Dems' latest oil answer: Speed limits

[Pastor]

Ben, I get what you're saying there, but walking on the sidewalk is a right until you murder a couple people, too.

The funny thing about this is, the thread title inaccurately refers to this as the "dems'" latest answer. It's a handful of dems suggesting something. I'm surprised so many would defend the idea. I'm guessing most/many of you don't drive much or long distances. The difference in time is one hour per 300 miles. I'd rather have that hour than the $4.00 I'll spend on the one extra gallon (or even less) I'll need to get there at a faster speed.

Junkie, I don't drive long distances all that often. When I do, I agree that I would rather spend the extra $4, $8, or $12 extra to get there. However, I'm trying to look at this with a larger scope than that.

 

[JR]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Don't see any mention of "freedom to drive a Porsche Carrera really, really fast."

 

[Armchair_QB]

The only people who like 55 mph are people who predominantly use mass transit and therefore, live in congested areas where if everyone did drive, to go 55 would be considered fast because traffic seldom if ever gets to be that fast. But go to the open roads states and you'd get a "**** on you" response.

Put me in the "**** on You" category.

A national speed limit is nothing more than a license for ****burg towns to increase their revenues through speed traps. Whoever suggested this needs to be taken out and shot.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Make no mistake -- I'm not in favor of this.

The enforcement would be wildly-uneven, and not much ticks off the broad public as much as selective enforcement of unpopular laws.

But, in talking DWI: if you have a sustained history of demonstrable DWIs and/or hit-and run (or even hit-and-NOT-run . . . the "hit" is the important part), believe me . . . it's time to get familiar with taxicabs and/or public transit. Because the broad public shouldn't have to be endangered by the likes of dirtbags like you.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Regardless of whether driving fast (within the reasonable bounds of safety) is a right or a privilege, the idea is a bad one. It is unlikely to change our consumption for the better and is unlikely to make any meaningful dent in gasoline prices.

This is why I hate both parties. In response to the fact that we use too much oil, some Republicans say, "No problem. Lets just dig for more!" and some Democrats say, "Lets institute a highly unpopular and largely unworkable policy that will do nothing to actually address our dependence on oil." And neither side shows any innovation or long-term planning.

 

[Pastor]

Regardless of whether driving fast (within the reasonable bounds of safety) is a right or a privilege, the idea is a bad one. It is unlikely to change our consumption for the better and is unlikely to make any meaningful dent in gasoline prices.

This is why I hate both parties. In response to the fact that we use too much oil, some Republicans say, "No problem. Lets just dig for more!" and some Democrats say, "Lets institute a highly unpopular and largely unworkable policy that will do nothing to actually address our dependence on oil." And neither side shows any innovation or long-term planning.

FACT.

 

[Ace]

The only people who like 55 mph are people who predominantly use mass transit and therefore, live in congested areas where if everyone did drive, to go 55 would be considered fast because traffic seldom if ever gets to be that fast. But go to the open roads states and you'd get a "**** on you" response.

Put me in the "**** on You" category.

A national speed limit is nothing more than a license for ****burg towns to increase their revenues through speed traps. Whoever suggested this needs to be taken out and shot.

Would shooting folks who suggest lowering speed limits be a right or a privilege?

 

[Armchair_QB]

The only people who like 55 mph are people who predominantly use mass transit and therefore, live in congested areas where if everyone did drive, to go 55 would be considered fast because traffic seldom if ever gets to be that fast. But go to the open roads states and you'd get a "**** on you" response.

Put me in the "**** on You" category.

A national speed limit is nothing more than a license for ****burg towns to increase their revenues through speed traps. Whoever suggested this needs to be taken out and shot.

Would shooting folks who suggest lowering speed limits be a right or a privilege?

c. A damn good idea.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Wasn't Republican Senator John Warner the first to raise this idea? A couple of weeks ago no less?

Gun ownership is a right. It says, you have "the RIGHT" to bear arms. It's in the Bill of RIGHTS. But not anyone can own a gun anymore. The right vs. privilige argument is a good distraction though.

 

[pressboxramblings07]

Driving may be a privilege, but forcing limitations on speed limits because of gas prices is absurd.

Stupid.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Try asserting that driving is a right when you have multiple DWI notches on your belt.

Try asserting that voting is a right, when you have been a convicted of a felony.

The "whens" don't mean they aren't rights. There are limitations on your rights when you break the social contract and prove you can't exercise those rights responsibly.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Try asserting that driving is a right when you have multiple DWI notches on your belt.

Try asserting that voting is a right, when you have been a convicted of a felony.

There are limitations on your rights when you break the social contract and prove you can't exercise those rights responsibly.

Absolutely.

 

[Starman]

Yep, the Jimmy Carter wing of the Democratic Party is back with another brilliant idea: resurrecting the 55-mph (or thereabouts) national speed limit. Gotta love the nanny state.

Link: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807250355

Well-known dupe of the Carterista wing of the Democrat Party, Darth Milhous, uses the Force Choke to magically impose a federal 55-mph speed limit in 1974.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Yep, the Jimmy Carter wing of the Democratic Party is back with another brilliant idea: resurrecting the 55-mph (or thereabouts) national speed limit. Gotta love the nanny state.

Link: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807250355

Well-known dupe of the Carterista wing of the Democrat Party, Darth Milhous, uses the Force Choke to magically impose a federal 55-mph speed limit in 1974.

Saint Richard.

Little ****'s hero.

 

[writing irish]

I have the privilege, or right, to find that photo very ****ing scary. We should have just sent Nixon to Viet Nam and had him glare at the VC.

Back on topic, 55 MPH is way too slow for highways out west where one can drive for miles without seeing other vehicles or other roads.

 

[Shoeless Joe]

IV. Arbitrarily low speed limits are notoriously difficult to enforce, leading more people who would not ordinarily be classed as law-breakers to violate the limits and diminishing respect for the law overall.

That's exactly where I fall. When I'm on an interstate that is 70 mph, I don't even concern myself with state troopers because I might be doing 72-73. It's nice to be able to drive a reasonable speed that will get you there and not have to worry about forking over $100 to the state at every turn.

I've gotten two speeding tickets in my life, and both were horse ****. The first I was pulled over doing 50 in a 45 at 5 a.m. on a four-lane divided highway in the middle of nowhere Virginia. The second I was stopped doing 30 in a 20 at 2 a.m. going home from work.

(side note: on the second when the local cop pulled me over, when he saw who I was he started talking social as he was still giving me the ticket. "Hey, I love your stories in the paper. You do a great job covering my son's high school soccer team." I'm thinking - you better hope his scrapbook is full because the little *******'s name will never see ink again!)

 

[Tom Petty]

how 'bout if i drive 70 and make one less trip to the store per week?

that sounds fair.

 

[amraeder]

Pastor, We're in agreement. There are limits on the right to drive, based on safety considerations. We are getting away from why I posted that, though. You said that driving is a privilege, not a right, as if that is a catch-all that means it can be regulated for any reason -- including the social goal that began this thread; an effort to try to get people use less gasoline. And I was pointing out that we don't regulate things like this unless it is to prevent people from impinging on other's rights -- in this case, for safety considerations. This kind of regulation would actually be the antithesis of the idea of "rights" as we know them, because rather than leaving people alone to pursue liberty and happiness as THEY see it, we'd actually be impinging on some people's liberty by limiting something the might choose to do that isn't violating anyone else's rights.

Okay, now we are getting to the meat and potatoes of it all. Let us put away the privilege v. right argument for a little bit.

I see exactly where you are going. I think that my main issue is with the overall good that will come.

On the one hand, you have the institution of stricter rules in such a way as to reduce the consumption of a good that is necessary for everyday life. Reducing the consumption of this good will decrease the price; this is the market theory. By reducing the price of this necessary good, essentially the cost of nearly every good produced will go down and/or the profit will increase.

As a kick-start to our general economy, which is rather sore right now, this seems like an interesting way of trying to get things going. Fuel consumption drops and things can pick up again. In theory, that is rather nice.
...

I can't claim to be anything close to an expert on the subject. I can only go based on what I've read, and what that says is that this will hurt our economy. It might lower gas prices ever so slightly (although I'm sure someone out there knows better than I do if it would or not) but the speed limit is very much the speed at which American conducts business and lowering the speed limit slows down business (that's the simplification of the argument I've read).


And to a different point like 2 pages ago, Re: taking non-interstate when the speed drops to 55 it's a very real threat. Not becuase people don't want to get where they're going as fast as possible — they still very much do — but just a lower speed limit means that going out of your way to take interstates won't make your travel faster than the striaght shot on back roads. For some people, at 65 it was better to go a roundabout way while at 55 it's better to take the straight shot. If I couldn't travel 65, I'd change how I went to work every day because taking the interstate would no longer be the fastest route.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

The only people who like 55 mph are people who predominantly use mass transit and therefore, live in congested areas where if everyone did drive, to go 55 would be considered fast because traffic seldom if ever gets to be that fast. But go to the open roads states and you'd get a "**** on you" response.

Put me in the "**** on You" category.

A national speed limit is nothing more than a license for ****burg towns to increase their revenues through speed traps. Whoever suggested this needs to be taken out and shot.

Would shooting folks who suggest lowering speed limits be a right or a privilege?

C. A felony.

 

[ScribePharisee]

Again I'll say that people in congested metropolitan areas like New York and the rest of the northeast, where many of you come from, can dump the car for the rail without batting an eyelash. Driving for you becomes irrelevant. Then these decisions become like most coming out of government, where the people who don't finance their campaigns become irrelevant, That means most of us. When decisions start being made by recognizing the collective relevance of families who ultimately make this economy of the rich go, then we will get somewhere. In all facets of the game.