing REAL criminals.

maybe thats why these neon signs dont seem to phase me
anymore..

In Ontario, there is a voluntary program where you get a special thermostat which may in a time of power shortages, move your thermostat up a couple of degrees (in the summer), when the power company deems it necessary. It is voluntary but you get a discount on your power.

What happens if we get a real electricity generation crisis and they make them mandatory.....?

James

I sold a car about 14 years ago.

We have a law in Michigan that states you have 15 days to transfer the title or you get fines. You can also not change or alter anything written, to keep people from "jumping title" by turning around and selling it themselves without ever paying the money for their title ($60 to $200).

This car had been sold 6 times, each time the new seller crossing out the name of the purchaser and writing the new persons name in. (After the first time, the title was void)

A dealer finally got a hold of the car, and tried to scare me into signing a paper saying it was still my car or I would get in trouble over this. I still has my receipt for the sale of the car, so I called the secretary of state and informed them of this dealer trying to scam the system AND me.

In Ontario, you can't renew your license plate sticker if you have any unpaid tickets to the province(or any under reciprocity agreements), or tolls unpaid to the electronic tollway(which used to be government and is now private). We have to renew every two years.

I was stopped in North Carolina for speeding a decade a ago, and the officer indicated there was no reciprocity, therefore he was inclined to send me to jail. He was I think trying to intimidate me, cause in the end he let me go, and I had to hire a lawyer to appear on my behalf a few months later (no paralegals in NC at the time). I think I would have preferred reciprocity.

I could by the way get away with renewing when I had a Quebec ticket.....they didn't have reciprocity with Ontario, go figure.

James

"Is it reasonable to try to intentionally set limits of speed just to generate additional revenue via tickets?"

Unless you can provide some data justifying that as the cause, I'm afraid we're at a philosophical impasse. If the only motivation was to generate additional revenue, all the authorities would have to do is enforce the existing limits. They could do that without attracting the attention raised by lowering the limit.

"Government mandates are not the solution."

Agreed, but people keep asking Congress why they aren't doing something about gas prices. People cheer when Congressional committees have these wink-and-nudge hearings with the oil industry bigwigs. When Congress tries to take action that affects the other end of the supply chain, suddenly people want the government to butt out. Can't have it both ways.

here, they have to have it enclosed and have the proper permits. real picky about taking a drink outside or leaving with it.

where are the cars????

The pub is in a side street behind a large organic food market. The street doesn't really go anywhere except the market and at the time, 6:30, the market was just about closed. Just around the corner to the right is The Wheatsheaf which has similar crowds outside. Cars do go down the street - but very slowly - and only if they really need to.

:D

They will pull you at 110, but you can ususally get away with 120+ just don't fly by the traps and you are okay, if you hit a trap and he doesn't already have a ticket to write, your number is up.

With the vast number of 'foreign' drivers in Richmond and Vancouver, they all drive 90 on a 100 hwy, 40-50 kmph on a 50kmph city road. ALL of them and with no exaggeration at all. So doing 130 you stand out like a sore thumb, that is if they are not doing 90 in the fast lane of course. You can flash lights, honk, offer a one finger salute, etc and they will not notice you as they dawdle along at 90 in front of you.

When you get beside them ot pass in teh right ,ane, you can stare at teh driver, honnk, wave etc. and they wont take that white knockled focus away from teh road and have absolutelu NO idea what they are doing wrong, have no idea you are there or upset, just absolutely 100% clueless and driving in a tunnel by themselves it seems.

No exaggeration on that one at all by the way. Completely oblivious to the world around them.

A new law states you cant' smoke within 6 metres of any public doorway, or air vent.

They wind up gathering just around the corner of the pub or in the alleys. They started the whole issue here due to Workers Compensation Board complaints about waitresses not being able to work in a bar because it was detrimental to their health.

SO DON'T WORK IN A 'KIN STRIP CLUB BEEEEOTCH!!!!! It's as if smoking was a new trend and all these waitresses were all of a sudden being inconvenienced, IT'S A BAR!! PEOPLE SMOKE! Even people that don't normally smoke will often smoke while having a drink. 'kin Canadian government too PC for their own good.

The other day I was at the track and just about dummied a guy for telling me not to smoke a cigar in the General admission bleachers (back was sore so I din't go hang out on the tarmack or in the clubhouse). So I am sitting in the midst of 10+ smoking Oriental men in a section designated for smoking. This 'kin tosser turns around (sittin g15' away and upwind) and tells me that he doesn't like my cigar and that the law states you can't smoke within 20 feet of a public place. I was initially quite polite, well as polite as one can be in that situation, and explained that there was a smoking section just the other side of the finish line (50' away). He said that was illegal and that the law says 20 from any public place.

So I decided to play on his logic and explained that first of all, there are NO Canadian laws which restrict anything for 20 feet, as Canada recognizes the metric system. Futhermore, that there are signs on the doors 15' behind me, that you must smoke 6 metres from the doorway and that HE was actually sitting in a smoking section.

So he then turned to a guy near him and asked what HE thougt of my smoking, again, ignoring the fact that people are smoking all around him. When his new friend piped in that HE didn't like smoke either I got pi$$ed off at both of them.

He flaged down a security guard who also told him where the non smoking section was, to which he guy again went on about how illegal it was and that you can't smoke within 20' of a public place.

I laughed and said that people downtown would all be stuck in the middle of the intersection while smoking if it was 20' from any public place.

He got really PO'd and asked for the security guard's boss, so I offered to help him at that point. Knowing the VP, I went to his office and told him that there was an issue he probably wanted to straighten out.

When I returned the guy was still hopping mad with security, three guys now and had people all telling him to shut up of get lost. So the VP shows up and explains that he can have a free meal in the Clubhouse restaurant if he would like to leave the stands. To that very kind offer, the guy started going on and on about calling a cop and how the track was breaking "the 20 foot law" .

Finally, after pushing it a bit too far, he was politely told to leave, at this he fumed away and said "'kin Canadians don't know how to follow the law. In my state you'd be locked up for not abiding by state laws." At that time I finally realized he was American, I'd say he's pretty lucky I didn't catch on earlier, I would have just dropped the clown on the spot and dealt with his mangled body later.

'kin mouthpiece on MY turf talking to MY freinds that way! I can deal with people going on at me, I can defend that muyself, but when you start disrespecting people I respect you've gone too far, especially after people kindly tried to set him straight and offer him a table in the clubhouse with a free meal (that can run near $100.00 pretty quickly with the table charge).

What a lucky bugger, I should have picked it up (his being American) right away with the 20' comments but I figured enough Canadians still think in feet that it wasn't relevant. It was a bust saturday and the place was full of wankers that ruin the odds and bet chalk all day so nobody gets any real payouts.

And that's what Canadians see of Americans in Canada. In this case a retard without a clue and yet they still say its a stereotype, pretty big one at that though.

then we'll have the following benefits:
1) might get better mileage (I'm not sure of this)
2) work will be easier because we'll rarely be AT work as drive takes so long
3) need for new cars will be reduced greatly, wear and tear savings will be HUGE! Since you'll be driving only 20% of the miles as before!
4) accidents will never be serious, as a head-on will be about 20 miles per hour!
(an alternative to this would be to keep the 65 speed limit but drive NERF cars)

An even BETTER IDEA would be to reduce the speed limit to 2 MPH, yes TWO Miles Per Hour!

This way people would be encouraged to ride horses to work! For personal protection we'd need to allow side arms. Think how much fun it would be to ride into work on your horse, with your six-shooters by your side. It would be a cowboy revival, and would boost tourist visits to the US, also encouraged by the falling dollar due to the govt printing press loaning non-existant billions to large banks that don't need it.

Of course the EPA would probably complain about the 'emissions' that horses would leave on the roadway, even tho they are perfectly organic and great fertilizer or mushroom compost.

we have had a ban on pub/restaurant/malls, smoking for a few years now ,most pubs have a area nearly always covered, for smokers,and anyone who wants to go out there.Most pubs have meals too and a lot of people like a smoke after eating. A lot are on the frontage with tables ect and some even have tv there, and a bar. It was a case of having too to retain custom. People were just going down to the wholesaler or supermarket and buying beer ect and taking it home.

Speed in this country is a thorny one, ok our roads are quite windy compared to the U.S, and we have speed cameras,fixed and in police cars and in private cars too,speeds are usually 30 mph/50km in town and 100km/62mph on the open road. But now local areas can restrict speeds around schools ect,and if it is a strange area and you dont pay real attention,to the speed signs. You can get caught,mainly because you dont know the speed limit for that area. It could be 30-40 km. Its a bloody minefield

I don't have any real problem with a new lower national speed limit.

However, I think we should petition our legislatures to throw a big curve into any new national speed limit.

Rather than 55 MPH (which even I think is too slow for highways) Select either 100 or 120 KPH!

That's right, tie any new national speed limit to switching the US over to the metric system.

The fun thing is that at 100 KPH, the speed limit in most places would be about the same as it is now.

For 2 lane roads, that is where we need a lower speed limit. Get drivers to move to the highways as soon as they can. This would make life a lot easier for farmers and school bus drivers.

Heck, a lower speed limit on rural roads might even help slow down urban sprawl.

Plus, if you have county mounties spaced every 5 miles on the rural roads, crime should also drop.

Chas

they have an obligation to take over your life.

The proposed smoking ban in Michigan, funny, how they want to exempt casinos and horse tracks..... We know who is giving the most money to the politicians....

why most of us don't like the majority of the liberal democrats here either....

It is my guess that your "smoking companion" was either from Washington or California.

They are pretty much useless, as you found out, because that is how they live their lives. Loud, obnoxious, ignorant, and totally self absorbed.

Now back up 20 feet, because it is time to light up! B-)

Let me start by saying that I do not smoke at all; and have a strong disdain for the habit. That being said, banning smoking in all places seems like a sort of discrimination to me (if you want to make the health argument, you'd better be for banning all people that have the flu, mumps, chicken pox, etc, from being in public places as well...economic impact of lost days of work from those ailments are fairly robust, I'd surmise). At the least, there should be some special licenses that allow establishments to operate as 'smoker-friendly'. If people don't want to go there, let it be their choice (I've stayed away from places I knew to be overly smoky for my taste...no great detriment to me or the business).

Want to know how far Illinois has sunk? Chicago's laws regarding the stop light cameras are in direct conflict of the state's law (state = driver responsibility, Chicago light cameras = owner responsibility). The case went to court, and the judge ruled (and this is a quote from the Fox news cast last night) "the public safety issues outweigh the concerns over the rights of the vehicle owner".

Comrades, welcome to Illinois; no longer the Land of Lincoln, but the Land of Commies.

Why the safety issues and owner rights are mutually exclusive is beyond me...but since the lights have generated $80.2 million worth of tickets (that seems exceptionally high...but that is what Fox news stated), I don't think they're going away anytime soon.

I know that Washington and California are full of nut jobs. Real whackos there! Funny that you skipped Oregon though, I find people there are VERY concerned abotu teh environment and protecting their state appearance. Perhaps not radical lefties but certainly more aware of what's going on around them.

Oregon people seemed a little more grounded , laid back and just happy to be wake up each morning. (Oregon reminds me of BC in many ways, but is still just a wee state).

I find people on the East cost are pretty friendly despite the population density, which is pretty odd really, just as Canada's east coast is full of people ready to have a complete stranger over for dinner.

The mid US, not bad but I find people pretty backward, it seems they haven' tbeen out much, as for the south (both southern coasts too), that's just laughable, peoeple just love to sit right in that typical American stereotype and I swear they go out of their way to be even more hick than they really are.

The 70's oil embargo, long gas lines, the problem wasn't price, but availablity. Congress decided that we needed 55 mph speed limit to save gas. When the embargo stopped and there was plenty of gas, congress refused to up the speed limit. It wasn't till the Regan years that the speed limit went back up to 70.

People can decide their own speed limit deterimined by what they can afford. Conservative driving in town can save more in gas than any 55 mph speed limit on interstate highways.

Damn, my flag is missing a star.

And why didn't they tell me that Canada was admitted

The world's worst design for screws has got to be Phillips. It is a ridiculous drive. The six ddifferent sizes can all be used with pretty much any driver (whether it fits properly or not), which usually results in stripped screws needed to be extracted by drill and an ez-out, after that the hole needs to be enlargened and retapped.

Want a good screw (no, not like that)? Phillips! Always drives on the flats, just like a good socket does. Next to impossible to strip, unless you are a complete 'tard. You can get at least 50X the toerque out of them and they can be tightened and loosened many times withotu issue.

Phillips, what WERE they thinking? :D

If you drive more than 10 MPH (16 kph) over the speed limit, you are TOAST.

Oh, and Georgia, Kansas and West Virginia, better keep that needle pinned on the speed limit or you WILL get a ticket.

in Superman I and California had slid right into the ocean.... just think of all the new beachfront property?

I do believe that a lot of the dumb american stereotype does come from the very visible California citizens. They do us and the world a grave disservice. :(

Southern hicks. What could you possibly have against Mae? :0

A good number of new cars come with respectible gas mileage for highway driving. So low speed limit on interstate is useless.

Already the demand for gas efficient private transportation has grown. People driving SUVs and large trucks are having a hard time selling them.

During the 70's embargo, dealers of high mileage imports put large premiums on the cars and still ran out of cars. Same could happen now with the demand.

I have nothing against her all, in fact I think she shines a positive light on the south. (good save???)

Anyway, as I have always said, it is the few that speak volumes for the rest, we have our number of clowns too, I just find them more rampant in the USA (there sure are a lot of them when you have 10X the population!!).

But its not just me that sees this side of America, I'm just the one who actually admits it to Americans, most others just laugh behind your backs.

Due to its former relation to Mercedes, they have the MB diesel in the Grand Cherokee, and the Sprinter work van which is really a re badged MB van.

Audi has a Q7 diesel SUV.

In Europe, many mid size sedans are available with diesels, and some small cars too.

I'm not aware of many US manufacturers making changes, currently diesel is for big trucks(Jeep/Sprinter excepted)

James

http://www.dieselforum.org/where-is-diesel/cars-trucks-suvs/

Look down in the article and they tell about the amout of increase in sales and future expectations. Although most of the diesels will be imports unless Detroit finally gets the word. :)