Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, August 16, 2008

Sacrificing speed

Driving slower to conserve fuel and help the environment may be just too much to ask.

August 16, 2008

Advertisement

Driving slower to conserve fuel and help the environment may be just too much to ask.

Many Americans would quickly say they are concerned about the environment and the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

But what are they willing to do about it? Drive less? Drive a little slower?

Well, maybe not.

A proposal under discussion by the Kansas Energy Council to lower the state's top speed limit by just 5 mph brought an instant negative reaction from a western Kansas legislator. Her constituents often must travel long distances, she said, and would vigorously oppose such a measure.

Actually, many drivers in more densely populated areas of the state probably would have a similar reaction. We just don't want to take a few more minutes to get where we're going.

Driving slower increases gasoline mileage, which is a small step toward decreasing the demand for foreign oil. A national group that advocates a 55 mph speed limit said such a limit would immediately reduce vehicle emissions by at least 10 percent, which would benefit the environment.

Still, it's likely that a couple of recent letters to the Journal-World's Public Forum urging more drivers to slow down and enjoy the scenery probably aren't causing a groundswell of support.

In fact, it's hard to see what it will take for Americans to get serious about gasoline consumption. People noticed when gasoline prices recently topped $4 a gallon, but it's not enough to make most of them drive less or drive slower. As the price creeps down, so does our concern.

Discussion of lower speed limits, of course, stirs memories of the 1970s when Congress enacted a 55 mph speed limit and gasoline stations reduced their hours to try to help the nation cope with a gasoline shortage. States had to adhere to the limit or risk losing federal highway funds, but enforcement of the limit was, shall we say, inconsistent from state to state.

Time is money, and Americans like to get where they're going as quickly as possible. First, they tell us not to talk on the phone while we're driving. Then they want us to drive slower so we're in our cars and off the phone even longer. What's the world coming to?

It's interesting to contemplate the rationing and lack of gasoline and other consumer goods that Americans accepted during World War II. Clearly, whatever crisis the nation now faces doesn't inspire anything close to that same kind of sacrifice.

Comments

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

One thing I notice in my car. The radio has to be set a lot higher at 75 than 55. I can set the radio to just right at 55, but I get up to 75 and I can't hear it. Works the other way around, too, but I don't mind as much when I go slower and it gets louder.

make_a_difference 6 years, 4 months ago

The American people's supreme self-indulgence may be leading to long-term disaster. People refuse to accept responsibility for changing the path being taken and change the ways in which their lives are being lived. We all need to find ways to live our lives with as small a footprint as possible on our surrounding environment. The reality is that we are effectively killing our planet piece by piece while refusing to acknowledge our doing so. Give me a break...reducing the speed of our driving is such a simple thing to do. And when multiplied by the millions of vehicles on our roads, it would have a huge impact. Not to mention how in hot weather we tend to cool our buildings to the point of feeling chilled and during cold weather we heat buildings so people can dress as if it's summer.Face it...Americans are self-centered, selfish, short-sighted & narrow-minded.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

yeaGH!, 125mph. But it would run out of juice before you got to Abilene.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

That is the reason a lot of cars have bigger wheels in the back, so they are always going downhill.

robertsloan2 6 years, 4 months ago

An individual doesn't need the speed limit changed to look at the gas tank and consider slowing down on the way to work or shopping. This article is good because it makes the point that's one way a person could reduce gas expenses and help deal with the rising prices. Thanks for mentioning a thrifty useful point!

Lefty_Stratocaster 6 years, 4 months ago

Anonymous userGodot (Anonymous) says:"JW, the reason Kansans do not see the need to reduce their speed is twofold: 1) there is no supply problem, 2) it is a myth that global warming is caused by man's burning of carbon. There is only one thing that will always be in short supply, and can never be replenished: that is TIME."Godot,I don't know if you're old enough to remember this, but back in the 70's these same 'experts' said that burning these very same hydrocarbons were blocking out the sun's UV rays, causing the atmosphere to cool and that we could very well be in a full blown ice age by the year 2020! The lies are exactly the same now as they were 30 years ago.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

I wonder if Tesla will put out a model that won't get you pulled over just 'cause it looks like your gonna speed...

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

Solomon seems to have a good idea. I sort of do both, depending on how much coffee I've had.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "Nota babe there were alternatives to the road before the government got into massive road building projects that unfairly and very much not in market fashion, eliminated."Speak in complete sentences much?Yes, jackie, there were alternatives before roads. But most of us don't enjoy the smell of horse manure as much as you appear to, and let's face it, hitching posts are a little scarce these days."The passenger train system which was private could not compete with a system that was funded by the government to the extent it was built."Uh, right. The figures you posted yourself from your save the choo-choos site show that less than 1/3 of highway costs are funded by GR taxes, and the people who use the roads pay the vast majority of those, too. Whereas more than half the operating costs - the operating costs, not even the infrastructure costs - of passenger rail are paid for in taxes, for the benefit of a tiny number of people who use them. No matter how many different ways you've tried to spin this, jackie, the people who use the roads pay for the roads, and you can't say the same thing about trains or public transportation. Or, considering the history of your posts, I guess I should specify you can't say it honestly."For you to determine that we only have one option and that is to drive is your closed minded point of view and until other systems have a fair chance of competing when the real costs associated with driving are realized in the pocketbook we can't have real free market solutions."You're the one who's trying to foist your preferences on others, jackie. I'm perfectly fine with the way things are and, given the number of cars on the road, apparently so are a lot of other people. With your constant senile rants about the greed and self-centeredness of car drivers, about the immorality of urban sprawl and private vehicle use, it's you that is trying to force others to live the way you think they should, not how they choose. Nobody said you can't have trains or buses, jackie - pay for them yourself the way we pay for our cars. Because we are paying the real costs, jackie, whether it's in tolls or taxes, we're the ones paying for it. It's only uninformed intellectually challenged morons who think otherwise.(continued)

jonas 6 years, 4 months ago

"Face it:People are self-centered, selfish, short-sighted & narrow-minded."Fixed that for you. We'll make the changes when we're forced to, and probably not before. It's the way of things.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JayCat_67 (Anonymous) says: "The 220 mile range wouldn't even be such a problem if it didn't take 3 1/2 hours to charge. ... Of course many people drive much less than that every day, so that's a 220 mile range is still a good start."Then again, the two-seat sports car with no room for luggage isn't the one you generally take the family on vacation with, either. It would be more than adequate for my 110-mile daily commute, and I could even make it two days if for some reason I couldn't charge it one night (although obviously it'd be pushing it to the edge). And it would definitely be great for the daily trips to the store, to school, whatever. Not too sure about swapping batteries at service stations, but maybe somebody will come out with emergency packs like they have for cell phones?"As far as the market driving this technology, I consider that to be silver lining to high oil prices. If gas remained cheap, what kind of interest would there be in an electric car? The finite availability of petroleum is a reality, but 4+ bucks a gallon gets our attention more effectively."Oh, I dunno' I find this one pretty interesting. :) But you're correct, and it doesn't just apply to electric cars. The technology for lots of alternatives to gasoline exists already, but it's not cost effective. When gas gets more expensive, they become relatively affordable. And not just with cars - how about mach-5 hydrogen-powered scramjets powering passenger planes?"Anyway, I'm not due for my mid-life crisis yet, but when it comes, maybe these'll be a little more affordable"Luckily, when mine hit, a lot of used toys were available - like my '79 RX-7, cheap enough when new and dirt cheap in '91. You gotta' love a car that, while it didn't exactly get good mileage for its size (which isn't exactly why people bought them, either), it didn't get noticeably different mileage at 60 mph vs. 110 mph.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "Actually XD40 it is the nanny state that provided you the road to drive on in the first place. ... Typical Americans, wanting it all and not willing to give up anything like the WWII did."Poor JackRipper. Every time he posts here he displays his famous inability to understand that there's a fundamental difference between the government doing what it's supposed to do - representing the will of the people, and providing the services they demand - and telling the people what they must do against their will. Very strange concept of what you think a representative form of government is for, jackie. Not to mention that jackie, as usual, lies. In previous threads JackRipper has himself provided figures that demonstrate the overwhelming majority of the cost of roads is paid for by the people who use them, while only a tiny fraction of the costs of public or mass transit is paid for by the actual riders.Just keep living in the past, jackie. Yeah, we know, the WWII generation was superior in every way, back when you had to walk 20 miles in the smow (uphill in both directions) to get to school everyday. The difference is that you did those things because you had to, jackie. We don't.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "notajayhawk I see your simplemindedness always out there telling us how it is the people's will when it is for roads but let's say it was national health insurance then it is wrong."And can JackRipper come up with some numbers saying that the the same proportion of the population that uses the roads are in favor of nationalized healthcare? What? No? You mean, as usual, JackRipper is just talking through his adult diaper? How boringly consistent of you, Jackie."Your obsession with yourself is a perfect example of why we need mature adults looking at bigger issues then just how to make sure we have maximum pleasure."Funny how the self-centered ones like JackRipper always think it's the other guys are being the greedy ones. What you want, jackie-boy, is for the rest of us taxpayers to support you, and for the government to force the rest of us to live a lifestyle of your choosing. That's the epitome of greed and self-centeredness, jackie, and the real shame is that you're not even bright enough to grasp that."Maybe you can rehash why your car isn't paying for itself anymore then mass transit because your valuable time which you seem to spend on here."[pssst - jackie - it's Saturday, babe.]"Of course we won't take into account that the vast majority of people haven' based their life around driving all over the place so what might not work for you could work for a whole lot of people."250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles. Over a billion daily trips made by Americans. And the 'vast majority' of Americans haven't based their lifestyle around driving, jackie? More stuff you pulled out of your diaper? Or did you mean to say that the vast majority of ludites like you who wish they were still living in the 40's and want to drag the rest of us back there with them haven't based their lifestyle around driving?"Mass transit doesn't pay for itself but neither does the car."Yes, jackie, it does. Whether I'm paying for my own car and fuel, whether I'm paying tolls and fuel taxes and licensing fees, or whether I'm paying sales tax (like on that car) or property tax or other GR taxes, I'm paying for my lifestyle. Unfortunately, I'm also being forced to pay for waste-cases like you who think you're entitled to support from the rest of us.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 4 months ago

Jerry: "That is the reason a lot of cars have bigger wheels in the back, so they are always going downhill."Hmm... with a minor extrapolation, we could free fall to and from work.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

I just read they are starting to change the laws in Germany to 75mph on some of the Autobahn. I think it is a Green reaction sort of thing but they did it for an entire province.Some of those cars they have over there won't go that fast anyway. 75 will get you there pretty fast without getting into the real danger zone.Germany is a smaller country, too.Some of the smaller US states, like Ohio, still have 55mph, I think. They don't have the wide open plains like we do here.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

A lot of newer cars have a meter that tells the driver how much fuel the engine is consuming at any instant. Using a meter like that to keep the gas consumption reasonable while still making reasonable time is probably a better approach than an across-the-state fixed limit. (you would find you use the most gas driving uphill, downhill is almost free)

snoozey 6 years, 4 months ago

A parked car gets very good mileage. A Prius traveling at 100 mph gets more miles to the gallon than a Suburban idling at a stoplight. I could go on with this all day. Reduced speed limits have been tried before and were rolled back to the present rates. End of story.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

(continued)"Of course there aren't that many people using other options now because they either don't exist or aren't ran to the full potential because they compete against a government backed system that builds roads everywhere a politician can win brownie points for backing."You mean because nobody but you - and a handful of other live-in-the-past dinosaurs - want them, don't you?"Talk endlessly around the simple point as you will but what if the government proposed a plan that the majority liked, are you going to jump on that also because it is the will of the people?"Still having that little reading comprehension problem, I see, jackie. I already answered that question. Sorry if it was an answer you didn't like - or, more likely, didn't understand."But Mr. Boomer you aren't paying it all by yourself because everybody else who pays sales and property taxes are also contributing whether they drive or not."What percentage of road costs are paid by those who don't drive, jackie? Again, since your senility seems to have kicked in again, only about 1/3 is paid in GR funds, and the drivers pay most of those, too, since they make up the vast majority of the population (what do you think the sales tax is on a new car, jackie boy?)."But we never want to get in the way of the boomer and their "lifestyle" of the spoiled brat that has historically had it their way and continue to consume as though there will not be future generations... yada yada yada."Yep, jackie, just keep telling us how we should all make sacrifices and live in deprivation 'cause you had to back in the heyday of dubya-dubya-2. That's one of the fundamental differences between you and the rest of the world, jackie - you see a challenge and say we have to cut back, we have to give things up, we have to make do with less. The rest of the world sees it as a challenge to make things better, to build upon what we already have and make life better, not go backwards. Now, don't you have some rotten kids to go yell at for playing in the street?(continued)

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

(continued)"You know nothing about me but you build your little world of put downs so you can be superior as we have seen in many of your other posts. Trust me, you aren't paying a darn penny to support me."Do you ride public transportation, jackie? Do you ride the trains? Or have you been arguing all this time just to hear yourself drool? Because I do pay for the trains I don't use, and the buses I don't use, in addition to paying my own way with the car. Your posts give me all I need to know about you, jackie. You're a bitter old man who resents the fact that "the spoiled brat that has historically had it their way and continue to consume as though there will not be future generations" has it better than you did and you expect the government to step in and force everyone to live the way you want them to. Your rants about Social Security and NAFTA and everything else you throw into these discussions demonstrate your belief that you think the government should tell people what to do instead of doing what the people tells the government to do with their money. Luckily, there aren't many of you left, jackie, and the ones that are are pretty insignificant.Hey, jackie boy, here's a thought for you to try and wrap your tiny mind around: If, as you claim, the demand for cars followed the building of roads, the roads came before the boom in private automobile ownership, then how do you explain traffic congestion? If it happened the way you said, shouldn't there be more roads than we need, not less?

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

I think it the bass. It has better bass when I slow down. I tried those noise cancelling headphones, they really work.AND they make the bass even stronger.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

Just out of curiosity, it this is all about reducing our reliance on oil and cutting down on pollution, then I guess these will be exempt from the speed limit?http://www.teslamotors.com/

Centerville 6 years, 4 months ago

I wonder if the libs are trying to lower the speed limit so their beloved state can take in more traffic fine revenue to make up for the revenue it's losing because we have the worst tax structure in the midwest?

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

In answer to logicsound's question, if that's what the overwhelming percentage of people in the country wanted - and by overwhelming, I mean anything even in the ballpark of the number of people who use the roads in personal conveyances versus, say, riding the trains - then the government should use the taxes it collects from the people to provide that service for them. That, however, is not the case. While there have been superficial numbers favoring the concept of universal healthcare, in practical terms the support isn't there. I.e., when you just ask the question "Do you want universal healthcare," people say yes, but when you give more specifics - like even if it means you have a limited choice of doctors, a longer wait for non-emergency care, etc., not to mention the increase in the tax burden, the majority support evaporates.

jonas 6 years, 4 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says:"I mean anything even in the ballpark of the number of people who use the roads in personal conveyances versus, say, riding the trains - then the government should use the taxes it collects from the people to provide that service for them. That, however, is not the case. While there have been superficial numbers favoring the concept of universal healthcare, in practical terms the support isn't there."Do you know what the level of public support was around the time that the road system was implemented (and I assume, when the taxes to pay for it were enacted)? Our society has had over half a century to adapt to the widespread use of the automobile, and is now virtually reliant upon and built around the use of personal automobiles, so it's not really a very fair comparison to compare the two things in terms of interest and support in the current time.

OnlyTheOne 6 years, 4 months ago

Hey, Snoozey!"Everything " traveling at 100 mph gets more miles to the gallon than a EDIT HERE Everything END EDIT idling at a stoplight."

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says: "If you take a 2 hour break, it evens times out a lot, I guess because you are averaging the 0 mph in."Good numbers, Jerry. But here's a thought I don't know about you, but I can easily make an 8 hour drive without anything like a 2 hour break usually with just the one or two 5-minute stops for gas. An 11 hour trip, on the other hand, usually does require a longer stop. That makes the difference, using your numbers, between an 80 mph limit and a 55 mph limit more like 5 hours.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, jackie, I knew that question would blow your little pea-brain. Gee, not even an attempt at answering it, jackie? Not even one of your usual lies or made up answers? Since I know your memory isn't good enough to remember a few posts back, let me refresh your memory (although I'm sure you don't have the courage to take a stab at answering it anyway):If the big conspiracy theory you keep blathering about happened, if 'the government' unfairly killed off your precious choo-choos by building roads to entice people to buy cars, if the roads came first, and it's not people making a choice for private car ownership that drives the demand for roads, then why do we need more roads, jackie? How come we have all that congestion you talk about yourself? 'Cause jackie, babe, if the roads were built to create a demand for cars, then congestion wouldn't exist, bud - we'd always have excess road capacity with car sales playing catch-up.But thanks for playing."I dimwitted and narrow minded bore." - JackRipperjackie finally tells the truth.Keep slinging the stuff from your Depends around, jackie. Luckily, as I said, it has no effect, and soon enough we won't even have to listen.

cowgomoo 6 years, 4 months ago

How does driving slower reduce vehicle emissions? It saves gas, but what does that have to do with the amount of emissions a car puts out during operation?

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

OTO, I began to write that too, but them darned Priuses (Prii??) don't idle when they're stopped. Da**it!

Lefty_Stratocaster 6 years, 4 months ago

Here's a suggestion:How about we synchronize the traffic signals statewide. That'll go much further towards saving fuel and reducing air pollution (the fact that Kansas already has some of the best air quality in the nation notwithstanding) than trying to slow our already comparably slow interstates even more.Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being a steward of the earth and using our resources wisely. But these environmental extremest are just plain irrational in trying to force their will on the rest of us!

Godot 6 years, 4 months ago

JW, the reason Kansans do not see the need to reduce their speed is twofold: 1) there is no supply problem, 2) it is a myth that global warming is caused by man's burning of carbon. There is only one thing that will always be in short supply, and can never be replenished: that is TIME.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JayCat;I'm sure the technology can be toned down to a more sedate level. (From their website: "Our next model will leverage the Tesla Roadster's technology, resulting in a less expensive sports sedan that we can sell at higher volume.") But I think the biggest selling point for the Tesla is that you don't have to be more sedate. I think a lot of the resistance to alternatively powered vehicles is that nobody wants to drive something that looks like a mutated Yugo puttering along at 45 mph to save gas or to be environmentally conscious. But if they can make electric cars like these (hopefully for less than $109,000 and with more than a 220 mile range), you'll get a lot more people on board. If you can build them a car that doesn't sacrifice the convenience of a personal vehicle, with looks that'll knock your socks off, and (when you want to) will go like a bat out of heck, and at the same time uses no gasoline and emits no pollutants, people will buy that.If you read the posts on this and similar threads, it's apparent that people don't like being told what they have to do. Note that the Tesla isn't a government program, just a private company who believes it's possible to build a car that accomplishes the goals of less oil/less pollution "with no compromise" [from their mission statement]. The marketplace, not government mandates, is what brought this car to fruition. People expect more from their future than being told what they have to give up or what they have to do without. They want a future that offers them more, not less. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that except to the old geezers who think that we should have to be deprived because they were in the past. Unlike those people, I have confidence in the ability, the innovation, the spirit of the human race to accomplish what the nay-sayers are too scared to try. No, there's not any guarantee that such a future is possible. But it would be pretty damned silly to give up without trying, wouldn't it? Especially as the technology exists, and it's a matter of refinement to make it prectical.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

The 220 mile range wouldn't even be such a problem if it didn't take 3 1/2 hours to charge. Granted, that's much better than overnight to go 30 miles, but who really wants to spend 3 1/2 hours in Abilene waiting for their car to charge. The only solution I can think of right now is to have the battery pack easily removable and standard to all makes and models, then you could, for a nominal fee, change it out at a service station much like you can exchange propane tanks. Is this feasible? Beats me. Of course many people drive much less than that every day, so that's a 220 mile range is still a good start.As far as the market driving this technology, I consider that to be silver lining to high oil prices. If gas remained cheap, what kind of interest would there be in an electric car? The finite availability of petroleum is a reality, but 4+ bucks a gallon gets our attention more effectively.Anyway, I'm not due for my mid-life crisis yet, but when it comes, maybe these'll be a little more affordable

Curtis Lange 6 years, 4 months ago

I'll drive less, but I'm not slowing down.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

Cowgomoo, what goes in must come out. Gas that isn't burned isn't turned into CO2, CO, O3 and the plethora of other gasses expelled from the other end. Therefore, less gas going into the carburator = less exhaust out the tailpipe.I've always wanted to use "plethora" in a sentence.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

[sigh]The comparison between the two fails for many other reasons, not the least of which is that there are alternatives to nationalized healthcare, while there is no substitute for a road system. That is, people can (and do) still get health care without the government paying for it, but they can't drive without roads. Even without insurance, people can pay for their health care (regardless of the hardship that entails), but they can't build their own roads.Anyway, it wasn't my comparison, I wasn't the one who brought health care into the discussion, JackRipper did. And I hope you're not saying, as JackRipper often does, that the demand for cars followed the building of roads, are you? People chose the lifestyle that revolves around cars, nobody forced them into it, and (for better or worse) they also chose the system of health care that we have now.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

I got out my calculator and did some figuringKC <--> DENVER................620 miles..........add ->2hr break..-->only 62 miles 55 mph......................11.27 hours.............13.27............. 66mins62 mph......................10 hours................12.00............. 62 mins65 mph...................... 9.53 hours.............11.53.............57 mins70 mph...................... 8.85 hours.............10.85.............53 mins75 mph......................8.26 hours.............10.26.............49 mins80 mph......................7.75 hours.............9.75.............46.5 minsIf you take a 2 hour break, it evens times out a lot, I guess because you are averaging the 0 mph in. 62mph/no breaks is almost even with 80.(if you travel in a motorhome with an alternate driver you might be able to do this.). on a short trip, you save about 20 mins. If you make, say 15$hr, thats about $5 worth.If you car gets 30mpg at 55 and only 20 at 80mpg, it wil cost you about another gallon, i.e. $3.xx. (62 miles / either 30mpg or 20 mpg )If you are working for somebody in the above situation, probably your boss will tell you to go 80mph. He would save ~ $2.xx overall. If you are just going on your own I guess you could weigh your own priorities.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says:"I have constantly said that support for trains and biking means getting rid of cars."It's been increasingly obvious of late that you haven't got the faintest idea whay you've said.I don't know why I bother, jackie, as you're obviously too limited intellectually to understand the simplest of concepts. Maybe on the off chance that someone else out there is dim enough to buy into your BS. See if you can follow this, jackie.If I lived at the end of a road and had sole access to the portion of the road leading to my house, maybe I'd be responsible for paying for it. When it gets past my neighbor's house, then we could pool our funds for that portion. Then a three-way split for the next segment, etc. Then the main road beyond that has to be split among everyone that uses that road, leading to the highway that thousands of people use, and we all pool our money to pay for that. Well, guess what, jackie - that's exactly what we're doing when we pay taxes, pass bond issues, and elect leaders who will build and maintain those roads. Sorry you can't understand that. There are a quarter of a billion registered passenger vehicles in this country, jackie. The owners of those vehicles, and the buses and bicycles, and the trucks that bring your Depends to the store for you to buy, created the demand for roads to travel on, so we pay our taxes, pass bond issues, and elect leaders to build those roads. The miniscule portion of the population that rides passenger rail didn't do any of those things, jackie, they don't pay for even the operating costs of their mode of transportation, let alone the infrastructure (which wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the freight rail companies who needed it), and the reason the government doesn't fund their operations at anywhere near the level of roads is because the demand simply is not there. When you keep blathering on like "Surely you understand how passenger rail, interurbans, and streetcars were many times free market enterprises which weren't as appealing when using the car became more convenient when the government built the roads," it continually shows your ignorance of both free market principals and how representative government works. Maybe you think we should all make sacrifices like you had to back in the days of WWII, jackie. Excuse the rest of us for not wanting to just to make you happy, since we don't need to. The lifestyle that revolves around cars is here to stay, because that's what people chose and what they continue to choose."...so we just make the roads bigger in hopes that a stupid accident can be avoided but of course they still happen all too frequently."Oh, now it's not about saving resources or ecology, now it's about safety, jackie? Then I guess you've stopped favoring trains over airplanes, since plane travel is safer than train travel per passenger mile?Get a life, jackie.

camper 6 years, 4 months ago

I thought this was a good letter that brings up some good analysis. I think there are many who favor a lower speed limit (such as myself). My arguments are for fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions, gas price effect, and safety reasons.As much as I'd like everybody to slow down a little, I realize it is still a minority position, and shouldn't expect everyone else to have the same opinion. I choose to drive slower and arrange my schedule to drive at lower peek traffic times when it is safer to drive slower. Sometimes I leave for work at 5am and drive 55mph (doing this averages an extra 25-50 miles between fill-ups). It is a great time to drive and it really does not seem to take me longer because there is no traffic to worry about. You can also watch the sun come up which is pretty cool.

KLATTU 6 years, 4 months ago

We got a long way to go, and a short time to get there! Just keep buying big cars, hating on bicycles and public transportation, and put the pedal to the metal! No rational thought will come from junkies. They know God squished those dinos into petroleum for 20th century Americans to burn! Screw the grandkids. The faster we use it all up, the sooner we'll decide to solve the problem.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: "Oh yeah, still can't deal with the inconvenient truth that you are not a free market person nota. Yes, again the long non answer and insults. Point being, roads are built by the government. If the government says we should drive 45mph on the roads it is the government who can decide it."Lordie, what an unbelievably dense troll you are, jack___ripped. You really need to have the nurses change your depends, jackie boy, it's been overflowing for some time now.jackie - exactly who do you think "the government" is? Whose money do they spend, jackie? You've been laughed off so many of these threads for pushing your ignorance past the point of endurance. We are the government, jackie. We built those roads. And we decide how fast we should go the same as we decided where they should be built. The same way we decided your trains aren't worth the expense anymore, because nobody has wanted to ride them in decades. You're truly psychotic, jackie boy - truly, certifiably psychotic. Your tin-foil theories about the grand conspiracy that "the government" built the roads - unasked for - to unfairly drive your trains out of business is probably why your family had you put up in the nursing home in the first place, jackie. You really should have your meds adjusted."Ah yes, and in other post you want to push off shore drilling because of course your lifestyle which supposedly is so under control even with all the massive government involvement in protecting the oil supply and building and maintaining roads is an other inconvenient truth so you are squealing like a pig to make sure we enter places that even during Reagan's times were put off limits."The only one squealing here - or resembling anything porcine - is the tired old man who lost his railroad job, and wants us all to make the sacrifices he had to make in WWII. Apparently one of those sacrifices was schooling beyond first grade. You lie pretty frequently, jackie, but anyone can read my posts - and I invite them to do so - saying that while the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans have chosen personal transportation over mass transit, I have no particular preference for what powers those vehicles. Said it a couple of times on this thread. Too bad you were too busy lying through your over-full adult diaper to read, jackie."It has been about safety long before"So again I'll ask - and jackie won't answer - does that mean plane travel is preferable to train travel, jackie, since plane travel is safer? Hmmm? What? Mouth too full of ..it to say anything? Gee, I thought so.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.