Discussion:
$4 gas is here yet idiot americans still oppose lower speed limits
(too old to reply)
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-23 18:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Trace
2008-04-23 18:35:19 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.

DON'T LISTEN TO MADD and other nutty orgs filled with people who have
nothing to do but advocate some Neanderthal legislation.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-23 18:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
Al Goreon
2008-04-23 18:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============

Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !
Eeyore
2008-04-23 18:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Trace
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage,
but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and
taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !
Actually that's the very worst mpg it can get (stopped in traffic). ZERO mpg.

Graham
Studemania
2008-04-23 19:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no
way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH.  Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70.  Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,
Ed White
2008-04-24 03:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no
way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,

But when you are stopped in traffics, it is not 0/0. It is 0 miles/less than
0 gallons of fuel = 0 miles per gallon. Of course if you want to figure
mileage as liters per 100 km, it is indeterminate, but that is a problem for
the Europeans.

Ed
MLOM
2008-04-24 03:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Studemania
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no
way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,
But when you are stopped in traffics, it is not 0/0. It is 0 miles/less than
0 gallons of fuel = 0 miles per gallon. Of course if you want to figure
mileage as liters per 100 km, it is indeterminate, but that is a problem for
the Europeans.
Ed- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The only thing less than zero for fuel use is if somehow your fuel
level increased while stopped. We know how likely that is. If
stopped while continuing to have the engine running, it's wasted fuel
without any progress.
s***@yahoo.com
2008-04-24 04:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MLOM
Post by Studemania
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no
way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,
But when you are stopped in traffics, it is not 0/0. It is 0 miles/less than
0 gallons of fuel = 0 miles per gallon. Of course if you want to figure
mileage as liters per 100 km, it is indeterminate, but that is a problem for
the Europeans.
Ed- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The only thing less than zero for fuel use is if somehow your fuel
level increased while stopped.  We know how likely that is.  If
stopped while continuing to have the engine running, it's wasted fuel
without any progress.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
unless you own a hybrid like me that when standing still is on
electric and uses no gas.
C. E. White
2008-04-24 14:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Studemania
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage,
but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower
insurance and
taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no
way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,
But when you are stopped in traffics, it is not 0/0. It is 0
miles/less than
0 gallons of fuel = 0 miles per gallon. Of course if you want to figure
mileage as liters per 100 km, it is indeterminate, but that is a problem for
the Europeans.
Ed- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The only thing less than zero for fuel use is if somehow your fuel
level increased while stopped. We know how likely that is. If
stopped while continuing to have the engine running, it's wasted fuel
without any progress.

I mean greater than zero fuel consumed while stopped. Brain engaged,
but finger when the other way....

Ed
Studemania
2008-04-24 21:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Studemania
Post by Al Goreon
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no
way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70. Ever hear of wind
resistance, you moron?
===============
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,
But when you are stopped in traffics, it is not 0/0. It is 0 miles/less than
0 gallons of fuel = 0 miles per gallon. Of course if you want to figure
mileage as liters per 100 km, it is indeterminate, but that is a problem for
the Europeans.
Ed- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I shut my engine off in long traffic jams - same as I did in the first
postwar gas shortge.
Matthew T. Russotto
2008-04-27 03:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Studemania
Yeah and thebest MPG every car gets is at 0 mph. DUH !- Hide quoted text -=
Zero divided by zero is not zero; it's indeterminate,
Yeah, but a car doesn't use 0 gallons of gas at 0mph. Unless it's
bone dry to start with. Even a car which isn't runing is losing a teeny little
bit of gas through evaporation.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Eeyore
2008-04-23 18:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Trace
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
All cars get better mileage at 50 than at 70.
Not guaranteed by any means.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Ever hear of wind resistance, you moron?
Ever hear of running an engine at less than optimum efficiency, you moron ? Lightly
loaded engines are not operating in an efficient regime.

Graham
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 01:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eeyore
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
It worked in the 70s. There's your proof.
Harold Burton
2008-04-24 02:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Eeyore
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
It worked in the 70s.
No, it didn't, but it made a lot of money for the manufacturers of radar
detectors.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
There's your proof.
hahahahahahahahah.
Larrybud
2008-04-24 13:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Eeyore
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
It worked in the 70s. There's your proof.
No it didn't. Death *RATE* did not decrease.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 16:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Eeyore
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
It worked in the 70s. There's your proof.
No it didn't. Death *RATE* did not decrease.
Yes it did, you fkn liar. As this link shows total highway deaths AND
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles took a huge drop in 1974. Nothing like
it before or since. Get your facts str8, you hater.


http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm
C. E. White
2008-04-24 17:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Eeyore
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
It worked in the 70s. There's your proof.
No it didn't. Death *RATE* did not decrease.
Yes it did, you fkn liar. As this link shows total highway deaths AND
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles took a huge drop in 1974.
Nothing like
it before or since. Get your facts str8, you hater.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm
While it is true that the biggest single year to year drop occurred
between 1973 and 1974, I don't think you can attribute this totally to
the NSL. If you plot the trend from 1957 to 1997 you get a fairly
consistent trend downward. There are years were the rate of
improvement were greater and years were it was less, but I don't think
the change between 1973 and 1974 is statistically significant. How do
you explain the large drops in 1958 and 1982? Or the increase in 1977
and 1979? The fatality rate in 2006 was 1.41 fatalities per 100M
vehicle miles. It was 3.59 in 1974. You really want to use 1974 as an
example of "goodness?"

Ed
N8N
2008-04-24 17:10:38 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 24, 12:34 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Eeyore
 "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
No proof of that.
It worked in the 70s. There's your proof.
No it didn't.  Death *RATE* did not decrease.
Yes it did, you fkn liar. As this link shows total highway deaths AND  
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles took a huge drop in 1974. Nothing like
it before or since.  Get your facts str8, you hater.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm
You lie. the fatality rate has been declining more or less steadily
ever since the first statistics were kept back in the 1930's. Plus
there were other factors at work artificially depressing the 1974
stats. This has been discussed many times

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement.traffic/browse_frm/thread/5951c908f532838/7e7a8b4fc176d060?lnk=gst&q=fatality+rate+statistics#7e7a8b4fc176d060

nate
FNG
2008-04-23 18:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
DON'T LISTEN TO MADD and other nutty orgs filled with people who have
nothing to do but advocate some Neanderthal legislation.
But let neanderthals promote fossil fuels and Trace and other idiots will
kiss their behinds.
bushlyed
2008-04-24 01:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH.  Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
DON'T LISTEN TO MADD and other nutty orgs filled with people who have
nothing to do but advocate some Neanderthal legislation.
Not true

My BMW 330xi gets 33 mpg when driving between 55 and 60 and only 26
when driving between 75 and 80 (although it is much more fun). When I
drove through Montana and Wyoming a few months ago, going in the 90s,
my mileage was around 22.
Ed White
2008-04-24 03:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trace
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
I doubt if you can find a production car in good original condition that
will get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55. The last time the EPA ran
this sort of test (1997), they found one car that got 1 mpg better fuel
economy at 65 than at 55 - but this car got much better fuel economy at 60
than at 55 or 65 and by 70 mph it was significantly worse than at 55 (1997
Toyota Celica, see
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf ). Lots of people
will claim that they get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55, but I wager
that if they ran the same route under the same conditions at 55 as they ran
at 70, they would get significantly better mileage at 55. Aerodynamic drag
becomes the principal factor in fuel consumption as speed increases from 40
to 65 mph. The exact point where aerodynamic drag becomes the most
significant factor in fuel economy varies depending on the shape, size,
engine efficiency, gearing, etc of various vehicles, however, by the time a
vehicle is doing 70, it almost a certainty that aerodynamic drag is by far
the most significant factor in fuel economy. I got into this discussion with
some friends in a mailing list group and summarized my thoughts at
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id6.html.

From
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/tires-auto-parts/car-maintenance/get-the-most-mileage-for-your-fuel-dollars-406/

"Slow down. Aerodynamic drag exponentially increases on the highway the
faster you drive. We tested our vehicles' fuel economy at 55, 65, and 75
mph. Driving at 75 mph instead of 65 reduced the Camry's gas mileage from 35
mpg to 30. For the Mountaineer, fuel economy fell from 21 mpg to 18. Slowing
down to 55 mph improved the gas mileage by similar margins: The Camry
improved to 40 mpg and the Mountaineer to 24 mpg."

BUT, I am not suggesting a reversion to the 55 mph speed limit. There are
better ways to save fuel than by slowing people down. I believe replacing
25% of the SUVs with passenger cars would save more gas than lowering the
speed limit to 55. And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is
likely many roads will become parking lots because of the reduced capacity
of the roads do to the lower speed limits. If you think driving 70 eats
fuel, just compare that to stop and roll traffic....

Ed
Brent P
2008-04-24 12:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed White
Post by Trace
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
I doubt if you can find a production car in good original condition that
will get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55. The last time the EPA ran
this sort of test (1997), they found one car that got 1 mpg better fuel
economy at 65 than at 55 - but this car got much better fuel economy at 60
than at 55 or 65 and by 70 mph it was significantly worse than at 55 (1997
Toyota Celica, see
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf ). Lots of people
will claim that they get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55, but I wager
that if they ran the same route under the same conditions at 55 as they ran
at 70, they would get significantly better mileage at 55. Aerodynamic drag
becomes the principal factor in fuel consumption as speed increases from 40
to 65 mph.
The problem is EPA tests are not real world traffic. In real world
traffic I find fuel economy varies most by the amount of congestion
incountered. A constant 85mph yields far better fuel economy than the
congestion of a 45mph construction zone.

To force people to obey or even put up lower speed limits and have just
a few obey them will cause more congestion. More clumps, more slow
downs, earlier onset and longer durations for stop and go traffic....
Lower fuel economy.

As I have pointed out time and time again, it's a simple input rate,
storage term, output rate situation. If vehicles are slowed on the road
they will build up on the road (storage term). The speed limit on the
expressway doesn't change the rate vehicles enter it, it only changes
the rate at which they leave it. Like a sink with a lower 'speed limit'
on the drain, the water builds up.
C. E. White
2008-04-24 14:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
Post by Ed White
Post by Trace
The idiot generation knows now that many cars have been made to get
their best MPG at speeds near and sometimes over 70 MPH unlike older
cars that got their best MPG at around 45 MPH. Thus, we would be
using MORE FUEL not LESS if we reduce the traffic speeds.
I doubt if you can find a production car in good original condition that
will get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55. The last time the EPA ran
this sort of test (1997), they found one car that got 1 mpg better fuel
economy at 65 than at 55 - but this car got much better fuel
economy at 60
than at 55 or 65 and by 70 mph it was significantly worse than at 55 (1997
Toyota Celica, see
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf ). Lots of people
will claim that they get better fuel economy at 70 than at 55, but I wager
that if they ran the same route under the same conditions at 55 as they ran
at 70, they would get significantly better mileage at 55.
Aerodynamic drag
becomes the principal factor in fuel consumption as speed increases from 40
to 65 mph.
The problem is EPA tests are not real world traffic. In real world
traffic I find fuel economy varies most by the amount of congestion
incountered. A constant 85mph yields far better fuel economy than the
congestion of a 45mph construction zone.
To force people to obey or even put up lower speed limits and have just
a few obey them will cause more congestion. More clumps, more slow
downs, earlier onset and longer durations for stop and go
traffic....
Lower fuel economy.
As I have pointed out time and time again, it's a simple input rate,
storage term, output rate situation. If vehicles are slowed on the road
they will build up on the road (storage term). The speed limit on the
expressway doesn't change the rate vehicles enter it, it only
changes
the rate at which they leave it. Like a sink with a lower 'speed limit'
on the drain, the water builds up.
You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at least meant
to - "And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is likely
many roads will become parking lots because of the reduced capacity of
the roads do to the lower speed limits. If you think driving 70 eats
fuel, just compare that to stop and roll traffic...."

Ed
aol@aol.com
2008-04-25 17:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. E. White
You clipped out the part where I agreed with you, or at least meant
to - "And of course, if we drop the speed limit to 55, it is likely
many roads will become parking lots because of the reduced capacity of
the roads do to the lower speed limits. If you think driving 70 eats
fuel, just compare that to stop and roll traffic...."
So, where did you download your degree in traffic engineering?
Trace
2008-04-23 18:36:03 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 1:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
By the way, does someone have a gun to YOUR head making you drive the
speed limit?
Al Goreon
2008-04-23 18:49:28 UTC
Permalink
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:***@216.168.3.70...


Democrats block efforts to increase oil production
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/oct/22/letter-democrats-block-efforts-increase-oil-produc/
Smirnoff
2008-04-23 20:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trace
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Democrats block efforts to increase oil production
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/oct/22/letter-democrats-block-efforts-increase-oil-produc/
Bush blocks oil drilling.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drilling.asp

Bush has been blocking oil drilling since 2002.

Bush blocks Florida Gulf, Glades drilling
May 29, 2002: In a two-part deal, the federal government will pay $235
million to buy back oil, natural gas and mining development rights in the
cypress swamps of the Everglades and off the beaches of the Gulf of Mexico.
The coastal deal involves paying $115 million to buy back oil and gas leases
about 30 miles off the shores of Pensacola in a deposit known as Destin
Dome. The Everglades deal, which requires congressional approval, amounts to
$120 million worth of cash or future drilling credits to retire mineral
rights in the Big Cypress National Preserve and other federal lands.

The move to protect Florida's environmental treasures marks a departure from
the Bush administration's efforts to boost oil and gas exploration
nationwide. The president downplayed the apparent discrepancy between his
administration's push to open the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and offshore California to oil drilling, at the same time he was making
Florida's coastal region off-limits to energy development. Bush noted that
his decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and that local interests and
economic factors played a large role in his decision to protect the Sunshine
State's natural environment from potential pollution.

"President Bush has finally realized that jeopardizing Florida's spectacular
coastline for a few weeks worth of offshore oil and gas makes no sense,"
said Lisa Speer, a senior policy analyst with NRDC and an expert on offshore
oil development issues. "We trust the administration will apply the same
logic to other sensitive public lands, including the Arctic Refuge, offshore
California and pristine places throughout the West."
Brent P
2008-04-23 20:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smirnoff
Bush blocks oil drilling.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drilling.asp
Bush has been blocking oil drilling since 2002.
The world has lots of oil, the only way to keep profits up is through
keeping it a cartel system and restricting production. There is nothing
surprising about this.
Al Goreon
2008-04-23 21:00:32 UTC
Permalink
"Smirnoff" <***@unlisted.com> wrote in message news:1LMPj.3139$***@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Democrats Push Ethanol Growth
House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing
in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand
production of ethanol.
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=10304


http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/?imw=Y&ir
ef=mpstoryemail
Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
CNN) -- Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of
basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to
the forefront of the world's attention, the head of an agency focused on
global development said Monday.

The finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend," he said
on CNN's "American Morning," in a reference to top economic officials who
gathered in Washington. "There are riots all over the world in the poor
countries ... and, of course, our own poor are feeling it in the United
States."
"While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around
the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and
more difficult every day," Zoellick said late last week in a speech opening
meetings with finance ministers.

Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, has called using
food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity."

"We've been putting our food into the gas tank -- this corn-to-ethanol
subsidy which our government is doing really makes little sense," said
Columbia University's Sachs.

Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania
over the weekend, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce
ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price
of food."
l***@yahoo.com
2008-04-23 19:17:08 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
If you (and others who feel they are being pinched by current fuel
prices) choose to drive in the right lane at 55 MPH, you are welcome
to do so. I don't know of any state which has a MINIMUM Speed Limit
that is over 55 MPH.

I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue. You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?

This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues. By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.

On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours. This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
Studemania
2008-04-23 19:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
If you (and others who feel they are being pinched by current fuel
prices) choose to drive in the right lane at 55 MPH, you are welcome
to do so.  I don't know of any state which has a MINIMUM Speed Limit
that is over 55 MPH.
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue.  You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues.  By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours.  This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
Interestuin point. In the mid 1970s, I used to make many trips from
the Bay Area to San Diego on the then-new and almost traffic-free I5.
It was exactly 480 miles.

Assuming that I could average 80 MPH, that would mean that I would be
driving two hours less than if I averaged 60 MPH.
Obviously, only about 3/4 of the trip was, essentially, traffic free,
so I was only 1 1/2 hours less fatigued at the end.
Steven L.
2008-04-23 19:42:05 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
If you (and others who feel they are being pinched by current fuel
prices) choose to drive in the right lane at 55 MPH, you are welcome
to do so. I don't know of any state which has a MINIMUM Speed Limit
that is over 55 MPH.
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue. You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues. By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
What politicians and the media rarely point out is that over the last 30
years, the price of gasoline has NOT risen much faster than inflation.
Surprise! It's health care, education, and housing that have risen much
faster than inflation.
--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
N8N
2008-04-24 13:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
If you (and others who feel they are being pinched by current fuel
prices) choose to drive in the right lane at 55 MPH, you are welcome
to do so.  I don't know of any state which has a MINIMUM Speed Limit
that is over 55 MPH.
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue.  You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues.  By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours.  This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
Who is more ecologically correct, someone who drives an old Civic CRX
HF at 80 MPH or someone driving an Excursion at 55 MPH?

nate
ChrisCoaster
2008-04-24 16:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue.  You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues.  By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours.  This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
____________________
And that "freedom of choice" is what is contributing to pollution and
global climate change!
And that last part about an extra hotel night misses the point
entirely!

It's about preservation of our climate and our future that's at
stake. It is not "socialistic" to expect government to step in and
regulate where the welfare of the majority and the lesser among us are
concerned.

-CC
Larrybud
2008-04-24 16:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChrisCoaster
And that "freedom of choice" is what is contributing to
pollution and global climate change!
And that last part about an extra hotel night misses the point
entirely!
It's about preservation of our climate and our future that's at
stake. It is not "socialistic" to expect government to step in
and regulate where the welfare of the majority and the lesser
among us are concerned.
It's entirely socialistic. The socialists have begun to lose when it
comes to controlling everybody with direct taxation (which is why we
have tax withholding, "fees", "business taxes") and a myriad of other
taxes that are hidden from the average consumer.

Environmentalism is just another avenue to rob the public and control
their lives so that we're dependant upon the same government that
supposedly has our interest at stake.
N8N
2008-04-24 16:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChrisCoaster
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue.  You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues.  By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours.  This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
____________________
And that "freedom of choice" is what is contributing to pollution and
global climate change!
And that last part about an extra hotel night misses the point
entirely!
It's about preservation of our climate and our future that's at
stake.  It is not "socialistic" to expect government to step in and
regulate where the welfare of the majority and the lesser among us are
concerned.
-CC
Then legislate to encourage conservation if you feel that way, but
leave me the freedom to choose how I wish to conserve. if I want to
burn all my gas for the year in one glorious day at the track and ride
my bike for the rest of the year, who are you to tell me I can't?

Again, why should you penalize someone who's already driving a fuel-
efficient car, combining trips, carpooling, etc. by limiting them to
an arbitrarily low speed while the guy who's using a 10MPG truck as a
single passenger commuter vehicle is still using more fuel?

nate
ChrisCoaster
2008-04-25 00:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by N8N
Post by ChrisCoaster
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue.  You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues.  By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours.  This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
____________________
And that "freedom of choice" is what is contributing to pollution and
global climate change!
And that last part about an extra hotel night misses the point
entirely!
It's about preservation of our climate and our future that's at
stake.  It is not "socialistic" to expect government to step in and
regulate where the welfare of the majority and the lesser among us are
concerned.
-CC
Then legislate to encourage conservation if you feel that way, but
leave me the freedom to choose how I wish to conserve.  if I want to
burn all my gas for the year in one glorious day at the track and ride
my bike for the rest of the year, who are you to tell me I can't?
Again, why should you penalize someone who's already driving a fuel-
efficient car, combining trips, carpooling, etc. by limiting them to
an arbitrarily low speed while the guy who's using a 10MPG truck as a
single passenger commuter vehicle is still using more fuel?
nate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I guess if you want to contribute to smog and/or global warming that's
also your choice....
Nate Nagel
2008-04-25 00:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChrisCoaster
Post by N8N
Post by ChrisCoaster
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I question your need to legislate this, even if you were right about
the gas mileage issue. You can drive at a speed that you believe is
both safe and frugal without insisting that others do likewise, can't
you?
This is a country that offers freedom of choice on a large number of
issues. By and large, people can own and drive the vehicle of their
choice, from the thriftiest small car to the most wastefully huge SUV,
regardless of its fuel mileage.
On a 3,000 mile cross-country journey, the difference between 55 MPH
and 65 MPH is more than 8 hours. This costs the 55 MPH driver an
extra hotel-night, which may more than offset any fuel savings.
____________________
And that "freedom of choice" is what is contributing to pollution and
global climate change!
And that last part about an extra hotel night misses the point
entirely!
It's about preservation of our climate and our future that's at
stake. It is not "socialistic" to expect government to step in and
regulate where the welfare of the majority and the lesser among us are
concerned.
-CC
Then legislate to encourage conservation if you feel that way, but
leave me the freedom to choose how I wish to conserve. if I want to
burn all my gas for the year in one glorious day at the track and ride
my bike for the rest of the year, who are you to tell me I can't?
Again, why should you penalize someone who's already driving a fuel-
efficient car, combining trips, carpooling, etc. by limiting them to
an arbitrarily low speed while the guy who's using a 10MPG truck as a
single passenger commuter vehicle is still using more fuel?
nate- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I guess if you want to contribute to smog and/or global warming that's
also your choice....
"smog" and "global warming" are contributed to, given modern cars with
pollution controls intact, roughly in proportion to fuel burned. So if
I'm burning less fuel, I'm contributing less. Again, who are you to
tell me *how* to use my fuel, so long as I'm using less of it?

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Studemania
2008-04-23 19:25:33 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
Please correct grammer and repost.
dgs
2008-04-23 23:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Studemania
Please correct grammer and repost.
Please correct spelling and repost.
Harold Burton
2008-04-24 01:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by dgs
Post by Studemania
Please correct grammer and repost.
Please correct spelling and repost.
LOL!!!
Studemania
2008-04-24 21:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Burton
Post by dgs
Post by Studemania
Please correct grammer and repost.
Please correct spelling and repost.
LOL!!!
Missen akomplished!
Steven L.
2008-04-23 19:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
That wouldn't be much help here in Massachusetts.

During the rush hour, it's so bumper-to-bumper that nobody can drive
anywhere close to the speed limit anyway. I'm lucky if I can hit 40
mph. It's stop-and-go traffic on bumper-to-bumper congested roads that
really lowers your mileage.

And from what I've heard, the highways in L.A. are even more crowded.
--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Smirnoff
2008-04-23 20:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better
gas mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
meaning lower insurance and taxes.
That wouldn't be much help here in Massachusetts.
During the rush hour, it's so bumper-to-bumper that
nobody can drive anywhere close to the speed limit
anyway. I'm lucky if I can hit 40 mph. It's stop-and-go
traffic on bumper-to-bumper congested roads that really
lowers your mileage.
And from what I've heard, the highways in L.A. are even
more crowded.
All highways in Mass and the N.E. states are the same from one state to
another. Going to work early can take 20 minutes while the drive home can
take well over an hour. Mandating slower speeds is ridiculous. Money should
be spent on better roads and bridges than on wars for lies which caused the
higher oil prices.
Brent P
2008-04-23 20:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smirnoff
All highways in Mass and the N.E. states are the same from one state to
another. Going to work early can take 20 minutes while the drive home can
take well over an hour. Mandating slower speeds is ridiculous. Money should
be spent on better roads and bridges than on wars for lies which caused the
higher oil prices.
The federal government would rather use gasoline tax money to fund
checkpoints than to fix bridges.
Steven L.
2008-04-24 01:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smirnoff
Post by Steven L.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better
gas mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
meaning lower insurance and taxes.
That wouldn't be much help here in Massachusetts.
During the rush hour, it's so bumper-to-bumper that
nobody can drive anywhere close to the speed limit
anyway. I'm lucky if I can hit 40 mph. It's stop-and-go
traffic on bumper-to-bumper congested roads that really
lowers your mileage.
And from what I've heard, the highways in L.A. are even
more crowded.
All highways in Mass and the N.E. states are the same from one state to
another. Going to work early can take 20 minutes while the drive home can
take well over an hour. Mandating slower speeds is ridiculous. Money should
be spent on better roads and bridges than on wars for lies which caused the
higher oil prices.
It's not as easy to build new roads as you think. The area is so
overbuilt and congested that new construction ends up being fiercely
opposed by local residents. And construction above ground is virtually
impossible during the winter snows.

The Big Dig to depress I-93 ran about 500% over budget and took about 3
times longer to complete than anyone had originally planned. Even just
widening Route 3 north of Boston from 2 lanes to 3 lanes took two years.

Route 128 has been vastly overcrowded for decades, but there's just no
place to build another highway in that area--the real estate is all
built up.
--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Studemania
2008-04-24 21:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
The Big Dig to depress I-93 ran about 500% over budget and took about 3
times longer to complete than anyone had originally planned.  Even just
widening Route 3 north of Boston from 2 lanes to 3 lanes took two years.
Be honest now.

What percentage of educated long-term Bostonians thought that it would
come in at under 300% overrun.

I spent three decades in that favorite city of mine (for six
unconnected months of the year) and expect no less. Lack of BIG
overruns in Boston is as likely as a long spell of Honesty in Congress.
Garth Almgren
2008-04-24 04:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage,
but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and
taxes.
That wouldn't be much help here in Massachusetts.
Or anywhere else in the US, for that matter (not like Aunt Judy cares
about facts...)
Post by Steven L.
During the rush hour, it's so bumper-to-bumper that nobody can drive
anywhere close to the speed limit anyway. I'm lucky if I can hit 40
mph. It's stop-and-go traffic on bumper-to-bumper congested roads that
really lowers your mileage.
And from what I've heard, the highways in L.A. are even more crowded.
More crowded, but moving at a _much_ higher rate. Traffic as dense as I
drove through in SoCal the last time I went to Disneyland would have
been moving at about 30-40 MPH in Seattle, but I was really exercising
6th gear, occasionally hitting 90 plus and still not keeping up --in
the right lane!
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Stanley F. Nelson
2008-04-23 20:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten. They
want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they want to
do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any fact, any suggestion,
to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not insulted and rejected. A
speed of 65 mph is sufficient to get anybody any place, safely and in a
reasonable length of time; 60 is better for mileage's sake. Cars with
optimum horsepower-to-weight ratios are better, too.

Try it. You might like it.

Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
Brent P
2008-04-23 22:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten. They
want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they want to
do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any fact, any suggestion,
to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not insulted and rejected. A
speed of 65 mph is sufficient to get anybody any place, safely and in a
reasonable length of time; 60 is better for mileage's sake. Cars with
optimum horsepower-to-weight ratios are better, too.
The problem with many americans is that they are control freaks who
think everyone should be forced into making the decisons they consider
best.
Harold Burton
2008-04-24 01:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten. They
want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they want to
do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any fact, any suggestion,
to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not insulted and rejected. A
speed of 65 mph is sufficient to get anybody any place, safely and in a
reasonable length of time; 60 is better for mileage's sake. Cars with
optimum horsepower-to-weight ratios are better, too.
The problem with many DemocRATs is that they are control freaks who
think everyone should be forced into making the decisons they consider
best.
There, corrected you post for you.
Steven L.
2008-04-24 01:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten.
They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they
want to do it,
How about "they *have to* do it"???

A lot of folks today are holding down two jobs. Or a mom is holding
down a full time job while she's also driving her young kid back and
forth to the day-care center, and her older kids back and forth to
school or sports.

Americans are working harder; surveys show we work longer hours than any
Europeans do. And so nobody wants to spend any more time behind the
wheel of a car than necessary--there's just too many other things on the
agenda to take care of.
--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
N8N
2008-04-24 14:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Too  many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten.  
They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they
want to do it,
How about "they *have to* do it"???
A lot of folks today are holding down two jobs.  Or a mom is holding
down a full time job while she's also driving her young kid back and
forth to the day-care center, and her older kids back and forth to
school or sports.
Americans are working harder; surveys show we work longer hours than any
Europeans do.  And so nobody wants to spend any more time behind the
wheel of a car than necessary--there's just too many other things on the
agenda to take care of.
--
Steven L.
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
The two jobs thing is a real killer. Even in my own situation, I'd
love to move closer to work so that I could stash the company car at
work and ride a bike or motorcycle, but that would be farther away
from SWMBO's job. Right now we're living pretty much equidistant from
each; she can take the Metro (and does) but I cannot, as it doesn't go
anywhere near my office. In this area it requires at least two good
incomes to live, unless you are pulling down some serious coin. My
own salary would seem extravagant in many other areas I've lived, but
here it's simply "sufficient."

Finding work for two people within a few miles of each other, when
those two people have different skill sets and qualifications often
proves very difficult and would involve compromises on the part of one
or another party. Also as there is little job security in today's
market place and people often switch jobs more often than they move,
so proximity to the workplace is by necessity less of a factor than it
used to be in an era when people would keep the same job for a decade
or more.

Also, even workplaces are transient - my employer moved into its
current office not long before I started working there, and will
probably move again in a couple years as the business grows. My
previous employer was bought out and moved during my tenure there as
well, although at least in that instance my commute actually improved.

nate
Steven L.
2008-04-27 03:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by N8N
Post by Steven L.
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten.
They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they
want to do it,
How about "they *have to* do it"???
A lot of folks today are holding down two jobs. Or a mom is holding
down a full time job while she's also driving her young kid back and
forth to the day-care center, and her older kids back and forth to
school or sports.
Americans are working harder; surveys show we work longer hours than any
Europeans do. And so nobody wants to spend any more time behind the
wheel of a car than necessary--there's just too many other things on the
agenda to take care of.
--
Steven L.
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
The two jobs thing is a real killer. Even in my own situation, I'd
love to move closer to work so that I could stash the company car at
work and ride a bike or motorcycle, but that would be farther away
from SWMBO's job. Right now we're living pretty much equidistant from
each; she can take the Metro (and does) but I cannot, as it doesn't go
anywhere near my office. In this area it requires at least two good
incomes to live, unless you are pulling down some serious coin. My
own salary would seem extravagant in many other areas I've lived, but
here it's simply "sufficient."
Yes, and I have a friend who's a single mom. She has to drop off her
kid at the day-care center and then dash across town to get to her job
by 8 AM. Then she has to dash out of work to dash across town to pick
up her kid at 4:30 PM. She's driving like a maniac because otherwise
her kid will be cooling his heels for an hour waiting for her.

I grew up in New York City, and as a kid I had some independence, thanks
to the public transit system. My friends and I could go all over the
city via subway. But with suburbia, the parents have to drive the kids
everywhere--to day-care, to school, to sports, while also driving
themselves to shopping and work. Telling these people to drive slower
or drive less is a joke, and they know it's a joke.

Ultimately, the answer to her problem and to YOUR problem is better
designed communities, which don't sprawl the shopping malls, the
schools, the business and the homes across miles and miles of land. Los
Angeles is a great example of how NOT to design a city.
--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 01:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten.
They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way
they want to do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any
fact, any suggestion, to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not
insulted and rejected.
That wouldn't be so if we had stiff penalties for speeding to go along with
the 55 limit. Speeding is a deadly super-violent crime and it's time we
punished it as such. Make anything over 75 a felony with an automatic 2
year loss of driver lic and americans wouldn't do it. But sure, as long as
you "punish" 75 in a 55 with a $200 fine, people will still do it.
Harold Burton
2008-04-24 01:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten.
They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way
they want to do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any
fact, any suggestion, to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not
insulted and rejected.
That wouldn't be so if we had stiff penalties for speeding to go along with
the 55 limit.
Big fucking "if".

Tried it, didn't work. No one's stupid enough to try it again, except
you.

snicker.
Larrybud
2008-04-24 13:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled
rotten. They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to
do, the way they want to do it, when they want to do it, and
any thought, any fact, any suggestion, to the contrary, is
likely to be ignored if not insulted and rejected.
That wouldn't be so if we had stiff penalties for speeding to go
along with the 55 limit. Speeding is a deadly super-violent
crime and it's time we punished it as such. Make anything over
75 a felony with an automatic 2 year loss of driver lic and
americans wouldn't do it. But sure, as long as you "punish" 75
in a 55 with a $200 fine, people will still do it.
Yeah, because NOBODY breaks laws in which they get severely punished
for (::rolls eyes::)
Matthew T. Russotto
2008-04-27 03:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten. They
want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they want to
do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any fact, any suggestion,
to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not insulted and rejected.
I considered ignoring this, but then I decided that you were a moron
and a control freak and your ideas deserved scorn and ridicule.
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
A speed of 65 mph is sufficient to get anybody any place, safely and in a
reasonable length of time; 60 is better for mileage's sake.
Yeah, try getting from New York City to Singapore at 65mph.
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
Cars with optimum horsepower-to-weight ratios are better, too.
There is no optimium horsepower-to-weight ratio, idiot. Optimality of
horsepower to weight ratio increases without bound as the rate
increases without bound.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
B1ackwater
2008-04-23 21:47:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:30:42 -0500, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Low speed limits SUCK. While they might save some gas,
they are yet another psychological offense against an
already price-offended automobile owner.

We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and everybody
found every possible way to drive *95* instead of the 75
they HAD been driving. Laws THAT unpopular promote massive
disrespect for the law ... which is worse for the State
than buying a little extra gas.

The better solution is to put the mega-SUV up on blocks in
your front yard and plant tomatoes in it. Just think of it
as yet another bad investment, like that sub-prime mortgage.

Buy the most fuel-efficient car you can find, even IF it's
got rust on it, or consider a scooter or motorcycle if
you're in a fair-weather state or tough enough not to care.
You might not look super-cool on that Vespa, but you'll
have change in your pocket at the end of the month while
the others will just have a bigger credit card bill.

And who do you figure the chicks will dig the most ... the
guy with a 600-HP truck he can't drive, or the guy on the
Vespa who DOES have spendin' money ? :-)

. . . And now the IMPORTANT STUFF . . .

Longer term - and starting NOW - we need to adjust the
urban geography of American cities. Right now, everywhere
is ten miles and fifteen stoplights from the NEXT place
you have to go.

Instead, you should live pretty much within walking
distance of where you work, where you shop, where you
play, where the bulk of your consumer goods are made
and where the kids go to school. Almost all of your
food should come from farms right outside town instead
of farms 3000 or 6000 miles away.

Distance is the ENEMY now, and may remain so for many
many decades to come. We've GOT to reduce distances -
the distances WE travel, the distances goods travel.
Envision cities re-organized into mostly-autonomous
enclaves with a bare minimum of inter-enclave, much
less inter-city, movement.

Indeed, the cities might come to resemble, say, NYC in
the 1930s when people didn't have money for cars and
could barely afford public transport most of the time.
Everything was neighborhood-oriented. If you couldn't
walk to it you probably didn't DO it. Yes, it caused
a somewhat wasteful replication of services ... dozens
of small stores -vs- one MegaMart ... but, on the other
hand, that meant JOBS just down the street.

Oh yea, the RAIL SYSTEM ... FIX it up and USE it to the max.
There is no cheaper way, by FAR, to move bulk cargo long
distances over land. The infrastructure is relatively low
tech and easy to fix up and, importantly, ALREADY THERE.
Trucks should be reserved for that final one percent of
the journey from the citys rail terminal to the store in
your neighborhood.

And one side-effect ... I don't think you're gonna have to
worry about "speeders" anymore - because there will hardly
be any DRIVERS.
Brent P
2008-04-23 22:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and everybody
found every possible way to drive *95* instead of the 75
they HAD been driving. Laws THAT unpopular promote massive
disrespect for the law ... which is worse for the State
than buying a little extra gas.
Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state. The state can
then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do you think the state makes so
many laws that vast number of people aren't going to follow?
Smirnoff
2008-04-23 22:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
Post by B1ackwater
We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and
everybody found every possible way to drive *95*
instead of the 75 they HAD been driving. Laws THAT
unpopular promote massive disrespect for the law ...
which is worse for the State than buying a little
extra gas.
Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state.
The state can then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do
you think the state makes so many laws that vast number
of people aren't going to follow?
It's called a police state where at any given time you are always breaking
one law or another. Speed limits are the most obvious example when all that
is needed is a trap to catch the violators that are known to exist all of
the time. The same with drug dealing. The police know who and where they are
but claim the system is on overload and they have better things to do.
aol@aol.com
2008-04-24 14:05:48 UTC
Permalink
55 mph would save billions of gallons of oil, billions of dollars and
thousands of American lives.
Brent P
2008-04-24 16:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@aol.com
55 mph would save billions of gallons of oil, billions of dollars and
thousands of American lives.
um no, it wouldn't. It would cause deaths an monumental congestion that
wastes oil, that is if were followed at all.
C. E. White
2008-04-24 16:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@aol.com
55 mph would save billions of gallons of oil, billions of dollars and
thousands of American lives.
These claims sound impressive until you look at them in context. You
need to be sure to include lost earnings due to time spent in longer
commutes. Extra gas wasted in traffic jams. Portions of lives spent in
cars instead of other activities, etc.

Gas savings:

Dropping the speed limit on highways from 65 and 70 to 55 is not going
to effect average speed of traffic by 10 or 15 mph. Most trips are at
significantly lower speeds on secondary roads and streets. So you are
only going to effect the fuel economy on a small portion of all trips.
It is my guess (and only a guess) that speed limits higher than 55 mph
only affect around 25% of all the miles driven by typical,
non-commercial, drivers. Say that total passenger car / light truck
miles driven in a given year is around 3 trillion miles. This means
the speed limit will have an effect on about 750 billion miles. The
average fuel economy of non-commercial passenger vehicles in the US is
around 20 mpg. I am guessing the average fuel economy of a car driving
a steady 65 is going to be in the high 20s - lets pick 27 (a guess).
Assume you drop the speed limit to 55 on the 25% of miles traveled
where the speed limit is 65 or higher. What do you think the fuel
economy improvement will be? It could be as great as 10% (but probably
less). Lets say the steady state fuel economy at 55 is 30 mpg. So to
go 750 billion miles at 65+ you will use somewhere around 27 billion
gallons of oil. To do the same number of miles at 55, you will use
somewhere around 25 billion gallons of oil. A savings of 2 billion
gallons. The US consumes over 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year.
So 2 billion gallons is a savings of less than 1.4%. Of course this
does not include the gallons consumed because of time lost in the stop
and go traffic that will result because the lower speed limits reduce
the capacity of the highways. I suspect when all is said and done, you
might save 1% of the gasoline consumed in this country by reducing the
speed limit to 55.

Fatality reduction:

Let's guess that the average high speed trip (trips where speed limits
higher than 55 mph have an effect) is 30 miles (again, just a guess
for illustrations). Assume that 25% of the trips fall into this
category. Dropping the speed limit from 65 to 55 will increase the
length of such trips by 5 minutes. The cumulative effect will be that
people spend 125 Billion more minutes in cars. This is 2.1 Billion
hours, or 87 million days, or 238 thousand person years, or the life
span of about 3,400 people. So you are effectively killing off 3,400
people each year by forcing people to spend more time in their cars. I
content that lowering the speed limits will not reduce the accident
rate significantly. Most accidents don't occur on open stretches of
highway. Most occur on streets that have much lower speed limits and
at intersections. If you want to reduce highway fatalities I think you
should concentrate on aggressive drivers, people who run stop lights
and signs and people who are incompetent drivers.

Monetary savings:

The extra 2 billion gallons of gas used because of higher speed limits
will cost 6 to 8 billion dollars. How do you value a person's time?
Lets say time is only worth $5 per hours. The extra 2.1 billion hours
spent in cars translates to over 10 billion dollars. So, where is the
dollar savings? People that don't value their time, can drive slower
and take more peaceful routes. It is not fair for you to decide that I
should waste more of my time so that I can save what I consider a
trivial amount on gas. It is not up to you to decide that I should
waste significant portions of my life in cars because of a very very
small increase in the risk of a crash related to the higher speed
limits.

If you want to drive slower, drive slower. If you want to reduce fuel
consumption demand higher gas taxes.

Ed
N8N
2008-04-24 16:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. E. White
Post by ***@aol.com
55 mph would save billions of gallons of oil, billions of dollars and
thousands of American lives.
These claims sound impressive until you look at them in context. You
need to be sure to include lost earnings due to time spent in longer
commutes. Extra gas wasted in traffic jams. Portions of lives spent in
cars instead of other activities, etc.
Dropping the speed limit on highways from 65 and 70 to 55 is not going
to effect average speed of traffic by 10 or 15 mph. Most trips are at
significantly lower speeds on secondary roads and streets. So you are
only going to effect the fuel economy on a small portion of all trips.
It is my guess (and only a guess) that speed limits higher than 55 mph
only affect around 25% of all the miles driven by typical,
non-commercial, drivers. Say that total passenger car / light truck
miles driven in a given year is around 3 trillion miles. This means
the speed limit will have an effect on about 750 billion miles. The
average fuel economy of non-commercial passenger vehicles in the US is
around 20 mpg. I am guessing the average fuel economy of a car driving
a steady 65 is going to be in the high 20s - lets pick 27 (a guess).
Assume you drop the speed limit to 55 on the 25% of miles traveled
where the speed limit is 65 or higher. What do you think the fuel
economy improvement will be? It could be as great as 10% (but probably
less). Lets say the steady state fuel economy at 55 is 30 mpg. So to
go 750 billion miles at 65+ you will use somewhere around 27 billion
gallons of oil. To do the same number of miles at 55, you will use
somewhere around 25 billion gallons of oil. A savings of 2 billion
gallons. The US consumes over 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year.
So 2 billion gallons is a savings of less than 1.4%. Of course this
does not include the gallons consumed because of time lost in the stop
and go traffic that will result because the lower speed limits reduce
the capacity of the highways. I suspect when all is said and done, you
might save 1% of the gasoline consumed in this country by reducing the
speed limit to 55.
Let's guess that the average high speed trip (trips where speed limits
higher than 55 mph have an effect) is 30 miles (again, just a guess
for illustrations). Assume that 25% of the trips fall into this
category. Dropping the speed limit from 65 to 55 will increase the
length of such trips by 5 minutes. The cumulative effect will be that
people spend 125 Billion more minutes in cars. This is 2.1 Billion
hours, or 87 million days, or 238 thousand person years, or the life
span of about 3,400 people. So you are effectively killing off 3,400
people each year by forcing people to spend more time in their cars. I
content that lowering the speed limits will not reduce the accident
rate significantly. Most accidents don't occur on open stretches of
highway. Most occur on streets that have much lower speed limits and
at intersections. If you want to reduce highway fatalities I think you
should concentrate on aggressive drivers, people who run stop lights
and signs and people who are incompetent drivers.
The extra 2 billion gallons of gas used because of higher speed limits
will cost 6 to 8 billion dollars. How do you value a person's time?
Lets say time is only worth $5 per hours. The extra 2.1 billion hours
spent in cars translates to over 10 billion dollars. So, where is the
dollar savings? People that don't value their time, can drive slower
and take more peaceful routes. It is not fair for you to decide that I
should waste more of my time so that I can save what I consider a
trivial amount on gas. It is not up to you to decide that I should
waste significant portions of my life in cars because of a very very
small increase in the risk of a crash related to the higher speed
limits.
If you want to drive slower, drive slower. If you want to reduce fuel
consumption demand higher gas taxes.
Ed
All very valid points, but you are making the assumption that lower
speed limits would result in lower travel speeds. As someone who
lives in an area where most Interstate speed limits already are posted
at 55 MPH, I can tell you that this is not the case, and research
supports this assertion as well. Posting a speed limit, say, 10 MPH
higher or lower than the 85th percentile speed will only affect actual
travel speeds by a much smaller amount, something on the order of 10%.

nate
Larrybud
2008-04-24 16:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@aol.com
55 mph would save billions of gallons of oil, billions of
dollars and thousands of American lives.
Why did the traffic death RATE decrease in the US when the 55mph
limit was repealed?
aol@aol.com
2008-04-25 17:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larrybud
Why did the traffic death RATE decrease in the US when the 55mph
limit was repealed?
Let me guess, you're a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and you DON'T believe
in Global Warming?
B1ackwater
2008-04-23 23:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent P
Post by B1ackwater
We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and everybody
found every possible way to drive *95* instead of the 75
they HAD been driving. Laws THAT unpopular promote massive
disrespect for the law ... which is worse for the State
than buying a little extra gas.
Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state. The state can
then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do you think the state makes so
many laws that vast number of people aren't going to follow?
They're following Ayn Rands advice (or Ayn spotted their plan,
depending). It is vital that the State make sure that EVERYBODY
is a criminal - or at least THINKS they might be - because the
system has little leverage over the innocent. PLENTY of leverage
over the paranoid and guilty-feeling however.

All those laws millions will never follow - they ARE meant to
be broken. It IS the plan.

However ... there's ONE instance where this sort of thinking can
backfire on the State - and that's when lawbreaking becomes a sort
of mass sport or crusade. When the feeling is that "everyone is
doing it" and you're "sticking it to The Man" the equation changes
into something BAD for the State. The lawbreakers think of
themselves as "heros".

This happened with the Prohibition and also with the 55 MPH
speed limit. Odd as it seems "Smokey and the Bandit" was the
death-knell for "Drive 55" - the widely-embraced cultural
event that focused people on the same idea ... that cheating
the speed limit made you a heroic figure - and a martyr if
caught.

It sort-of happened in the 1960s with "drugs" but there was
never quite enough sense of communal revolution or number of
people involved.

Anyway, as such, THIS particular sort of law HURTS the State
and undermines its authority. They'd be insane to bring back
55 MPH limits.
Brent P
2008-04-24 00:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
This happened with the Prohibition and also with the 55 MPH
speed limit. Odd as it seems "Smokey and the Bandit" was the
death-knell for "Drive 55" - the widely-embraced cultural
event that focused people on the same idea ... that cheating
the speed limit made you a heroic figure - and a martyr if
caught.
Yes. The NMSL and the rest of the underposted speed limits are the
reason so much of the vehicle code is ignored by so many today.
Unreasonable laws can backfire and cause people not to follow the ones
that are reasonable. But instead of the state backing off and trying to
restore respect for the law by making the law respectable it decides to
add red light camera scams with shortened yellow signals and other
nonsense.
Post by B1ackwater
It sort-of happened in the 1960s with "drugs" but there was
never quite enough sense of communal revolution or number of
people involved.
Drugs are always going to be used by a minority of people. Of those who
don't use them only a few will stand up for the right of other people to
use them.
Post by B1ackwater
Anyway, as such, THIS particular sort of law HURTS the State
and undermines its authority. They'd be insane to bring back
55 MPH limits.
Considering I am in a state where 55/65 NMSL never went away, I don't
see it quite that way. More and more however the authority is coming
from the barrel of a gun. It always did, but with the loss of rights,
the expense of court cases, charging someone with 15 different counts
for even the smallest single violation, and the various physical
tortures such as tasering the state is no longer relying on people's
respect, only their fear. This is an era of fear based enforcement
rather than respect based compliance.
Matthew T. Russotto
2008-04-27 03:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Post by Brent P
Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state. The state can
then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do you think the state makes so
many laws that vast number of people aren't going to follow?
They're following Ayn Rands advice (or Ayn spotted their plan,
depending).
The latter. The ploy is older than Rand. She merely managed to
explain it in the LEAST concise way possible.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 01:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Instead, you should live pretty much within walking
distance of where you work, where you shop, where you
play, where the bulk of your consumer goods are made
and where the kids go to school. Almost all of your
food should come from farms right outside town instead
of farms 3000 or 6000 miles away.
Another pie-in-the-sky pipe dream from a loony lib. Making all those
changes would cost TRILLIONS of $. OTOH lowering speed limits would save
money.
Liberals are Guilt-mongering Fascists
2008-04-23 21:55:02 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
I call that FREEDOM.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 01:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liberals are Guilt-mongering Fascists
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage,
but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance
and taxes.
 
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no
way
!!!
I call that FREEDOM.
HAHAHAHAHA. Freedom?? You stupid libertarians think you have the right to
waste gas and kill innocent people by your speeding. Get help please.
Harold Burton
2008-04-24 02:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Liberals are Guilt-mongering Fascists
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage,
but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance
and taxes.
 
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no
way
!!!
I call that FREEDOM.
HAHAHAHAHA. Freedom?? You stupid libertarians think you have the right to
waste gas and kill innocent people by your speeding.
You're whining, they're speeding. Only an idiot like you would claim
they're not right.
Harold Burton
2008-04-24 01:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage...
Tried it, didn't work.

Too bad leftards are too stupid to learn from experience, but that's
what makes them leftards.


Snicker.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 16:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Burton
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage...
Tried it, didn't work.
It was tried in the 70s and worked and that was without strict enforcement.
Throw speeders in prison and you'd get 100% compliance and a huge fuel
saving. THINK, you repulsive hater.
Harold Burton
2008-04-25 01:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Burton
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage...
Tried it, didn't work.
It was tried in the 70s and worked...
Except that it didn't.
bushlyed
2008-04-24 01:49:50 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
I think someone like Michael Moore should get a camera, set up a
roadblock on a busy street in some city and stop cars and ask point
blank: "Is this trip for you absolutely necessary?"
Larrybud
2008-04-24 13:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning
lower insurance and taxes. But the idiot american staring
bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Which is why death rates DECREASED after the 55 MPH fed limit was
removed... idiot.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-24 16:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning
lower insurance and taxes. But the idiot american staring
bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Which is why death rates DECREASED after the 55 MPH fed limit was
removed... idiot.
You lying whore. The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to the 55 and
immediately highway deaths dropped 16%. OTOH, The return to 70 mph was done
very gradually and was complicated by other factors such as safer cars and
a crackdown on dui. THINK, you hater.
Larrybud
2008-04-24 16:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning
lower insurance and taxes. But the idiot american staring
bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Which is why death rates DECREASED after the 55 MPH fed limit
was removed... idiot.
You lying whore. The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to
the 55 and immediately highway deaths dropped 16%.
The fact that you don't understand what a "death **rate**" is,
means your arguments are as empty as a Boulder hippie on pot,
which I suspect you are Davey.
mg
2008-04-24 18:58:32 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 24, 10:28 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning
lower insurance and taxes. But the idiot american staring
bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Which is why death rates DECREASED after the 55 MPH fed limit was
removed... idiot.
You lying whore. The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to the 55 and
immediately highway deaths dropped 16%. OTOH, The return to 70 mph was done
very gradually and was complicated by other factors such as safer cars and
a crackdown on dui. THINK, you hater.
I commuted 80 miles round trip to work for about 12 years. Several
years of that were during the period when the speed limit was 55 MPH.
It was a total nightmare. There was lots of road rage, aggressive
driving, people even getting shot, tailgating, horns honking. It was a
nightmare I had to look forward to twice a day for several years.
Unless you've been there and done that, you'll never understand the
problems a 55 MPH speed limit can cause on freeways.

I'm all for conservation and finding ways to reduce gas consumption,
but this isn't one of them.
Al Smith
2008-04-24 22:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
On Apr 24, 10:28 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning
lower insurance and taxes. But the idiot american staring
bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Which is why death rates DECREASED after the 55 MPH fed limit was
removed... idiot.
You lying whore. The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to the 55 and
immediately highway deaths dropped 16%. OTOH, The return to 70 mph was done
very gradually and was complicated by other factors such as safer cars and
a crackdown on dui. THINK, you hater.
I commuted 80 miles round trip to work for about 12 years. Several
years of that were during the period when the speed limit was 55 MPH.
It was a total nightmare. There was lots of road rage, aggressive
driving, people even getting shot, tailgating, horns honking. It was a
nightmare I had to look forward to twice a day for several years.
Unless you've been there and done that, you'll never understand the
problems a 55 MPH speed limit can cause on freeways.
I'm all for conservation and finding ways to reduce gas consumption,
but this isn't one of them.
A 55 MPH speed limit on freeways never made any sense. Cars today
are designed to cruise at 80 MPH, and on the freeways this can be
done safely. We should look for ways to reduce the cost of
transportation energy, so we can all drive at a reasonable speed,
and that isn't 55 MPH.

-Al-
MLOM
2008-04-25 00:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by mg
On Apr 24, 10:28 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Larrybud
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas
mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning
lower insurance and taxes.  But the idiot american staring
bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
Which is why death rates DECREASED after the 55 MPH fed limit was
removed... idiot.
You lying whore.  The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to the 55 and
immediately highway deaths dropped 16%. OTOH, The return to 70 mph was done
very gradually and was complicated by other factors such as safer cars and
a crackdown on dui. THINK, you hater.
I commuted 80 miles round trip to work for about 12 years. Several
years of that were during the period when the speed limit was 55 MPH.
It was a total nightmare. There was lots of road rage, aggressive
driving, people even getting shot, tailgating, horns honking. It was a
nightmare I had to look forward to twice a day for several years.
Unless you've been there and done that, you'll never understand the
problems a 55 MPH speed limit can cause on freeways.
I'm all for conservation and finding ways to reduce gas consumption,
but this isn't one of them.
A 55 MPH speed limit on freeways never made any sense. Cars today
are designed to cruise at 80 MPH, and on the freeways this can be
done safely. We should look for ways to reduce the cost of
transportation energy, so we can all drive at a reasonable speed,
and that isn't 55 MPH.
-Al-- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Whst the OP failed to take into account in the much-trumpeted death
reduction in 1974 after the 55 took place was that at the time the
Interstate system was probably half done at best, and most other
highways sucked. Most of Missouri's secondary roads were just oiled
gravel.

55 to 60 on a 2-lane isn't bad, but the Interstates were intended for
70 or so.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-25 04:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mg
I commuted 80 miles round trip to work for about 12 years. Several
years of that were during the period when the speed limit was 55 MPH.
It was a total nightmare. There was lots of road rage, aggressive
driving, people even getting shot, tailgating, horns honking. It was a
nightmare I had to look forward to twice a day for several years.
Unless you've been there and done that, you'll never understand the
problems a 55 MPH speed limit can cause on freeways.
Hey stupid. That's like saying child molesting should be made legal to
keep the molesters happy. If driving 55 causes you to freak, then you
belong in prison.
Harry Dope
2008-04-24 15:24:57 UTC
Permalink
We need the speed so we can get the bombs used to bomb your village faster
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
Smirnoff
2008-04-24 16:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Dope
We need the speed so we can get the bombs used to bomb
your village faster
You need speed to get you the drugs you are using.
Red Cloud
2008-04-24 17:05:35 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 11:30 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still says no way!!!
That's because idiot American trying to compensate their lousy life
with automobile. The driving car is their addiction where they try to
find compensation. But there is none. Move one point to another no
matter
how fast they drive won't compensate anything. So it's same life where
they start it.
z
2008-04-24 18:36:17 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
so, we can set the speed limit to double the mpg of the car. you get
30 mpg, your limit is 60. you get 13 mpg, your limit is 26. that make
you happy?
N8N
2008-04-24 20:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liberals are Guilt-mongering Fascists
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage, but
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no way!!!
so, we can set the speed limit to double the mpg of the car. you get
30 mpg, your limit is 60. you get 13 mpg, your limit is 26. that make
you happy?
If that actually became law I'd be buying a motorcycle the same day :)

nate
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-25 04:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liberals are Guilt-mongering Fascists
On Apr 23, 2:30 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage,
but crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance
and taxes.
 
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
But the idiot american staring bankruptcy in the face still  says no
way
!!!
so, we can set the speed limit to double the mpg of the car. you get
30 mpg, your limit is 60. you get 13 mpg, your limit is 26. that make
you happy?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. GFY, you hater.
Crash
2008-04-24 20:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.  
Why do you believe this crap put out by the ticket profiteers in the
government and the car insurance mafia??

FACT CHECK: The German Autohbahn, which has no speed limits on large
stretches, is safer than ANY American highway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_safety#Motorway

Of course the Germans legally & bureacratically enforce SAFE DRIVING:
- DUI? gone - you lose your license forever
- tickets for following too close
- tickets for riding the left lane when the right lane is open
- tickets for failure to yield the left lane to faster traffic
- tickets for BOTH drivers if caught passing on the right
- regulations for minimum vehicle performance and tire/speed rating
- constant maintenance plan to keep roads & sign-age in top shape
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-25 04:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
crash rates on highways would drop too meaning lower insurance and taxes.
 
Why do you believe this crap put out by the ticket profiteers in the
government and the car insurance mafia??
FACT CHECK: The German Autohbahn, which has no speed limits on large
Most of the autobahn has speed limits you idiot. What it doesn't have is
DUI illegals and idiot bitches on cell phones. That's another reason we
need low speed limits in america.
Studemania
2008-04-25 16:04:14 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 24, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of the autobahn has speed limits you idiot. What it doesn't have
is DUI illegals and idiot bitches on cell phones. That's another
reason we need low speed limits in america.

Cite sources of info.

Germany does have drunken illegals.
Europe has been ahead of the US in cell phones all along.
I don't recall speed limits on the Autobahn and drove crowded sections
(at 80 MPH way to the right.)
(If you had poitned out that many European nations require that their
drivers know how to drive better that Aerican drivers, I would have
agreed with you.
You didn't, as you tend to ignore facts and logic, though.)
z
2008-04-25 17:26:55 UTC
Permalink
 Most of the autobahn has speed limits you idiot. What it doesn't have
is DUI illegals and idiot bitches on cell phones. That's another
reason we need low speed limits in america.
Cite sources of info.
Germany does have drunken illegals.
Europe has been ahead of the US in cell phones all along.
I don't recall speed limits on the Autobahn and drove crowded sections
(at 80 MPH way to the right.)
(If you had poitned out that many European nations require that their
drivers know how to drive better that Aerican drivers, I would have
agreed with you.
You didn't, as you tend to ignore facts and logic, though.)
odd facts:

sweden used to drive on the left side of the road with lefthand drive
cars, then switched over to driving on the right hand side, overnight.
In italy, up through the 1920s, traffic in the countryside drove on
the right while major cities drove on the left, with right hand drive
cars.
In Canada, until the 1920s it used to vary from province to province
which side of the road you had to drive on.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-26 16:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Studemania
(If you had poitned out that many European nations require that their
drivers know how to drive better that Aerican drivers, I would have
agreed with you.
BS - everybody knows how to drive. They drive recklessly because penalties
are so light. You are a moron. If child molesting was punished with a $100
fine, we'd have an explosion in that crime and idiots like you would say we
need more education!!!

Stop coddling criminal drivers. That's the answer.
MLOM
2008-04-27 00:43:56 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 26, 11:06 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Post by Studemania
(If you had poitned out that many European nations require that their
drivers know how to drive better that Aerican drivers, I would have
agreed with you.
BS - everybody knows how to drive.
Clarification: everybody knows how to get into a vehicle and get it to
move. That does not equate to knowing how to drive.
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
They drive recklessly because penalties
are so light. You are a moron. If child molesting was punished with a $100
fine, we'd have an explosion in that crime and idiots like you would say we
need more education!!!
Stop coddling criminal drivers. That's the answer.
We've heard your stance before.

---

Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM) admits to being a
pedophile coddler:

"The biggest threat to your kids is not pedophiles, but speeders and
drunk drivers.”
Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 28 October 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/4e220f0f9eb0c3bf
z
2008-04-25 17:21:32 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 25, 12:54 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Most of the autobahn has speed limits you idiot. What it doesn't have is
DUI illegals and idiot bitches on cell phones. That's another reason we
need low speed limits in america.
no, that's the reason we need to ban all vehicular traffic. not just
cars, but bikes and horsedrawn carriages and rickshaws. completely.
that's the only way we can be safe from the DUIs and cell phone
drivers.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
2008-04-26 16:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
On Apr 25, 12:54 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Most of the autobahn has speed limits you idiot. What it doesn't have is
DUI illegals and idiot bitches on cell phones. That's another reason we
need low speed limits in america.
no, that's the reason we need to ban all vehicular traffic. not just
cars, but bikes and horsedrawn carriages and rickshaws. completely.
that's the only way we can be safe from the DUIs and cell phone
drivers.
You take away my car and i'm gonna have your butt for dinner. I drive slow
and careful. I'm not the problem.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...