What IF.....55MPH was the speed limit

Much more so than Reagan who abandoned the Nixon/Ford/Carter energy efficiency approach, the only truly effective approach, to elminating the threat of US foreign oil The 22 years of oil war in the Middle East, the 50,000 US casualties and $14T in debt proved Nixon/Ford/Carter right and Reagan wrong.

55 mph is an excellent way to save a lot of US soldiers lives, save US economy, lessen destruction of the environment, reduce US trade and budget debts.

 

Easing Off the Gas: Northwesterners Using Less Gasoline | Sightline Institute

State Patrol says speed-limit shift on U.S. 101 has reduced crashes - South Sound - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

Speed limit going down on 101 - South Sound - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

just a few links to chew on. rationing is stupid and always has been. you are simply creating another "drug" business or prohibition business where the strong and swift get rich preying on the slow and desperate.

the best bet is RAISE THE FRICKING GAS TAX!!!

it is really that simple. the gas tax pays to maintain the highway system that we use. it has not been raised since 1992 and the cost of maintaining the roads have increased by at least 70% (old 2008 or 20009 figures. probably doubled by now) and does it show?

we could always wait for another MN bridge collapse and bring up that old argument

or we can continue to break the law. if the law is set to 55 mph and you are doing 56 you are a vigilante pure and simple by definition because you have taken it upon yourself to determine what is best for others.

 

if we really want to save gas, restrict POVs to 55 and allow mass transit to do 70...

 

Absolutely. The fine folks in washington state are the best ones to analyse what safe speeds are on 101. They should be free to find out what things cause injury accidents and try to fix them. I like the way they are phasing it in slowly.

I've got a little problem here. In Washington you do have a maximum speed at the posted limit. If someone exceeds it by a little they are breaking the law, but its not being a vigilante. They deserve a ticket. In texas, the law is looser. Going over the speed limit by a few mph when its safe for conditions is fine. What is illegal in texas is for slower vehicles to impede the flow of traffic by staying in the left lanes. In both states tailgating is wrong.

 

well, maybe vigilante is a bit over the top. but how much of the law are you allowed to break before it is illegal. the speed limit law is pretty clear especially when considering the maximum speed allowed.

in society, there are a lot of rules we choose to ignore and many of those fall into the category of decency, manners or etiquette which lies the problem since those are more likely to be interpreted differently.

and i am all for doing the reasonable thing but unfortunately it seems that when driving speed is the issue. "reasonability" does not apply in anyway whatsoever except for the very small percentage of times that you might be familiar with in the wide open abandoned highways of Texas.

now we can go round and round about how differences in speed amongst vehicles on the highway is what causes accidents but when the argument is to speed to match the lawbreakers??

sorry...no...just plain old you are a vigilante., PERIOD

 

i just did a 30 mile highway trip drove around 57 mph 2 people in the car air on cruise on very flat and got 70 mpg

 

First off, I think there is a lot of common ground for reasonable people here. You and I both think that if there are accidents that could be prevented by dropping the speed limit on southbound 101 to 45 instead of 55, the state of Washington should be able to do it. I also agree state of Washington ought to be able to define speeding as even 1 mph over he limit, even if states like mine define it differently.

Now vigilantism is people taking it into their own power to enforce the law, which means speeding, breaking the law is not that. Those folks driving the speed limit in the left lane are the vigilantes, and are violating good safe driving etiquette. Going a few miles over the limit is against the law, but compared to rape or murder, it seems pretty minor. That is why the penalty is a speeding ticket not jail time.

That is why there are a patchwork of laws. When I was driving in chicago it seemed the majority were going 70 mph on a congested 55 mph. Here they would have raised the limit, and depending on the county enforced it or not.

That is quite different than what I was saying. I was saying the speed limit should be set to the 85th percentile where it is safe, and where it is unsafe lowered to a safe limit. The southbound 101 is a perfect example of where the 85th percentile rule does not work. On I10 is west texas you can safely go 55 mph in the right lane, not the left mind you, but the speed limit is 80 mph. No reason to hire a lot of police to enforce an arbitrarily low speed limit where it doesn't help safety.

You really need to look up that word

 

it all boils down to one thing; if you dont like the speed limit, petition to get it raised. unless you are doing that, then when you exceed the limit, you are breaking the law. doesnt matter how accepted it is or how often you get caught. funny thing about petitions to change the speed limit; most are to lower the speed limit mostly because the posted limit is ignored. if it werent, there would be no need to create the petition to spend the extra time and money to get it changed. the other not so funny thing about petitions is they are usually spurred by an event...and that event is almost always an unwelcome one


let me clarify something; i do not like driving slow most of the time. i do have things to do, a schedule to maintain and all that.

in 3 hours i will be leaving for a camping weekend meeting people who arrived this morning. its 2 hours and 31 minutes by google maps. i will allow 3 hours to get there because...just because. its not rocket science (might be more because i just checked and there will be 5 road construction projects going maybe...) and allowing 3 hours will suck because that means it will be pitch black dark when we get there and we will have to unpack in the dark, get situated in the dark and all that.

now, would i rather haul nice person and get there a bit earlier? yes, in this instance i would because making it just a few minutes earlier means we have a small window of daylight but not to be. can't leave earlier because have to wait for the work week for all involved to be done otherwise we would already be there

parting shot; estimated gas mileage for the trip; 57-60 mpg

 

Vigilante is a person who takes the law into their own hands which can mean they interpret the law which is essentially what you are doing when you drive faster than the set limit. iow, you take on the notion that you know better what is best for everyone on the road with you.

 

I don't understand where you disagree with me then. I was arguing against arbitrarily lowering the speed limit where people like it where it is. If the speed limit is lowered because people are speeding, that really doesn't stop people from speeding, it actually encourages more. Lowering a speed limit because accidents are happening is a good thing. If people are speeding and the speed limit is too low and a higher speed limit is safe for the road, the solution is to raise the speed limit. If the speed limit is appropriate then more enforcement and education is the answer.

Then you can understand that I don't want the 65 mph and 70 mph roads that I use for my camping trips lowered to 55 because someone in Washington believes it will be good for us. I think we are mostly in agreement...

Think robin hood or batman on the good side and the KKK on the bad side. A vigilante takes the law into his/her own hands to punish law breakers, or people he thinks are violating his laws. If someone speeds they are simply breaking the law, they are not trying to hurt you because they think you are doing something wrong. If someone is tailgating you in the right lane, encouraging you to go faster, that is bad behavior. Its not vigilantism. If someone is tailgating you in the left lane and you are going slower than the flow of traffic, both of you are exhibiting bad behavior.

 

They weren't. They were driving 5 - 10 mph faster than the posted speed limit. Just like they do now. The difference is that you still see a ~10% increase in fuel efficiency when you slow down from 75 mph to 65 mph, just like you would if you slowed down from 65 mph to 55 mph.

The thought is that if you make the speed limit 55 mph, then people would (for the most part) ONLY drive 65 mph.

 

I know, I had a '65 Vette coupe and a '63 Monza Spyder at the time. We weren't doing 55.

 

austingreen; i am not really arguing with you at all, just talking for the benefit of the "general population" browsing thru on their way to the gas station. in all these types of discussions we have to have some sort of reasonable ground rules. my statements are not aimed at you necessarily or anyone driving East on I-90 (where one can drive miles and the only exits are for the corporate farms and the semi's hauling goods to market) in WA. the speed limit is 7o and it probably should be 80

iow; any set speed limit for the entire country is ludicrous because there is too much to consider. my comments are aimed more towards dense over crowded urban freeways with a speed limit of 60 mph controlled by a group of people who feel that its "safer" to drive bumper to bumper at 70 mph and to Hell with anyone else to who gets in their way.

these are vigilantes. they have decided to take the law into their own hands due to their overblown opinion of their driving skills. now, they may not "arrest" people but they create road rage, tailgait and other dangerous tactics to enforce their will.

you may want nitpick the definition if you choose, but i see them in the exact same light

 

I believe a vigilante would be someone that doesn't belong to a law enfocement agency, that trys to stop someone from speeding.

 

to me a vigilante is someone who carries out "gang mentality" decisions. they determine on their own who is guilty based on anecdotal evidence without regard to due process and then "apply justice". in this scenario; people decide the posted maximum speed limit is too low and they essentially run people off the road who chose not to go "10 over"

iow, they feel they have the power to write the law

 

How would you fairly ration? Is this per driver, per household? Are allowances made for availability of mass transit? What about those who have to carry the tools of their trade and need a large vehicle to do so? Sorry, I lived through both times gasoline was rationed, and never want to go through that again. The market is the place that works fine. Price of gas goes up, consumption goes down.

 

Driving in the left lane is only allowed to pass someone in New Jersey. I have experience on this having received a ticket in 1989 on NJTP for failing to maintain to the right.

 

Per person. Everyone gets 400 gallons a year. That's a 25% reduction of the current 500 gallon per person usage in US. People who sell their excess gasoline rations. Two kids, you've got 800 gallon allotment to sell.

But tax would be best as gasoline owes the US $14T in military debt for 20 years of Middle East war and oil needs to pay its debt to the public.

 

A use tax on gasoline would be the simplest to implement and would have similar effect to rationing, but it more directly impacts the lower income folks compared to upper income folks. If you had both (rationing AND a higher tax on gasoline), you eliminate the income differences for the rationed gasoline (you get what you get). If folks want to purchase gasoline above/beyond their ration, then they can purchase it, but the prices would be greatly taxed as a way to "discourage" the excess usage. People without cars could sell/trade their gas rations and make some extra dough. People will try to counterfeit rationing widgets. Guido and Luigi will set up their illegal "gas still" on the edge of town, Chaos will reign! Muhahawhahahahaaaaaaa.....

I'm not saying it would be easy (or necessarily feasible) to institute rationing. It definitely wouldn't be popular, and no politician would ever try it (in this day/age it would be akin to career suicide). But, for the average joe driving a vehicle, they would need to consider whether getting that 400+ hp V8 Mustang/Camaro really makes sense over the 300 hp V6 Mustang/Camaro. Ditto that for the SUV (style) vs the 4 door sedan (practical). Because when their rations are up, they are walking or spending $10/gallon to keep going.

A lot of this is born from conversations I've heard moms having about their vehicles. I drive a SUV because I want to be thought of as the "sexy" mom rather than the "Soccer" mom. Cripes! Get over your freakin image and get the car that is most practical for your situation.


OK, it will never work.....I surrender.....

 

Yes, I believe in whirled pease.