Conference back40::soapbox

    
    	Don't the states get their money based on whether motorists are
    	following the speed limits, like maybe 85% compliance or some-
    	thing like that?
    
    	And if so, how do they prove that the motorists are within this
    	range?  Drive on 495 in the morning and you know that 90% of the
    	motorists are doing over 65.
    

    The feds would occasionally monitor speeds on certain highways.  I
    remember when they did that on 101 in NH, and the NH State Police put
    up signs to that effect.  Might as well have said, "Slow down, speed
    trap ahead!"
    
    But the feds have used any and every excuse to withhold federal highway
    funds.  They took our money at the pump, and they dole (if you'll
    pardon the expression) it back out to us ONLY if we are good.  
    
    That's how they got the last holdouts for criminalizing marijuana to
    get in bed with the feds:  threatened to withhold highway funds.  Maine
    was near the last, and Alaska was last.  That's how they get states to
    pass environmental laws, gun laws, and just about anything they don't
    want to try to impose themselves.
    
    Federal highway money has long been the tool to pry open the mouths of
    the states so the feds could shove unfunded mandates of all kinds down
    out throats.
    

    I once read an excellent anti-(55 because it saves lives) argument,
    that calculated how much lifetime was lost while trapped in a car at
    55MPH, instead of 65MPH.  The time lost far exceeded the extra loss of
    life numbers due to accidents at the higher speeds.
    
    -- Jim

re .1:

This may be what they're trying to repeal.  I think it may have been
(partially) repealed when the Feds "allowed" 65.  Actually I remember
something in CARBUFFS that said they still enforced it on roads still
55 but not on those which were 65, if that makes sense.  

Anyway there are/were sensors on interstates that looked like traffic
light sense loops (2 per lane) with a green box off to the side that
monitored traffic speeds.

>    But the feds have used any and every excuse to withhold federal highway
>    funds.  They took our money at the pump, and they dole (if you'll
>    pardon the expression) it back out to us ONLY if we are good.  

Grrrrrrrr. Pet peeve of mine. A primary reason why ANY plan to revamp
the tax structure in this country, whether it be sales tax, value added
tax, flat income tax, etc., HAS TO included supporting legislation
and budgetary reforms which cut federal funding and block grants to the
states for just about everything and simultaneously cut the taxes that
the government collects to fund these things. LEAVE THE DAMN MONEY IN
THE STATES TO BEGIN WITH, DAMMIT!!!! 

I really wonder how the American people have been stupid enough to let
the Feds get to this point.

Federal taxes should pay for things which are REQUIRED to be Federally
funded, like the cost of Government (which could stand to be about 75%,
or more, smaller), the cost of our National Armed Forces, and critical
government agencies. This whole business about "We'll take care of it for
you", is totally assinine.

    the speed limit is 55!?? 
    
    wow, the last time i was on 128 i could have sworn it was 65+
    
    why not make it legally 65, and allow cops to deal with more important
    things like REAL crimes.
    
    

    .5 
    
    Woonderbra...leave that money in my pocket.  Jack, 'twas well said.
    
    How many people do you all personally ride with who drive 55 ?
    This, of course, excludes the highway due west of Bawston, where
    55 is an invitation to a funeral by rear-ending...!?!

    55 is ridiculously slow.  It does nothing but a) bore people on long
    trips into sleep; b) aggrivate folks; c) supply a steady income for the
    state/police.
    
    I posit that 90 is a much safer trip speed.  It is unlikely that you
    will fall asleep while doing 90.  In fact, going 90 tends to keep you
    on your toes.  Alert drivers are safe(r) drivers.
    
    This would not work inside city limits, but when you are on an
    interstate highway in the middle of nowhere (in light traffic), what
    harm is there (assuming your car can handle it- personally, I'd have to
    buy a new one  8^) ).
    
    
    -steve (55 inhales)

    
    
    
    actually 90 miles per hour is alot more dangerous if your tired!
    
    
    personally i think 55 is too slow.
    
    Chris
    :)

    But 55 makes for a lot of nice revenue for the states, which they can
    get without having to take the heat of raising taxes.  I think that's
    the real reason why many states have not raised their limits to 65.

    Strictly Revenue my friends....strictly revenue!

    They have just had a big crackdown on speeding in the Atlanta area. 
    According to the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta is the fastest city in
    the U.S.  The paper has been quoting the average interstate highway
    speed in Atlanta to that of other major U.S. cities, but NEVER quote
    the average accident/death rate per miles driven with other cities.  I
    conclude that this means that people in Atlanta drive much faster than
    in other cities, but it is not more dangerous.  
    
    In a recent speed checkpoint on a stretch of I-285 around the city, the
    average speed was 83.  

    -1  Saw that, but in some places, i.e. out by me, the speed limit
    on I985 and I85 are posted 65.  When you get closer in around
    the mall on Pleasant Hill, then the speed drops to 55.
    
    Yup the crackdown was "Operation Zero Tolerance".  According to
    the press if you were caught doing 1 mile over the speed limit,
    the cops were writing tickets.
    
    

    
    
    Nah, it's not just about generating revenoooooo.

re .8,

90mph is the `unofficial' motorway speed limit over here; the speed limit
is 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways, but the pollis tend to turn
a blind eye unless anyone's doing a ton or more (you have to be very
unlucky, or perhaps just crap, to get pulled for less than that)  Even
at 90 I find the journey still gets *very* boring after a few hours.

Chris.

    re. 13
    
    I have not seen any indication that anyone has slowed down in Atlanta
    because of "Operation Zero Tolerance".  I-285 is too backed-up in the
    morning to go very fast, but once you turn north on to GA 400 and head
    for Digital, it is pedal-to-the-metal for most drivers.  70-80 MPH in
    the 55 zone is common.  Few COPS to be seen.

>>90mph is the `unofficial' motorway speed limit over here; the speed limit
>>is 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways, but the pollis tend to turn

	Where is this motorway and carriageways..? Germany?? Is this 
different from Autobahn ?? What is 'dual' carriageway ?

>>at 90 I find the journey still gets *very* boring after a few hours.

	Assuming this is in one of the European countries, most of which are
the size of NewEngland, I cannot digest it could get boring at 90, the speeds
which I have never been here. 

    
    i didn't think that european countries listed their speed limits in
    mph's...
    
    

>    i didn't think that european countries listed their speed limits in
>    mph's...
    
most of them don't, just the UK & Ireland.

Chris.

    A few years ago there was an article in the paper about New Orleans,
    about how it is pretty much standard practice for folks to pick up a
    daiquiri at one of those little drive-in stands and enjoy it while they
    are driving around.
    
    The local chapter of MADD or some other bunch of do-good hysterics
    hired a lawyer to try to get the "problem" fixed by getting rid of the
    daiquiri stands and tightening up the DWI laws.
    
    The group's lawyer said he didn't understand, with all the drinking
    and driving that was so traditional in New Orleans, why their
    accident/death rate was no higher than the rest of the country.
    
    I'll bet the same is true of Atlanta and any place else where speed or
    DWI law compliance is low.  
    
    And I think the reason is that people drive as safely as they can
    already, and that a certain minimum number of accidents is inevitable,
    and that we are probably close to that number.  That is the only
    reason I can think of why, no matter what sort of driving laws and
    enforcement the government tries, the accident/death rate never seems
    to change much, except for that gentle decline in deaths that has been
    happening since the 50's, and which is generally attributed to safer
    cars, roads, etc.
     

    
    	Basically, advanced technology is being used to protect stupid
    	people and their potential victims.
    

    It's interesting that an earlier note indicated that the original
    intent of your 55 limit was to save gas, but now that the shortage is
    over, why not raise it.  Oh did the earth suddenly produce some more
    oil?  Don't kid yourselves folks, the earth is not renewable! (atleast
    not in it's current form).  
    
    How about a car can travel as fast as it is most efficient at?  For
    example, if a Honda civic is most efficient at 70, then let them go 70;
    if a Hummer is most efficient at 40, sorry pal, that's your limit. 
    Probably a bit Utopian, but interesting nonetheless to think about.
    
    D

One thing I forgot to mention when I was going on about 70 (or 90, if you
like) mph speed limits, is that motorways are by far the safest roads in
this country.  Obviously this could be down to a number of factors; the
speeding lobby (me?) could say that the higher speeds tend to focus the
mind, but perhaps it's due to the uncluttered road layout, or even because
the crap drivers are scared away from those roads because of the high
speeds.  Something to think about, anyway.

Chris.

>>    How about a car can travel as fast as it is most efficient at?  For
    example, if a Honda civic is most efficient at 70, then let them go 70;
    if a Hummer is most efficient at 40, sorry pal, that's your limit. 
>>    Probably a bit Utopian, but interesting nonetheless to think about.
  

Imagine your Civic, behind my Hummer doing 40! You waste gas and time  -):

    Well, with the Civic and Hummer example, you will have more accidents. 
    Accidents are caused not by speed, but by differences in speed.  If
    everyone goes 80, then 80 is safest.  If you got some bozo going 40 in an
    80 mph zone, then you have a problem.
    
    55 hasn't saved lives because half the people will go 55, the other
    half will go 75- this leaves you with a lot more variance of speed
    between motorists than you would have if you made the speed limit 70
    (or thereabouts).
    
    
    -steve

    While I'm not generally in favor of the 55 limit, a faint chill runs
    up my back at the prospect of Granny, who can barely see over the
    wheel or beyond the hood, and with the awareness and reaction time
    of a typical mineral, punching it down Rte. 3 South at 75 MPH.
    
    Speed limits (and most other driving laws, I suppose) have to cater
    to the lowest common denominator, much as it pains me to realize this.
    The incompetent and/or careless drivers set the standards for the rest
    of us.
    
    Chris

    
    I'm less concerned with granny than with a overloaded 16-wheeler
    pushing 80mph....

    
    The 18 wheeler would be okay if they didn't get cut off by so many
    idgits.

    
    	Correct lane usage virtually solves the differential problem.  If
    	the "55 to stay alive" crowd stays in the right lane, they will
    	not affect the traffic flow [or not too badly, anyways] and they
    	will not become rear-ended statistics.  Correct lane usage also
    	solves the problem of those maniacs who like to weave through
    	traffic ... if people keep right while cruising, and only move
    	left to pass, there is no need to weave.  Of course, if these
    	weavers weave because they like it, then they will probably keep
    	doing it ... but if they do it [like me]* because people are too
    	selfish to get out of the way, then they will stop.
    
    	If the police force would take more time to observe driving hab-
    	its and actual causes of accidents, instead of writing tickets
    	just to fill the state's bank account, traffic would flow much
    	smoother and it would be much safer to drive on the highways.
    
    	And RE: .26, if grandma is doing 55 now there is a good chance
    	she would still be doing 55 if the law changes.  My aunt is a-
    	bout 80 years old, and she says that as little as 10 years ago
    	she would blast down the highway at 75MPH.  And if the law had
    	changed at that time, she'd probably still do 75MPH.  Speed
    	limits, for the most part, have no effect on the speed of traf-
    	fic.  Being that they're ridiculously low almost everywhere,
    	they're almost an invitation to do 20MPH more than that.  People
    	will drive at a speed with which they're comfortable.
    
    	* when I say weave, I mean "pass on the right and then the left"
    	to get around slow/stupid people.  I always use my directionals
    	and I never create dangerous situations by cutting people off.
    

re the keep right (or left, in my case) rule, it's amazing how many pompous
self-righteous gits there are who will refuse to move over because they seem
to think that they're doing a huge service by causing an obstruction and
forcing people to slow down.  Who's more dangerous - someone exceeding
the speed limit, or some idiot playing silly buggers to make a point?

Chris.

    -1 ummmm, rhetorical, right :-) 

House votes to scrap national highway speed limits


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON (Sep 20, 1995 - 21:54 EDT) -- Brushing aside
warnings that speed kills, the House voted Wednesday to repeal
national highway speed limits.

The repeal, which was included in legislation establishing a new
National Highway System, would let states set their own limits
or impose no limit at all. The legislation now goes to a
House-Senate conference committee.

Advocates of higher speed limits hailed the House action as a
major step toward repealing the federal 55 mph standard. The
national limit, which was imposed as an energy-saving measure
in 1973, was relaxed to 65 mph in rural areas in 1987.

The maximum speed limit in Texas would revert to 70 mph in the
event of a federal repeal, but the Texas Department of
Transportation could maintain lower limits on high-risk
roadways.

Anticipating congressional action, state highway officials have
been conducting a highway inventory to determine which roads
would be suitable for higher speeds.

"No speed limit signs are expected to be changed until at least
mid-December," agency spokesman Randall Dillard said.

Critics warned that the repeal would increase highway carnage.
The Department of Transportation estimates that higher speed
limits will lead to an additional 6,400 highway deaths annually,
including 560 fatalities in Texas.

Other provisions in the highway bill would lift federal pressure
on states to have motorcycle helmet laws and exempt certain
trucks from federal safety standards.

The House also approved an amendment requiring states to
adopt a zero- tolerance policy toward under-age drinking and
driving. The proposal, which passed, 223-203, calls for states to
revise their drunken driver laws to punish under-age drivers who
are caught with even minuscule amounts of alcohol in their
bloodstreams.

But no provision provoked as much debate as the speed limit
repeal.

"It should be obvious that the death toll will rise," said Rep. Nick
Rahall, D-W.Va., whose amendment to retain the current limits
was soundly defeated. "It would turn our highways into killing
fields."

The House rejected Rahall's amendment, 112-313. The House
also rejected another amendment that would set the federal limit
at 65 mph.

Of the 30 Texas House members, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee cast
the only vote against repeal. Lee, a Democrat, represents
downtown Houston.

Other Texans echoed the sentiments of Rep. Pete Geren,
D-Fort Worth, who argued against Rahall's amendment by
describing the state's wide-open highways.

"Roads in hilly West Virginia and Pennsylvania and New York
don't look like roads in West Texas," the Texas Democrat told
the House. "Those of you from the Northeast don't know what
flat is."

Ironically, the initial purpose of a federal speed limit, energy
conservation, was all but forgotten in Wednesday's debate.
Congress approved a national speed limit as a "temporary"
measure during the 1973 energy crisis, when a shortage of oil
caused many gas stations to close on Sundays.

A 1984 study prepared for Congress concluded that the lower
limit saved about 167,000 barrels of oil per day. But those
savings have been overshadowed by gains made by
fuel-efficient cars and energy-saving measures in the last two
decades.

The repeal was included in legislation designating a National
Highway System, a 160,000-mile network of interstates and
other well-traveled roads that would get top priority for federal
dollars.

The system includes Interstate 35, which was earmarked as a
high priority within the national network. I-35 boosters contend
that the highway, which runs from Duluth, Minn., through Fort
Worth and Dallas, and down to Laredo, Texas, deserves special
attention because of its role in handling traffic generated by the
North American Free Trade Agreement.

"I-35 is currently the only fully constructed, north-south
interstate link between Mexico and Canada," said Rep. Martin
Frost, D-Dallas. "It's high priority designation will enhance
efforts to improve the road to accommodate the increase in
commercial traffic."

Inclusion in the highway system puts I-35 near the top of the list
for future federal dollars, but Texas highway officials said the
designation would not bring any immediate benefits.



>"It should be obvious that the death toll will rise," said Rep. Nick
>Rahall, D-W.Va., whose amendment to retain the current limits
>was soundly defeated. "It would turn our highways into killing
>fields."
    
    
    
    This is classic democrat.  Killing fields?  That's why people aren't
    listening to them any longer.  They use these grandiose words to try
    and scare people instead of using facts and telling it like it is.
    

    One hope for some sanity, I don't see towns and states willingly giving
    up the nice chunk of change they presently get from speeding tickets.
    
    note .30 -- except when the one holding up traffic is a NH state trooper 
    driving across the yellow line and holding up two lanes of traffic 
    on Route 3 in Nashua.
    
    

Dear Mr. Chris,

>>like) mph speed limits, is that motorways are by far the safest roads in
>>this country.  

	Once again: For those geographically impaired, please explain

1. Which country is this? My limited knowledge says Germany, but I would ask 
   anyway!

2. What is a motor-way, dual carraige-ways and how are they different from
   US highways?

3. Is autobahn different from these? I have heard that autobahn's do not have
   any speed limits. I can't beleive it, but is this true?

thanks
-Jay

    
    Chris is in the UK.  The roads he describes are similar to US highways,
    except for the speed limit.  Autobahns are the German equivalent
    and have implicit speed limits, depending on the weather and road
    conditions.  The Germans, being German, tend to stick to these limits.
    Although I noticed on the Dutch side of the border, the Dutch cops have
    a Porsche cabriolet to catch those Germans who forget that the autobahn
    ends at the border.
    
    Although the M-way speed is 70mph, the cops usually turn a blind eye to
    anything under 85.  My own personal best is 115 mph in an effort to
    catch a plane to Nice one quiet Sunday am. 

    
    	Damn ... beat me to it!!
    

Thanks Walters.

>>    anything under 85.  My own personal best is 115 mph in an effort to

	115? I have not seen 115 in the speedometer dial in many cars here.
.. but I feel anything more than 90 is unsafe even under best conditions

>	Once again: For those geographically impaired, please explain

Hi Jay, Mr Walters very kindly explained this on my part.  Apologies
for the omission!  I am indeed a UK denizen, and a motorway is a
`divided highway' (is that what they're called over there?), typically
between 2 and 4 lanes either direction, and minus any obstacles such
as crossroads, roundabouts, traffic lights and (generally) slow moving
vehicles.  My personal best is 135 mph, but I'm normally responsible
(well, only just) when I'm driving on them.

Chris.

re .10:

>    But 55 makes for a lot of nice revenue for the states, which they can
>    get without having to take the heat of raising taxes.  I think that's
>    the real reason why many states have not raised their limits to 65.

Actually there's only a few states now that don't have 65 somewhere...

Even the People's Republic of New York has 65 now.

    
    	Both of my cars have 140MPH speedometers.
    
    	But neither has gone that fast with me driving it.
    

    My car and my wife's have 120-MPH speedometers.  I haven't driven my
    wife's car that fast.

re .39:

>	115? I have not seen 115 in the speedometer dial in many cars here.
>.. but I feel anything more than 90 is unsafe even under best conditions

The '85 mph' speedo was a brilliant idea of the government to keep people from
speeding.  You see, people would never drive faster than what the speedo could
indicate.

    
    
    
    Jeez.  What have you got Chris?
    
    
    Colin
    
    (Nice one, Mr Topaz)

>    Jeez.  What have you got Chris?
    
just a 2 litre Calibra, it's not even a 16 valve jobby.  Even the 1.4 litre
Rover 200 could manage over 120 mph... although most of my journeys seem to
result in me being stuck behind some old bugger wearing a hat and driving
a Metro or Corsa at 35mph...

Chris.

    >.. but I feel anything more than 90 is unsafe even under best
    >conditions
    
     That may be because you've never been in a car that was built for such
    a speed. When in such a vehicle, ungodly speeds seem rather humdrum.

    
    Parts of the German Autobahn system have unrestricted speed limits. 
    The first time I drove on one, I was flat out at 115 MPH in my Sierra
    and had to more or less stick to the slow lane to keep out of the way
    of the 150-160 MPH BMWs', Mercs' and Audis. The second time I drove
    down an Autobahn was a lot more fun, blasting along at 140 MPH in my
    MR2.
    
    POL.
    
    P.S.German motor car manufacturers electronically limit the speed of most
    of their cars to 160MPH (or whatever the KPH equivalent is)

km/h, not KPH.

NNTTM.

    re: .39
    
    Depends on the car, driver and the road.  Back when I had a real car, I
    regularly did 90 on certain stretches of road without any difficulty.
    This on less-than perfect roads.
    
    
    -steve

    No vehicle should be on the road that is capapble of going faster than tn
    80 km/h.
    
    Hi folks me again. I love this discussion. A bunch of animated meat
    with brains talking about how fast they would like to be able to go.
    They even care about laws. You guys are so funny, ha ha ha.
    
    Again. NO automobile should be produced that can exceed 80km/h. I'm
    being nice. What I'd really say if I cared is that no automobile
    shoul;d be able to go faster thatn 60km/h.
    
    We need a war over here in North America. People are too bored with too
    much money. Yep, a good old fashion war would straighten a few of you
    guys out.
    
    No automobile should be able to go faster than 60km/h. Think about
    that people, does that twist your impatient little minds? Excuse me
    while I go get sick now.

    
    re:.51
    
    >>    Again. NO automobile should be produced that can exceed 80km/h. I'm
    >>being nice. What I'd really say if I cared is that no automobile
    >>shoul;d be able to go faster thatn 60km/h.
    
    I haven't made time to read the rest of this string, but seeing your
    note did make me want to reply...
    
    You'd still get people driving too fast if you had cars that did
    60km/h (40mph?).  You'd just have them driving flat out down small
    neighbourhood roads.
    
    It isn't a question of outright speed being unsafe, it's people being
    educated on exactly when and when not to use it.
    
    Chris.

re .51,

apart from becoming boring, you clearly have little understanding of the
topic in hand.  Restricting the speed limit of vehicles to 40mph will
merely result in everybody driving everywhere at that constant speed;
this is the direct opposite of the ideal situation, where people learn
to drive at the *appropriate* speed for the conditions.  I'll regularly
drive at 90mph on a clear motorway, but at the other end of the spectrum
I'm unlikely to exceed 30mph when going through residential areas,
particularly when in the vicinity of schools, shops etc.

Then there's the environmental issues, where the most fuel efficient
speed of a modern vehicle is well in excess of 40mph; this is borne out
by the fact that I've noticed that my fuel consumption seems to be not
so much affected by distance travelled, but the amount of time spent
travelling.

(How nice it is for people whose work doesn't entail much travelling,
they can sit on their high horse and lecture and criticise those who
have to)

Chris.

    
    re .51, .52, .53
    
    I just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that we have
    just witnessed three consecutive replies written by three different
    guys all named Chris.
    
    Which must be some kind of record or, er, something.  And now I've
    gone and broken the string.  Oh, bugger.
    
    
    
    Rob (not Chris)
                   

    
    	Just to keep it sort of on topic, I don't think we should disallow
    cars on the highway that can't go at least 65 mph
    
    OK, we'll start a new streak, guys named Rob
    
    Rob

    
    RE: .55
    
    >	Just to keep it sort of on topic, I don't think we should disallow
    > cars on the highway that can't go at least 65 mph
    
    SOAPBOX$NEGATIVE_OVERLOAD: Too many negative conditions. Parser
    	aborting. Reader exploding.
    
    -b

I don't fail to not avoid seeing what isn't wrong with not avoiding
to not disuse double negatives.  Er, I think.

Chris.

    Actually, I got all discombobulated while typing my reply...
    What I really meant was:
    
    If the car and driver are not capable of driving 65 mph on the highway,
    then they should not be on it.
    
    (There, I think that parses much better now, thank you)

    Teach people to drive appropriately?!!!
    
    Give me a break. You (lager Lout) drive 90mp/h on roads you presume are
    clear. Too bad for little squirrels and rodents. You dont seem to have
    LEARNED that there are other living things with as much right to mother
    earth as we presume to have. It is your attitude and others like yours
    that causes me to smile and smirk when I see a HUMAN BEING squashed on
    the side of the road, just more road pizza, no different than a bird or
    a skunk. 
    
    But then what can one expect from people who need speed bumps.
    
    chris
    

    I'm surprised Chris only does 90mph, I used to do about 100 or so when
    driving up to Scotland through the wee hours of the morning. I wonder
    how many bugs saw their ass coming through there heads on those
    journeys.

    What about our children? What is the future going to be like? Who in
    Gods Holy Name is going to stand up for morality and the status quo?
    Boo hoo. I am crying for the fate of humanity. Really guys, drive your
    cars as fast as you like, I don't give a rats behind. My point is that
    if you cant be bothered to respect the world, its peoples, animals,
    plants, then please dont expect anything to have any respect for you. I
    have no respect for any of those things and am comfortable knowing that
    nothing respects me. So if some punk should kick the snot out of you
    and steal your money and disable you for life, hey thats life, its a
    wonderful world.

    Okay okay.... I'll slow down to 95mph.

    actually i'm a very easy going kinda guy. go with man do your thing.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    'ceptin I know some guys that throw rocks at windsheilds of speeding
    vehicles. I guess they figure that if buddy can do what he wants then
    they will do what they want. Twisted logic eh. But it happens.

    I'll speed up again then !

    you shouldn't openly admit to using illegal drugs.;)
    

    
    re:.59
    
    >>You dont seem to have LEARNED that there are other living things with
    >>as much right to mother earth as we presume to have. It is your
    >>attitude and others like yours that causes me to smile and smirk when
    >>I see a HUMAN BEING squashed on the side of the road, just more road
    >>pizza, no different than a bird or a skunk.
    
    Erm...are you for real or just on a wind-up?!
    
    
    >>But then what can one expect from people who need speed bumps.
    
    Well, these things have to be tried - they're actually digging them
    back up in some parts of the country.  Not a great experiment, but
    something that showed that local authorities were trying to slow down
    traffic.
    
    
    Chris.

re .59,

you're either a particularly bad wind up merchant, or clinically insane.

Chris.

    we all got problems. i just happen to like sharing mine.
    chris

    >Again. NO automobile should be produced that can exceed 80km/h. I'm
    >being nice. What I'd really say if I cared is that no automobile
    >shoul;d be able to go faster thatn 60km/h.
    
     Yawn. Don't like speed? Go slow. And stay out of the way of those of
    us who actually have somewhere to go.

    Well. I made it from the GMA to the Ottawa city line in 6:08. Top speed
    did not exceed 140 km/h. Averaged about 115 km/h. Interesting thing
    was, not a single speed trap all the way. I don't see anyone grabbing
    that much money from motorists really. Now _photo_ radar is a money grab
    for sure.

    
    Best arguments for raising speed limits to 65-75mph is right here in
    this notes file;
    
    In the beginning pollyticians established 55mph limit to save gas.
    
    Later in the game they said, "see, 55 saves lives"
    
    Based on testimony and observations in prior 70 notes the majority of
    the citizens never slowed to 55mph but travel at 65-70mph.
    
    Conclusion is that speed had little or nothing to do with highway
    fatality rate since the true speed during the period the death rate
    dropped was 65-70mph even though the proponents for 55 ignored that
    little fact.
    
    I believe death rates are more dependent on level of driving skills,
    experience and drug/alcohol impairment. The drunk who kills somebody at
    70mph does so because skills, judgement and reaction time are impaired,
    not because he is doing 70. The inexperienced driver who enters (even a
    55mph) highway and pulls into traffic at 40mph or less gets killed or
    causes an accident that kills not because traffic is moving at 65-70mph
    but by creating a situation incompatible with the flow of traffic.
    Unsafe lane changes, failure to signal, tailgating and weaving probably
    cause more accidents than speed alone; that to me is an error in judgement
    or inadequate driving skills. As I think back and compare my driving
    skills and experience today to the days after I first got a license my
    skills are vastly improved. While reaction time has probably declined
    it's been more than offset by technology, anti-lock brakes, better road
    quality, improved tire design, better suspension and ultimately air bags 
    and body design.
    
    JLB

    I don't know whether this has been written in this note already, I do
    not have time to read it and if so, I am sorry.
    
    
    Germany has an unlimited speed limits on it's Autobahns (Freeways etc.)
    It also has the lowest road traffic fatality rate in Europe on this
    type of road.
    
    
    CHARLEY 

    I'll trust Mr. Charles Traffic on this one.

    
    	And the reason they don't have as many accidents is that they 	
    	don't do this stuff:
    
    >Unsafe lane changes, failure to signal, tailgating and weaving
    
    
    
    	Granted, if they do have an accident, it's going to be pretty
    	bad [like the one I saw in "Faces of Death [nn]" where a truck
    	rammed into a line of stopped traffic at 90MPH in the fog.  What
    	a mess.
    

    Charlie, stop screaming your sign-off... we can hear you just fine.

    re .73 - I wouldn't!

    With a name like Charley Traffic?

    yep.

    re: Note 546.42 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY
    
    > Both of my cars have 140MPH speedometers.
    
    My old Rally Sport Camaro's speedo went to 160.  I put the needle
    there just to check it out.  140 was easy.  My Z went over 130
    routinely until I killed it with a low gear.  
    
    Now I drive a Cavalier which craps out at 75.

    160?
    
    Must have been a white knuckler, unless you were on a track.

    
    Nah.
    
    If you kin translait a leetal laten, read the constantitution the write
    way, and understand afuhrmative law, and most imprartinly, take a
    karful look at execkutif orders from 33, you two can drive yer vehickel
    160 on eny hiweigh enywhere enytime.
    
    								-mr. bill

>    Now I drive a Cavalier which craps out at 75.

is that the same car as the Vauxhall/Opel thing?  Even the weedy 1600
is good for at least 110 (no, not km/h)

Chris.

    Not with north american transmissions.

>    Not with north american transmissions.

no wonder they need all that emission control stuff then, the engine must
be chucking out pollutants at a hell of a rate with such low gearing.  Should
make for good acceleration, though...

Chris.

    
    re:.79
    
    Very impressive.
    
    Chris$ironyiseasyalso

>       <<< Note 546.61 by POLAR::WILSONC "A dog is a womans best man" >>>
>    My point is that
>    if you cant be bothered to respect the world, its peoples, animals,
>    plants, then please dont expect anything to have any respect for you.

You think that by going fast we show disrespect for the world? How so?

I'd bet you'd think an elephant knocking down a tree on the African plain in
order to eat the tender bits at the top would be a fine, natural thing,
though, eh?

>>I'd bet you'd think an elephant knocking down a tree on the African plain in
>>order to eat the tender bits at the top would be a fine, natural thing,
>>though, eh?

	Absolutely!

    I and my opinions on this topic are not alone in the world. In fact
    their are an increasing number of people who share my beliefs. Many
    children who now under the age of 12 will find it very difficult to
    reasonably afford a car. More and more people are turning to bicycles
    for commuting, blah blah blah, you guys bore me. 

    
    Well, when I was under the age of 12, I couldn't have afforded a 
    car either.  Which is a good thing, considering that the whole
    phallus thing would just have confused me at that age.
    
    If a car is a phallus, shouldn't we do the responsible thing and
    put a condom on it?  How will we be able to see where we're going
    with all that latex covering the windows?
    
    Have I mentioned that my head hurts?  Owwww...
    
    
    
    Rob
    

   <<< Note 546.89 by AIMHI::MARTIN "actually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMON" >>>

>    If a car is a phallus, shouldn't we do the responsible thing and
>    put a condom on it?  
    
    	Well, some people *DO* put bras on them...

    I once heard that those car bras were a boon to the auto body repair
    industry. The leather or vinyl traps moisture which, over time, cause
    the paint to bubble and peel. ?
    

how do you cycle to work when work is over 40 miles away?

Chris.

    
    
    	re: .92
    
    	start early....
    
    

    
    .88

    >More and more people are turning to bicycles for commuting, 
    
    TRO has no showers, and my ride is 40 minutes uphill (both ways, and
    I'm not kidding).  I'd be more than happy to save the $3/day in subway 
    fare, but...
    
    >you guys bore me.
    
    Oh, no, not ME, Chris!  Certainly, *I* don't bore you, DO I?
     

    When I lived in Toronto, I exclusively used my bicycle to get around to
    the tune of 150 miles a week on average. The only months I couldn't
    because of weather were Dec-Feb.

    I got around faster than TTC or a car on surface streets and was I ever
    in shape.
    
    Uffff, but that werrrrree just eh weeeee fart eh?

    RE .92
    Move closer to work.
    But this is easy for me to say since I have made the decision to not
    but a car. Not only that but I dont generally care what I do for work,
    I only care about what I do with my time out of work. So what usually
    happens is I find a place to live then I find a job near by.

    Why not work at home assembling products for big $$$ !?!

    
    	RE: .94
    
    	If you use the exact same route to get to/from work then the
    	terrain averages out to a level ride.  IE, total uphill =
    	total downhill.
    

    
    Actually, work is at a higher elevation than home, but the route is so
    hilly (up and down and up and down and up and down) that there never
    seems to be a shortage of tall hills to climb.
    

    
    	But there's also never a shortage of hills to coast down, either.
    

    
    I'd prefer a level route, ymmv.
    
    :^)
    

>       <<< Note 546.88 by POLAR::WILSONC "A dog is a womans best man" >>>
>                  -< is it a car or a phallis      IT'S BOTH >-
>    I and my opinions on this topic are not alone in the world. In fact
>    their are an increasing number of people who share my beliefs. 

Which, of course, makes them correct.

> Many children who now under the age of 12 will find it very difficult to
> reasonably afford a car. More and more people are turning to bicycles
> for commuting, blah blah blah, you guys bore me.

Could be true, still doesn't prove your point that driving fast is
disrespectful to the Earth, though, does it?

BTW, my commute is 25 miles one way. Yah, I really wanna stretch it from 45
minutes to an hour and a half or more by riding a bike among the rush hour
crazies.

    re. -1.  
    I am very sorry I have ammended my opinions. Cars are the best thing to 
    happen to the human race. We should have roads everywhere, replacing
    all exposed earth with concrete. No animals will get in our way because
    we should dispose of them. Human beings alone have rights to the earth.
    I vote '57 chevy for president.
    
    But seriously, I'm not the arguementative type. I prefer physical
    violence. Arguing is for well educated clones. Governments send my type
    off to war. Cannon fodder. I dont care what you do i really dont. This
    screen reacts to my prompting a key board, I can see what i have
    written. I dont say 98% of what i want to say. I could compose an essay
    on the topic but I would rather ride my bike. I love the world, living
    is a beautiful experience, if you want to plow through life at 90 miles
    an hour by all means do it. I will continue to make outrageous comments
    about the auto culture. It doesn't require much time.
    
    chris
    

    Errr, gee thanks!
    
    {vroooom}{vroooom}

    You may want to try decaf tomorrow.
    

    I will never drink decaf. 8^p

    i bought a decaf once and the guy behind the counter at the doughnut
    store made me buy a doghnut hole too. most humiliating day in my life.

    
    Chris,
    
    Forget the decaf, you may want to try some anti-depressants.  A little
    Prozac to go with that doughnut-hole, my friend?  ;-)
    
    Seriously, though, I know what you are saying.  I'm glad you can
    enjoy the world while you're out there riding around on your bike.
    But other people really can and do enjoy and appreciate the world
    while driving a car.  It's a little unreasonable to have such a
    silly hang-up over this one inanimate device.
    
    I can just imagine someone who uses walking as their mode of 
    transportation getting upset with you for stealing the resources of
    the world to make your bike.  And then, someone who walks barefoot
    (or naked, ooh er!) could get upset with another walker who stole
    the resources of an innocent Earth to make their Reeboks or Nikes or
    Rockports.  We can continue this progression, but all we really would
    be doing is getting ourselves upset over nothing, for no reason.
    Let's face it, people just aren't going to give up their cars, any more
    than they would give up their bikes, shoes, or creature comforts.
    Why waste life getting mad over it?
    
    Make the best choices you can that best complement your life, and
    encourage others to do the same.  Enjoy life.  But you'll save yourself
    a lot of heartache and teeth-grinding if you accept the fact that
    others are going to enjoy life behind the wheel of a car, even a car
    traveling at 100 MPH+.
    
    
    
    Your fellow cannon fodder buddy,
    
    Rob
    
    (Oh, and forget the violence thing.  There's too many people out 
    there who love their cars; the numbers are against you.  As the wise
    man once observed, God is on the side of the big battalions.)  :-)
    

    OOooooooo, aye, 'twererrrr just ehh weeeee fart eh?

    <----- you must be spending too much time at the Chesire Cat.

    Aye laddy, that's agood pub that'n.

       Why aren't you giving thanks?

    I'm giving at the office?
    
    Nah, through the miracle of modern science, I'm bothering you from
    home.
    
    By the way, I'm thankful that the Non forces seem to be winning.

       And the Oui are whining.

    yep.

    <-- What is that ?? A drinking problem ! :*)

    re: last
    
    Yeah. Not enuff cup holders to keep mah biers frum fawlin over wile ahm
    triyin ta get them survis cawls.

    you working then ? 
    
    Would you be a Mark Ceraso ?

    Actually I just sprung into song after reading your node name ! 'twas
    quite amusing I can tell you... I guess you had to be there !

     
    Ah caint tawlk naw,,gotta go git me sum brews . An ahm gon drive 9.5
    mph tha hole way soo's ah downt hit none them critters 'long tha wa.
    

    <-- That's most considerate of you.

    
    Squash the leeeettle buggers, the road kill note needs some additions

    :-)
    

    
    	Looks like ::CERASO reads Automobile magazine.