Sebelius says lower speed limit should be seriously considered / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, August 22, 2008

It's bad news for lead-foot drivers, but could be good news for the environment. Governor Sebelius says a proposal to lower the speed limit from 70 to 65 on Kansas highways needs to be looked at closely.

By Scott Rothschild

August 22, 2008

Kathleen Sebelius: Two decades in politics

Kathleen Sebelius is the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services in Obama's Cabinet. She has served as Kansas' governor since 2002 and before that was insurance commissioner and a state representative.

Reader poll

A proposal to lower the speed limit from 70 mph to 65 mph on Kansas highways "needs to be looked at seriously," Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said Friday.

"We need to take a look at everything we can do to be more energy conscious," Sebelius said. "It has some cost benefits."

The Kansas Energy Council will seek public comment on reducing the maximum speed limit from 70 mph to 65 mph on highways, which would include portions of interstates, the Kansas Turnpike and some divided highways, such as Kansas Highway 10.

Supporters of the proposal said it would reduce climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions.

Some rural lawmakers have opposed the idea, saying it would be a disadvantage to drivers who have to cover great distances.

Any change in speed limits would have to be approved by the Legislature and Sebelius.

The KEC will conduct two public meetings on the proposal - the first on Sept. 30 in Wichita, and the second in Hays at a location and date to be determined.

Written comments may be submitted from Sept. 8 through Oct. 10 by mail to the KEC, 1500 SW Arrowhead Road, Topeka, KS 66604, or by e-mail to l.brosius@kcc.ks.gov.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

22 August 2008
at 11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

This would be a nightmare. Those who choose can already drive as slow at 45mph in the slow lane. Make the ones who are really wasting the gas (SUV drivers) slow down.
22 August 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LogicMan (Anonymous) says…

Eliminating the 10 MPH non-moving violation cushion makes good sense, but not the 5 MPH reduction except in urban areas. There's far too many miles between cities in this huge state of ours.
22 August 2008
at 11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

N_Trenched (Anonymous) says…

She'll never have to go the speed limit so it doesn't matter to her. Just keep imposing your will Kate!
22 August 2008
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheOriginalCA (Anonymous) says…

This will only make the highways more dangerous because it will further separate the compliant drivers from the non-compliant drivers. The non-compliant drivers will NEVER slow down and thus place the compliant drivers at further risk.
22 August 2008
at 12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

I agree that this issue should be researched, but disagree with a mandate. I believe that there should be a state organized campaign, through the kcc, kdot, and KDHE, aimed at informing the public of the economical, safety, and environmental benefits of the change in driving habits. However, a change in the speed limit would do little to address the pertinent issues to be addressed. Even as a Democrat I believe the initial response should be to address resident's habits by appealing to their own self-interest and allow them to make the decision. It is likely to be more successful when the people choose it for themselves.
22 August 2008
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BABBOY (Anonymous) says…

I am not driving 65 miles an hour. I do not care what if they lower it or not. Heck, I do not drive 70 miles an hour.If it is proposed, I will oppose it. In that appears it is the State of Kansas at issue with this 65 mph idea, this means I will go my state senator and state representative office at the capital and tell them do not go backwards on this issue and to leave it at 70 mph or higher. People are not aware how easy it is to meet with representatives (good ones anyway) at the state level. If they are there in the office, they will meet with you. If not, you (anyone) can tell there staff and they record your opposition or support to a bill. They keep an on going tally which I am pretty sure denotes those who came in to the office or called. If the second happens, I back up with a letter or an email. They — at least my representatives — always reply confirming in some fashion. Emails seem to be an easy way for them to communicate with you should anyone be interested in the future.By the way, they certainly do not always vote as this angry democrat desires. But, at least I participated to some degree and the meeting with them is always polite, interesting, and pleasant. I think they really enjoy meeting their constituency members because it is a change of pace for them and reminds them why they are there (again if they are good). In other words, all the banter you see on these blog sites is BS unless you actually do something about it.
22 August 2008
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cds (Anonymous) says…

People will have to actually follow the new speed limit for it to be effective. So, in other words, lowering it isn't going to change anything (other than more speeding tickets issued), the majority will still go as fast as they always have, which is faster than the posted speed limit.

22 August 2008
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jcjayhawk1 (Anonymous) says…

Here comes the Government to save us from ourselves again! If it wasn't for government intervention I wouldn't know what to do.
22 August 2008
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Jcjayhawk1 you might want to thank the government for intervening and building the road in the first place. Driving is a privilege not a right. Get over it.
22 August 2008
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LawmomX3 (Anonymous) says…

I love this, everyone complains about gas prices, and all the overseas oil buying but isn't actually interested in doing something to help. For my vehicle, driving 65 instead of 70 increases my MPG by 4, now that doesn't sound like much but I am one of those commuters so I drive over 300 miles a week. That is a big difference. And before eveyone starts in I actually commute with 2 other people thus adding to the cost and enviromental savings. If you don't want the government to tell you what to do quit your gripping about how things are!!
22 August 2008
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

clyde_never_barks (Anonymous) says…

Let's bump it up to 100 mph so we can get Kathy on out of here.
22 August 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kuhusker (Anonymous) says…

You can already gain the mileage improvement of a 65 MPH speed limit by driving that speed right now.We do not need a law to force everyone to drive slower - that makes as much sense as a law requiring you to keep your tires properly pressurized (which is also very important to save gas).Basically, it should be up to the individual to make their own cost versus efficiency determination, not the government. Speed limits should be set purely based on safety concerns, not social engineering.
22 August 2008
at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Getting another governor should be seriously considered.
22 August 2008
at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

kuhusker, the government owns the roads. They can set it by any standards they chose. Remember, a privilege, not a right.
22 August 2008
at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

calnvy (Anonymous) says…

What happened to land of the free?? If you want to drive under 70, you can… the minimum speed is posted at 40… just stay in the right lane!! The speed limit is more of a suggestion anyway. Most people are aware of it, but will drive at a rate where they feel safe. The majority of drivers in this country live in urban areas where the speed is dictated by traffic, not a posted limit. I dont live in KS anymore, but I do remember driving I-70 West of Salina when it was 55. “Give me cancer now God!” What a drag!All of these quick fix schemes are crap and we all know it. The oil is running out and the world is moving faster and faster. We need to break out of this complacency, revive the pioneering spirit that made the USA the greatest country (everyone used to think so anyway…) and come up with new and better ways to do things. The last 8 years have seemingly set this country back about 30 years…Taking more steps back is not the answer.

22 August 2008
at 2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

calnvy your solution is what? Driving faster? This quick solution will do quite a bit to reduce consumption, especially considering there are more commuters today then there were in the 70's.
22 August 2008
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

It did not work before, the savings were not as substantial as the transportation costs added to consumer goods. Time is money.
22 August 2008
at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Shardwurm (Anonymous) says…

No thanks Kathy.Another reason I'm hoping Obama picks you.
22 August 2008
at 4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

calnvy (Anonymous) says…

JackRipper… My solution is to change the technology, not the speed limit. I have done the experiment myself and know that it saves gas and $… but dont force me to do it because its better for the environment or whatever reason you (the government) may have.If thats the case then why not just make a law that allows the government to assess fees on your personal carbon footprint. That would make it more fair and make more of an incentive. Think of all the jobs it would create too. We will need hundreds of qualified CFEO's (carbon footprint enforcement officers)! People who drive suburbans at 80mph would actually be paying for the prius driver for being such a good human! “do you know why I pulled you over?”… “was it because I was going 80?”“no ma'am, I clocked you at producing over 5 metric tons more CO2 than a prius… Im gonna have to cite you.”Yes, there are more commuters today, but as I said… The only people who will really be effected by a change in speed limit will be the ones on the open stretches of highways, and not commuters. Traffic always dictates speed. Try driving the “speed limit” during rush hour in any urban area.and the government is of the people, for the people, by the people. Driving is a privilege, but by voting, we tell the government what to do… or thats the way its supposed to work.
22 August 2008
at 4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

I don't think the savings would outweigh the cost of changing out all the speed limit signs. Previous posters have it right - if you want to drive slower, that's your prerogative - just use the right-hand lane!law - I might believe your mileage increased by .4, but not by 4.0 !
22 August 2008
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Hey Governor Sebelius not a bad idea. There are states between here and Pennslyvania that have 65 mph speed limits. For trucks they have 55 and 60 mph speed limits. In some states trucks are required to travel in the right lanesat 55mph or 60 mph. Do they do it? Absolutely or they are pulled over. it seems obvious that state troopers issue citations because these truck drivers toe the line. This is great because truck drivers are not riding your butts. Too many truckers drive irresponsibly.Truck drivers will continue to drive through Kansas as they do other states with reduced truck speed limits. It's more about pollution and safety than cost per gallon.Governor Sebelius is making an educated suggestion.
22 August 2008
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

igby (Anonymous) says…

We should look for a reason to impeach her and send her back too Ohio.
22 August 2008
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

If everyone would just properly inflate their tires and get tune-ups there wouldn't be a need to lower the speed limit in Kansas ….. all of our energy needs would be met ……

22 August 2008
at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

calvny this is true and the government is of the people, for the people, by the people. Driving is a privilege, but by voting, we tell the government what to do: or thats the way its supposed to work.and she was voted on by the majority of the people and doing the people's business.
22 August 2008
at 5:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…

I know the ATA (American Trucking Association) wants 65mph, but they should change the way truckers are paid instead of a speed limit. People can drive 65mph if they want to, when they have the time to spare, or when they just want to. Speeding downhill can actually save you gas.A car that is efficient and streamlined can travel at higher speeds with little penalty. Trucks are usually square and have more wind drag.
22 August 2008
at 5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: “Jcjayhawk1 you might want to thank the government for intervening and building the road in the first place. “Uh huh. “The government” that *WE* elected built the roads using *OUR* money because *WE* told them to, jackie. It wasn't an 'intervention,' it was fulfilling the demands of the people “the government” represents.”kuhusker, the government owns the roads. They can set it by any standards they chose.”The one problem jackripper's tired old mind never seems to fathom is “the government” is us - yes, *WE* own the roads, and *WE* set the standards.*********************calnvy (Anonymous) says: “If thats the case then why not just make a law that allows the government to assess fees on your personal carbon footprint.”Good point (although it's wasted on jackripper, who, if you've read his posts, thinks some vast 'government' conspiracy was in place to build the road system - unasked for - to force us to buy cars and put his precious trains out of business).My compact car gets 34-36 mpg at 70 mph, a lot better than a monster SUV gets at 55. If the problem is how to save gas and cut down on vehicle emissions, I've already done my part, thank you. Of course, I'm sure jackripper thinks “the government” should force us all to drive smaller cars, too - we should all have to make sacrifices because he had to back in WWII. Just ask him.[Countdown to another babbling rant from jackripper in 5, 4, 3…]
22 August 2008
at 5:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Sibelius is the poster child for the Peter Principle.
22 August 2008
at 6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

[Countdown to another babbling rant from jackripper in 5, 4, 3:] ah yes, from the master babbler himself. Nice to see you get it fit into once comment box for once.Hey you do recognize that the government was elected by the people and if the speed limit is lowered it is by the “will of the people”. Isn't that how you said it worked or does it change again when it isn't something you like?
22 August 2008
at 6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Uh huh. “The government” that *WE* elected built the roads using *OUR* money because *WE* told them to, jackie. It wasn't an 'intervention,' it was fulfilling the demands of the people “the government” represents.Your socialist tendencies show again. Tisk tisk, a free market guy you claim. What a joke!
22 August 2008
at 7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

Sebelius is an idiot. How much jet fuel has she wasted flying around the country campaigning? Yet she wants all of us to drive slower. I vividly remember the 55mph joke. All it did was make lots of money for local and state governments from all the tickets that were written. Hardly anyone would drive 55mph. 65 is not much better. I'd drive 65 if she would stay in Kansas and do her job instead of jetting around the country. We need to vote her out of office, she is a moron. Thank you, Lynn
22 August 2008
at 7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

TOCA: “The non-compliant drivers will NEVER slow down and thus place the compliant drivers at further risk.”Well… not NEVER. All you have to do to get a noncompliant driver to slow down is to place an authority figure in his field of vision.I can't count the number of times I've looked into my rearview mirror to see some miscreant closing on me at an incredible rate, pass me, and then brake sharply, yanking his vehicle back into the right lane before me, so that I-observing the speed limit-then have to pass, in order to maintain my speed, as we encounter the Trooper along the roadway.You know, I might have some respect for these speeders if, in a civilly disobedient way, they would maintain their excessive speed when confronted by law enforcement, but they just seem to be pathetic cowards.These are *children* who never internalized a sense of responsibility. They *need* an authority figure to govern their behavior. They make the roads unsafe, and they cost us all, even if only in terms of maintaining a troop of *monitors* to check their self-serving behavior.( … yeah, call me Mr. Popular. ) That said, I think a higher speed limit should be given equal consideration.

22 August 2008
at 7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…

I guess some rental cars have GPS or something in them that can accurately track vehicle speed, and violators face a stiff penalty on their invoice. HIgher speeds not only use more fuel, but accelerate wear on tires and the drivetrain, and of course mean much more distruction in case of an accident.
22 August 2008
at 9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Remove all speed limits on I-170 and the turnpike. Let people get the hell out of here as fast as they can.
22 August 2008
at 9:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

godot, don't let the doorknob hit you where your good lord split you.
22 August 2008
at 11:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Sebellius is derranged. She destroyed a chance for Kansas to provide viable energy for itself, supports an insane national energy policy that forces the US to the knees of our enemies.Like all the other marxists who hate this country, her solution is to restrict freedom, sacrifice more liberty, greater government control, less personal choice, less comfort, punish the wealthy, less opportunity, more regulation and higher taxes. In sum, her solution to the problems her policies create is more government control and less individual liberty. It is a vicious cycle that inevitably leads to the death of opportunity and prosperity. Kansas has been slowly dying under Sebellius. The state is awash in debt, there is very little economic development, increasing deficits, increasing taxes, and crumbling infrastructure. It is the inevitable end resulting from Marxism.There are three reasons Sebellius has prospered in politics, none of which have anything to do with any intelligence on her part, she has very little. First, she rode the well known coat-tails of her father-in-law. Second, she has a willing media which refuses to cast any scrutiny on her incompetence and questionable actions/associations. Last, the Kansas Republicans squabble like petty women at family reunion to the point there is very little statewide momentum.Sebellius is a moron. The only thing which ought to be “seriously considered” in the same sentence with “Sebellius” is finding a govenor to replace her which will put Kansas back on the path of prosperity.
22 August 2008
at 11:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Kathleen Sebellius, a real American Caligula story.
23 August 2008
at 12:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

The only Constitutional roads are post roads. All others have been legislated into existence, and the Interstate system was Eisenhower's wet-dream (cheap) copy of the Autobahn.
23 August 2008
at 7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

OH how I long for the days when conservatives didn't believe in squandering resources.
23 August 2008
at 8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…

I think in Europe different types of vehicles have different speed limits. The really tiny cars go slower, trucks probably slower also. Cars can be made to cheat the wind.

23 August 2008
at 10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snafu (Anonymous) says…

I just can't buy into this theoretical world that if I drive slower I will save gas. I drove from Topeka to Manhattan for 9 years. During some of those years it was the dreaded 55mph on I-70. I checked my mileage several times over the years under different weather conditions, and it didn't seem to matter what speed I was driving. Maybe it was because I have owned Japanese Cars and they have the same efficiency at any speed.But one thing I know for sure. No mater what the make, if your standing still with the motor running your not being very efficient. Why don't they take the money they waste changing the speed limit signs, and put it into better traffic control. The largest amount of vehicles on the road are in the largest cities. And a lot of them are standing still at lights. If they would install smart traffic lights that are all connected together and controlled by computers that control traffic flow. We wouldn't spend so much time stopped at lights. They could also make traffic lights blink in all directions on the main thoroughfares after 10pm like some cities do. This way the main flow of traffic isn't stopped every 10 seconds by someone that is making a right hand turn from a side road. That doesn't need the traffic to stop at all. But the light can't figure that out, so it brings all the traffic to a stop for one person that isn't even there by the time the traffic stops
23 August 2008
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Godot (Anonymous) says: Remove all speed limits on I-170 and the turnpike. Let people get the hell out of here as fast as they can.”Marion writes:Now that's funny!
23 August 2008
at 9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Centerville (Anonymous) says…

N_Trenched: You are exactly correct, as any of the troopers who have to haul our govenor around could tell you. They are ordered to drive as fast as they can.Meanwhile, she's still up to her old publicity stunts: has guaranteed sky-high electric and natural gas rates and now thinks we'll agree to poke along the highway just to keep her faux-green creds up through November.
23 August 2008
at 10:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“OH how I long for the days when conservatives didn't believe in squandering resources.”…as we long for the day when kool aide marxists like yourself would use your brain and realize energy abounds in America.
23 August 2008
at 11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

JackRipper (Anonymous) blathers:”Hey you do recognize that the government was elected by the people and if the speed limit is lowered it is by the “will of the people”. Isn't that how you said it worked or does it change again when it isn't something you like?”Hasn't changed yet, has it, jackie? And from the look of the responses you (as usual) ignore, it sure doesn't sound as if the will of the people is in favor of lowering it.And tell me again, jackie, how many people ride the trains? We should keep paying for them why, again?”Your socialist tendencies show again. Tisk tisk, a free market guy you claim. What a joke!”Yes, jackie, but unfortunately the joke is on the folks who disagrees with that - the ones who thinks the purpose of government is to tell people what they have to do, not do what the people tell it to do. You know, folks like you.****************************************Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says: “:as we long for the day when kool aide marxists like yourself would use your brain and realize energy abounds in America.”That would imply he has one to use, RA.
24 August 2008
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

nota: :Hasn't changed yet, has it, jackie? And from the look of the responses you (as usual) ignore, it sure doesn't sound as if the will of the people is in favor of lowering it.”Maybe you haven't noticed but we don't vote on every item by popular vote. We vote for representatives who vote hopefully balancing the people's will with concerns of the country as a whole. If it is lowered it is down by popularly elected representatives. As of yet they aren't using the JW comments as the means to determine policy.nota:”Yes, jackie, but unfortunately the joke is on the folks who disagrees with that - the ones who thinks the purpose of government is to tell people what they have to do, not do what the people tell it to do. You know, folks like you.”No, no, nota, see when the government builds the roads they are responsible for making policies on how it is used, the same people who are popularly elected. So again, if it is lowered it is by the will of the people as you so put it.
24 August 2008
at 8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Rationalanimal::”as we long for the day when kool aide marxists like yourself would use your brain and realize energy abounds in America.”Marxist? Silly rabbit I'm more free market then you are but I believe that is across the board and not like you and nota who want the government involved in one of the most massive projects in the country which totally changes the free market transportation options and then want to eat your cake too. Energy abounds you you feel it is your right to burn it all up like a spoiled child. Again I say, I long for conservatives who didn't believe resources should be squandered.