Instead of producing more fuel efficient cars, how about a speed limit cap...

good idea!

and i think we should throw everyone who drivers a car heavier than 3,000lbs in prison for life!

and the government should watch over us and make sure we don't do anything to harm ourselves like tickets for no seatbelt/talking on cellphone/bicycling without a helmet!

and those selfish truckers shouldn't drive their big stinky polluting diesel trucks either!

we should redistribute wealth!

:der:

 

Back in the 70's there were two different national speed limits. If you had gas, 55 was the legal limit. If you were in line to get gas, it was 0.001 mph. The 1st limit was trying to solve the 2nd limit.

 

I don't appreciate when the government tries to make personal choices for us. However, there is a difference between seatbelt or helmet laws and laws against driving while talking on the cell phone.

If you don't wear your seatbelt or your helmet, you're only risking your own life.

If you are talking on the cell phone while driving, you are risking the lives of everyone else on the road too. No different (though probably less severe) than driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Driving extremely fast seems to fall in the same category of "risking the lives of everyone else on the road." So I don't mind speed limits.

However, before we try to lower the speed limit, I think we should try enforcing the limit that is already there. I would feel safer plodding along and saving gas at 55 mph if the other drivers on the road were *ONLY* approaching me from behind at the current speed limit of 65. But it gets pretty hairy when people are swerving around me at 85 instead.

Tim

 

tim,

you make a very good point, and i can't stand behind what i said 100%. the reason i'm against that law (which they are going to start enforcing up here in seattle) is because i need my cellphone for my business.

it's unreasonable to expect me to pull over everytime i get an urgent call from homebase telling me to get home quick, you know?

as with everything there has to be middle ground, and ticketing everyone on a cellphone is a bit too much big-brother for me. how about a heavier fine if i get stopped for something else and was caught using one? that makes 100X more sense to me, and i believe that's what happens now.

 

true for the most part, but still half do more than 60 mph and southbound I-5 past exit 101, the speed limit is 70. to be honest with you, the traffic on (I-5 is so bad most of the time that i use alternate routes... highway 99 from Fife north is a good way to go. it takes a bit of practice to get used to the lights, buts its pretty manageable most of the time

 

I can agree with that. If you crash into someone or you are seen swerving in your lane because you are on a cell phone, then you could have your license revoked just like if you were driving drunk. If you are seen cruising along with the cell phone but driving OK and obeying the rules of the road - fine.

I take a similar stance on gun legislation: Instead of making them harder to acquire in the name of prevention, just prosecute people who commit a crime with a gun to the fullest extent.

By the way, I'm aware of the statistics showing that it's just as dangerous to be using the hands-free devices or talking to your passenger. The fact of the matter is that being distracted by anything is bad. I notice that I can be distracted very often just by getting very absorbed in a talk-radio program. It makes it tough to decide where to draw the line.

Tim

 

there are speeders there as everywhere, but it's not too bad. everyone who lives in olympia takes exit 104 to highway 101 so most never even see the 70mph limit. things get super relax after the blacklake road exit.

I-5 has treated me well going that way as long as i do my part (pick non-peak times and avoid tacoma by going 167N to 512W to I5S, and that really helped my mileage and bloodpressure!)

 

ahhh.... no...no....no way...

we already have several thousand drunks on the road who think they can drink and drive just fine.... so we wait until someone dies, then starting assigning blame??

no... no way...

less than a month ago, a driver, who happened to be texting at the time, crashed and killed two of the three people who was riding with her. she stated that she wished it was her that died and not her friends... im sure her friends parents had the same wish...

 

ab-so-lutely. by the way, Heller verdict is due tomorrow IIRC

very true. best case scenario is we don't intrude on others rights in anyway and have free will to pursue whatever we want.... to a point

but there's always a "to a point"!!!

does that make me a libertarian? i've always considered myself a conservative. not a country-club bush-lover 'republican'

 

Another example of gov't acting like a property owner. If a private toll road said you couldn't use your cell phone (wear a seat belt, slow down, whatever) you would either do it or go somewhere else. Very libertarian. But if the gov't owns the roads, people feel they are part owners so they don't have to follow the rules if it inconveniences them. Tragedy of the commons.

 

ya, my sister lives in Pacific, so i use that route often. depending on where i am, i will frequently go thru Yelm on hiway 507 to the Roy Y, then catch 512 from there. traffic from Oly to Tacoma on I-5 is frequently a parking lot, so only take it if i have to

 

I drive an 06 Escape Hybrid for work.. averaging anywhere from 2500 to 4500 miles a month. I average 23 mpg in it, since most of it is on long highway trips.. I'd be better off in my 500+ hp Mustang Cobra on these trips, because on the highway it gets better fuel economy at the same speeds as the Escape does.. sure, if I slow down to 50 mph (in a 75 speed limit) I was able to get 40 mpg, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to increase the time I'm on the road by 1/3 just to save a little fuel.. oh yeah, in the snow and off road the Escape Hybrid sucks.. even with studded winter tires on it..