Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
I think it's pretty clear (from the speeding thread if nowhere else) that most people here will be against it, and I doubt this topic will go anywhere good.
It was tried once. It failed. No reason to try again. I think the Texas government has the right idea. When they posted 80-mph limits on two Interstates, they were asked about whether it would use more gas. Their response: (1) If motorists choose to spend their money on gas, that's their decision. (2) You're not required to go 80 mph just because a sign allows that speed, so if you want to use less gas, you can go slower. Just make sure you stay in the far right lane at all times unless you're passing someone.
The whole "55 saves gas" thing is bullshit anyway. There is no magic speed that saves fuel because the best way to maximize fuel economy is to hold the lowest speed that lets you use your highest gear without lugging the engine. In my 2004 Acura TL, for example, that's between 60 and 65 mph where I can stay in 6th gear. My fuel economy is worse at 55, turning more RPM in 5th, than it is at 65 turning lower RPM in 6th. My car is by no means unique in that respect. (Unfortunately the proliferation of automatic gearboxes means many, perhaps most, Americans are clueless about proper use of a car's gearing.)
Quote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 10:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
NEVER AGAIN!
It was a bunch of horseshit the first time around, and it would be a bunch of horseshit now.
Quote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 10:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
It was effective for about 15 minutes.
OK, make that 16 minutes.
Seriously...it was the blatant disregard for the 55mph NMSL that led to the proliferation of police radar (and later on, lidar) and the over-emphasis by law enforcement on "speeding," which in turn has become a source of untold riches for states and municipalities. I'm not sure any economic analysis of the cost of the NMSL was ever done, but I did read that some economists thought the costs in lost time outweighed the gasoline saved, which turned out to be miniscule anyhow. One of the NMSL's most outspoken proponents, Ralph Nader, made an absolute fool of himself by predicting horrendous carnage as Congress was considering its repeal...carnage that, of course, never occurred.
Considering that no one with any intelligence at all thinks that there is any shortage of motor fuels, certainly none that would justify the current high prices, there is no reason to revisit this demonstrable folly which was largely ignored anyhow. It's just another example of lawmakers so utterly out of touch with the people they supposedly represent.
We need to exploit our domestic resources! Drill! 10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online... Drill here in America!
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 02, 2011, 10:57:21 PMSeriously...it was the blatant disregard for the 55mph NMSL that led to the proliferation of police radar (and later on, lidar) and the over-emphasis by law enforcement on "speeding," which in turn has become a source of untold riches for states and municipalities.
Actually, I don't think that was the case--foreign observers were noting, well before introduction of the NMSL, that American traffic law enforcement was heavily focused on speeding. Before the NMSL came along and capped open-road speed limits at a very low level, it was still possible to set up speed traps and many towns did so. The beauty of speed limits is that they lend themselves to strict-liability offenses, which gives law enforcement the leverage it needs to push agendas unrelated to speeding (e.g. white supremacism in the South).
Quote from: Landshark on May 02, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
We need to exploit our domestic resources! Drill! 10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online... Drill here in America!
That's a rather simplistic approach to the problem. We are drilling in America already (the state of Oklahoma still exists) but it doesn't really help problems much, because prices don't accurately reflect supply and demand–people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".
If you want to save money on gas buy a car that gets ridiculous gas mileage. There's plenty of discussion of that in the car rental thread in off-topic.
I don't think they should not just because almost nobody will follow it, but because of the cost to place new signs. What should be done instead is enforce the "keep right except to pass" rule. And "Left lane for passing only" rule. Re-educate people about lane usage. Make the rules of the interstate and expressway system similar to those of the German autobahn. As soon as the right lane is clear, you MUST merge right. No passing on the right lane even if there is a slower driver in the left lane (ticket both the slower driver and the one passing on the right)
In other words let people drive 55-60 mph (the compromise between speed and fuel efficiency) as long as they stay in the right lane and that the speed limit is at least 55. And let the faster drivers pass in the left lane.
the only thing more horseshit than the law was its enforcement. I remember that speed of traffic in the mid-80s on a typical Massachusetts freeway was 75, even buzzing past the cop parked over the side of the road. No one got pulled over ... except when some jurisdiction needed to make a buck.
The NMSL was Nixon's biggest mistake next to Watergate, and rivaling the 18th Amendment as an "ignoble experiment". It's destroyed lane courtesy, encouraged enforcement-for-revenue, and fails to actually conserve fuel or protect the environment (see Texas' "environmental speed" experiment).
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 02, 2011, 10:43:39 PM
The whole "55 saves gas" thing is bullshit anyway. There is no magic speed that saves fuel because the best way to maximize fuel economy is to hold the lowest speed that lets you use your highest gear without lugging the engine. In my 2004 Acura TL, for example, that's between 60 and 65 mph where I can stay in 6th gear. My fuel economy is worse at 55, turning more RPM in 5th, than it is at 65 turning lower RPM in 6th. My car is by no means unique in that respect. (Unfortunately the proliferation of automatic gearboxes means many, perhaps most, Americans are clueless about proper use of a car's gearing.)
Precisely--it's a combination of the car's gearing, and to some extent, aerodynamics. I've actually found that my automatic VW Jetta Wagon gets better mileage between 70-75mph than at 55mph. The car's rated 27mpg highway, and I've gotten 30mpg+ regularly at those speeds. Got 40 once driving from Central Oregon to Eugene (as it was mostly downhill).
Quote from: AZDude on May 03, 2011, 12:49:21 AM
I don't think they should not just because almost nobody will follow it, but because of the cost to place new signs. What should be done instead is enforce the "keep right except to pass" rule. And "Left lane for passing only" rule. Re-educate people about lane usage. Make the rules of the interstate and expressway system similar to those of the German autobahn. As soon as the right lane is clear, you MUST merge right. No passing on the right lane even if there is a slower driver in the left lane (ticket both the slower driver and the one passing on the right)
I agree 100% there. I'd really like to see minimum speeds posted on left lanes of freeways.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2011, 12:36:38 AM
people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".
Yup, it's all the damn speculators. Beyond the gas prices, they're a large part of the reason our economy's all screwed up, though that's a whole other can of worms.
Producing gasoline artificially may also be a viable option. Given that there are some techniques to actually
recycle carbon dioxide, as the US Navy is trying to do (http://news.discovery.com/tech/seawater-alternative-jet-fuel.html), and the fact that almost all vehicles on the road are already operating on gasoline engines, the enviros really ought to be looking at gasoline's potential to be produced in a renewable manner.
Quote from: Tarkus on May 03, 2011, 02:58:06 AM
Yup, it's all the damn speculators. Beyond the gas prices, they're a large part of the reason our economy's all screwed up, though that's a whole other can of worms.
generally, the problem is 1) anyone who believes that they can create wealth by slicing, dicing and manipulating figures on a piece of paper without actually adding anything of value to the system, and 2) anyone who cannot immediately see that group 1 is full of shit.
The NMSL failed to save gas or save lives. It simply was another bad idea out of an insular bunch who live in a big city and have no real idea what goes on in the 99.9% of this county that isn't within 5 miles of the sea.
Come on, this isn't 1973! A lot of us would rather do 75 on the highway anyway. But maybe a minimum speed posted in addition to the regular speed limit would be a nice compromise.
Quote from: Henry on May 03, 2011, 09:52:27 AM
Come on, this isn't 1973! A lot of us would rather do 75 on the highway anyway. But maybe a minimum speed posted in addition to the regular speed limit would be a nice compromise.
Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).
People aren't idiots economically- if I know I'm burning a ton of fuel by going 90 MPH down the highway then I've done so because I've calculated in my head that the time saved is worth more to me than the fuel burned. It's anti-capitalism to restrict speed for economic reasons.
From a safety standpoint, given the number of people that would ignore the law there would be a much greater speed differential on the highways which is much more dangerous than the lower speed. If, say 2/3 went 55-60 but the other third continued to go 65-85, that's much worse than 90% going 70 and 10% going 70-85
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2011, 11:04:26 AM
Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).
I have never seen that enforced. I've seen plenty of people get pulled over for going too fast; not once for going too slowly.
the other day I damn near rear-ended some idiot who was doing 20 (!) in the left lane on interstate 5. speed of traffic was the usual 60 or so going uphill at the 14 junction but this maroon had somehow gotten it into him that Jesus demanded a road block.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 11:41:08 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2011, 11:04:26 AM
Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).
I have never seen that enforced. I've seen plenty of people get pulled over for going too fast; not once for going too slowly.
the other day I damn near rear-ended some idiot who was doing 20 (!) in the left lane on interstate 5. speed of traffic was the usual 60 or so going uphill at the 14 junction but this maroon had somehow gotten it into him that Jesus demanded a road block.
Not so sure California has a minimum speed for freeways. I know Wisconsin doesn't.
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2011, 12:18:52 PM
Not so sure California has a minimum speed for freeways. I know Wisconsin doesn't.
even if there is no literal minimum, driving 40-50mph slower than the speed of traffic, in the lane that is expected by other drivers to be the least likely to contain such behavior, causing said drivers to need to make sudden swerves to avoid you, is the definition of reckless driving.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 11:41:08 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2011, 11:04:26 AM
Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).
the other day I damn near rear-ended some idiot who was doing 20 (!) in the left lane on interstate 5. speed of traffic was the usual 60 or so going uphill at the 14 junction but this maroon had somehow gotten it into him that Jesus demanded a road block.
I've had that happen to me on I-82 near Ellensburg, WA a whole bunch. Truckers usually--one going 25 trying to pass one going 20 going up the steep grade. Most traffic does at least 75-80.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
even if there is no literal minimum, driving 40-50mph slower than the speed of traffic, in the lane that is expected by other drivers to be the least likely to contain such behavior, causing said drivers to need to make sudden swerves to avoid you, is the definition of reckless driving.
I'd agree there. I'd love to see that being enforced more. Fine the crap out of the slowpokes, I'd say. Arguably, they're more dangerous than folks speeding, as their behavior is less predictable and they are likely completely oblivious to their surroundings and/or impaired/distracted in some manner.
Even without a sign posted the default minimum of an interstate highway is 45 ( in the right lane ofcoarse).
Quote from: Tarkus on May 03, 2011, 03:05:59 PM
I've had that happen to me on I-82 near Ellensburg, WA a whole bunch. Truckers usually--one going 25 trying to pass one going 20 going up the steep grade. Most traffic does at least 75-80.
indeed. the rightmost two lanes of the Grapevine are like this too. one should never get into the rightmost lane in the Grapevine unless they have enough visibility to know they can get out. There could be a truck around the next bend doing 15. it's the equivalent of driving into the oncoming lane of traffic on a two-lane road to execute a pass.
Quote from: AZDude on May 03, 2011, 03:41:46 PM
Even without a sign posted the default minimum of an interstate highway is 45 ( in the right lane ofcoarse).
That's a question of state law, just as the question of the maximum is a question of state law. In Virginia, for example, there is no statutory minimum number–instead, it sort of follows the "reasonable and prudent" guideline:
Quote
§ 46.2-877. Minimum speed limits.
No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
Whenever the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of a traffic engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the Commissioner or such local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit to be set forth on signs posted on such highway below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
(Code 1950, § 46-212; 1950, p. 881; 1952, c. 666; 1954, c. 244; 1956, c. 364; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-193; 1960, c. 153; 1962, c. 307; 1964, cc. 118, 408; 1966, c. 85; 1968, c. 641; 1972, cc. 89, 546, 553, 608; 1974, c. 528; 1977, c. 577; 1978, c. 605; 1980, c. 347; 1989, c. 727.)
Quote from: AZDude on May 03, 2011, 03:41:46 PM
Even without a sign posted the default minimum of an interstate highway is 45 ( in the right lane ofcoarse).
Only in states where the minimum speed is set at 45 (like Illinois and Indiana). In Iowa, and other plains states, it is 40. In Michigan it is 55.
The problem is that most drivers base their speed mostly on how fast they feel safe driving on the section of road in question based on its geometry and weather conditions, not so much on what the posted limit is. So, simply lowering the limit will only slow down the people who are anal sticklers for the rules or are paranoid about getting a ticket. The vast majority of people will correctly recognize that the maximum safe speed does not magically suddenly change just because the signs have changed, and will continue to drive as they did before.
And even if you could slow people down, you'd save a lot more fuel by raising the fuel economy standards for new cars. Which I do believe we are doing...
Besides, at this point, there is no need to legally force people to find ways to burn less gas. The economic incentive to do so is there without it, even if gas drops back to $3 a gallon. For over a decade car manufacturers have been using MPG figures as selling points and advertising their vehicles as fuel efficient. Who needs a legal push?
And, in any case, the so-called NMSL was an end run around the constitution because the states have become dependent on Federal money.
The NMSL did not technically set a national speed limit. It said that if you didn't set your speed limit to 55 and "prove" you enforced it, you'd get no Federal highway $$.
Since no state then, let alone now, could afford to give up that money, it was a national speed limit from a practical viewpoint.
____________________
And, I do agree with most of the reasons given against having one. Plus, the older I get, the less I want to waste time going 55 when I could go 65-85. (Assuming I still have the skills to drive that fast.)
basically the same reasoning as the drinking age being 21. far too much is tied to federal funds than should be constitutionally permitted.
I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I can't drive...55!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 11:41:08 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2011, 11:04:26 AM
Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).
I have never seen that enforced. I've seen plenty of people get pulled over for going too fast; not once for going too slowly.
I have an uncle who got a ticket for going too slow, back when Michigan's freeway speed limits were 55mph maximum/45mph minimum.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 10:57:14 PM
basically the same reasoning as the drinking age being 21. far too much is tied to federal funds than should be constitutionally permitted.
Unfortunately, the way the federal courts have determined that sort of case is that no state has a "right" to receive federal highway funding, so Congress is permitted to put whatever conditions it wants on the disbursement of that money as long as the conditions are not themselves plainly unconstitutional.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2011, 09:52:55 AMas long as the conditions are not themselves plainly unconstitutional.
I would think there is some kind of 10th-amendment argument here against the feds dictating a drinking age, as that should be generally a state issue.
I'm just nowhere near sufficiently a constitutional scholar to be able to come up with an argument either for, or against, a compelling federal interest in the legal drinking age, but instinctively I lean "against".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 10:21:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2011, 09:52:55 AMas long as the conditions are not themselves plainly unconstitutional.
I would think there is some kind of 10th-amendment argument here against the feds dictating a drinking age, as that should be generally a state issue.
I'm just nowhere near sufficiently a constitutional scholar to be able to come up with an argument either for, or against, a compelling federal interest in the legal drinking age, but instinctively I lean "against".
The Tenth Amendment argument was tried in the drinking-age case. It failed to the point where it wasn't even addressed when the case got to the Supreme Court. See
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987), text of which is linked below.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=483&page=203
BTW, if you want to read the speed limit case, it's at the link below. The panel there does address a Tenth Amendment argument.
Nevada v. Skinner, 884 F2d 445 (9th Cir. 1989).
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/884/445/464252/
The thing about the Tenth Amendment is that historically it hasn't been given a lot of weight by the federal courts because it's been found to set forth a "truism" (whatever that means.....it's also a well-settled principle of constitutional interpretation that no provision is to be read so as to render it irrelevant, so the case law on this issue is questionable at best). But the big thing that you have to remember is that the courts have found that the states are indeed free to set a drinking age other than 21, and under the old NMSL they were free to adopt a speed limit higher than 55. They simply lost federal highway funds if they did it. The point is that the states are free to exercise their right to regulate these things as they see fit, but since they have no "right" to obtain federal highway funding, Congress is free to set that condition.
Quotethe interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving
well, I certainly can't agree with this reasoning. it's not a variety in drinking age which causes drinking and driving; it's young people that have no idea how to drink safely... and treating alcohol as a forbidden fruit is certainly not going to help people's experience and knowledge!
QuoteQuote
the interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving
well, I certainly can't agree with this reasoning. it's not a variety in drinking age which causes drinking and driving; it's young people that have no idea how to drink safely... and treating alcohol as a forbidden fruit is certainly not going to help people's experience and knowledge!
It's a chicken or the egg thing too- when I was in high school I often drove drunk because the perceived risk of getting caught drinking and driving was a lot less than the hassle of explaining to my parents why I wouldn't be coming home that night, or why I would be coming home that night without my car. It was oftentimes a choice of driving drunk or not going at all- my parents wouldn't let me leave if they knew I'd be drinking because they were worried about me getting in trouble for underage drinking. I was in a very rural part of Idaho, so taking the bus or riding a bike or something wasn't an option and frankly the odds of getting caught were almost nil (if I were to tally my entire high school graduating class plus the class above and the class below, that's around 9000 miles of drunk driving with exactly 1 DUI that I know of to show for it).
Now that I'm of age (or when I was still underage but in college away from home), I never ever drive drunk- there's simply no reason to.
But in my case, the drinking age actually catalyzed the dangerous behavior. I suspect a lot of people feel that way.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 10:37:12 AM
Quotethe interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving
well, I certainly can't agree with this reasoning. it's not a variety in drinking age which causes drinking and driving; it's young people that have no idea how to drink safely... and treating alcohol as a forbidden fruit is certainly not going to help people's experience and knowledge!
Agreed, but unfortunately that's not how the analysis works under principles of constitutional jurisprudence. Matters of this sort are normally subjected to "rational basis" review, which inquires whether the government action is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, even if that "legitimate" interest is merely hypothetical. The big key is that the method the government uses doesn't have to be the "best" method–it only has to be "rationally related." In the case of the drinking age, the "legitimate" interest was curbing youthful drinking and driving. Making it illegal for younger people to drink was a "rational means" of pursuing that goal. Whether some other method might be a better means of doing it is irrelevant for constitutional purposes.
The case law on this stuff is very well-established and it's the sort of stuff on which you spend a lot of time in your first-year constitutional law class. "Rational basis" review is a pretty low hurdle to clear. The stricter standards ("strict scrutiny" being the highest) generally come into play when there is some "fundamental" constitutional right or else a "suspect class" involved–for the most part, the "suspect class" means race-based classifications. The drinking age and the speed limit simply do not fall within either of these categories.
sure, but in the presence of "rational basis", what is the point of even having a Tenth Amendment? nearly anything can be argued by a sufficiently competent lawyer to meet such an abysmally low standard.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 11:20:24 AM
sure, but in the presence of "rational basis", what is the point of even having a Tenth Amendment? nearly anything can be argued by a sufficiently competent lawyer to meet such an abysmally low standard.
Agreed. That's why I said I think so much of the precedent in that area is questionable....but what you and I think doesn't matter.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2011, 12:36:38 AM
Quote from: Landshark on May 02, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
We need to exploit our domestic resources! Drill! 10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online... Drill here in America!
That's a rather simplistic approach to the problem. We are drilling in America already (the state of Oklahoma still exists) but it doesn't really help problems much, because prices don't accurately reflect supply and demand–people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".
If you want to save money on gas buy a car that gets ridiculous gas mileage. There's plenty of discussion of that in the car rental thread in off-topic.
Quit believing the propaganda. The politicians that put us into this mess are trying to distract people from the truth. Even if you buy the garbage, you should at least be offended that we have been unnecessarily exporting our wealth for fuel.
This map just shows off shore restrictions:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi56.tinypic.com%2F2qlh212.jpg&hash=d8309bc4388d386a820c18696599ea8e62e6eb59)
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2011, 01:00:53 PM
Agreed. That's why I said I think so much of the precedent in that area is questionable....but what you and I think doesn't matter.
what is the origin of "rational basis"? where was it first used to set a precedent?
Quote from: Landshark on May 04, 2011, 03:04:18 PM
Quit believing the propaganda. The politicians that put us into this mess are trying to distract people from the truth. Even if you buy the garbage, you should at least be offended that we have been unnecessarily exporting our wealth for fuel.
This map just shows off shore restrictions:
[map]
your post reads like propaganda, and just displaying the map without context makes it hard to tell if you are for, or against, off-shore drilling.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 04:07:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2011, 01:00:53 PM
Agreed. That's why I said I think so much of the precedent in that area is questionable....but what you and I think doesn't matter.
what is the origin of "rational basis"? where was it first used to set a precedent?
Oh, man, it's been a long time since my law school con law class (1996), but I'm pretty certain the general principles for "rational basis" review are derived from the principles set forth in
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). The Supreme Court was construing the Necessary and Proper Clause and deciding whether it allowed Congress to charter the Second Bank of the United States. The Court found that it did allow such an act, and John Marshall's opinion included the famous statement, ""Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."
Id. at 421. (If you want to read the opinion, you can find it at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=17&invol=316 , but I'll warn you that those early 1800s Supreme Court opinions can be a torture to read. It starts with an insanely long summary of the oral argument, which is not included in today's opinions, so if you want to skip to the actual opinion, do a search for the word "Marshall" and it will jump to where it says that he delivered the opinion of the Court.)
The actual jurisprudence in which the "rational basis" test was fleshed out began to develop in the late 1930s as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the New Deal.
Quote from: Landshark on May 04, 2011, 03:04:18 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2011, 12:36:38 AM
Quote from: Landshark on May 02, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
We need to exploit our domestic resources! Drill! 10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online... Drill here in America!
That's a rather simplistic approach to the problem. We are drilling in America already (the state of Oklahoma still exists) but it doesn't really help problems much, because prices don't accurately reflect supply and demand–people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".
If you want to save money on gas buy a car that gets ridiculous gas mileage. There's plenty of discussion of that in the car rental thread in off-topic.
Quit believing the propaganda. The politicians that put us into this mess are trying to distract people from the truth. Even if you buy the garbage, you should at least be offended that we have been unnecessarily exporting our wealth for fuel.
This map just shows off shore restrictions:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi56.tinypic.com%2F2qlh212.jpg&hash=d8309bc4388d386a820c18696599ea8e62e6eb59)
What propaganda? You say "drill here in America". I know some folks who work in the oil fields in Healdton. We never
stopped drilling in America.
Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2011, 10:32:46 AM
BTW, if you want to read the speed limit case, it's at the link below. The panel there does address a Tenth Amendment argument. Nevada v. Skinner, 884 F2d 445 (9th Cir. 1989).
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/884/445/464252/
The thing about the Tenth Amendment is that historically it hasn't been given a lot of weight by the federal courts because it's been found to set forth a "truism" (whatever that means.....it's also a well-settled principle of constitutional interpretation that no provision is to be read so as to render it irrelevant, so the case law on this issue is questionable at best). But the big thing that you have to remember is that the courts have found that the states are indeed free to set a drinking age other than 21, and under the old NMSL they were free to adopt a speed limit higher than 55. They simply lost federal highway funds if they did it. The point is that the states are free to exercise their right to regulate these things as they see fit, but since they have no "right" to obtain federal highway funding, Congress is free to set that condition.
Just goes to show how stupid it was in the first place!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 04:14:11 PM
your post reads like propaganda, and just displaying the map without context makes it hard to tell if you are for, or against, off-shore drilling.
The map is easy to understand. Green = allowed to drill, red = govt. drilling ban, yellow = foreign waters.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2011, 07:49:34 PMWhat propaganda? You say "drill here in America". I know some folks who work in the oil fields in Healdton. We never stopped drilling in America.
Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?
Cut the crap, you know what I mean. We have greatly limited our supply due to govt. restrictions. We are only drilling on a fraction of the land/sea that we should be. Instead, we export trillions of dollars that primarily line the pockets of royals and despots. That wealth (and those jobs) should be here.
The environmental argument is stupid. Where do you think they drill for oil more cleanly: the US or Nigeria? America is killing itself because of stupidity!
What if newly opened drilling areas were only accessible by toll roads?
Quote from: Landshark on May 05, 2011, 01:06:40 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2011, 07:49:34 PMWhat propaganda? You say "drill here in America". I know some folks who work in the oil fields in Healdton. We never stopped drilling in America.
Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?
Cut the crap, you know what I mean. We have greatly limited our supply due to govt. restrictions. We are only drilling on a fraction of the land/sea that we should be. Instead, we export trillions of dollars that primarily line the pockets of royals and despots. That wealth (and those jobs) should be here.
The environmental argument is stupid. Where do you think they drill for oil more cleanly: the US or Nigeria? America is killing itself because of stupidity!
Considering that Cuba is going to let China drill within 90 miles of Florida, the arguments against drilling around Florida are indeed stupid.
Quote from: InterstateNG on May 05, 2011, 01:17:16 PM
What if newly opened drilling areas were only accessible by toll roads?
In the water?
Quote from: Landshark on May 05, 2011, 01:06:40 PM
Cut the crap, you know what I mean.
I'll give you my mailing address. You mail me feces and scissors. I'll send you photos.
Quote from: corco on May 04, 2011, 10:55:59 AMIt's a chicken or the egg thing too- when I was in high school I often drove drunk because the perceived risk of getting caught drinking and driving was a lot less than the hassle of explaining to my parents why I wouldn't be coming home that night, or why I would be coming home that night without my car. It was oftentimes a choice of driving drunk or not going at all- my parents wouldn't let me leave if they knew I'd be drinking because they were worried about me getting in trouble for underage drinking. I was in a very rural part of Idaho, so taking the bus or riding a bike or something wasn't an option and frankly the odds of getting caught were almost nil (if I were to tally my entire high school graduating class plus the class above and the class below, that's around 9000 miles of drunk driving with exactly 1 DUI that I know of to show for it).
I don't buy this as an argument for not having a minimum drinking age of 21. Before the 21 minimum was handed down as a federal mandate, states had different minimum drinking ages but no state (IIRC) had a drinking age under 18. Since people typically graduate from high school around age 18-19, this means that most high schoolers would be drinking underage even if there were a drinking age of 18. It makes more sense as an argument for having no minimum drinking age at all, which may not even be a feasible public policy--let alone a good one--because of the need to control liquor sales, or alternatively in favor of having a culture of socializing children to drink responsibly from a young age. I could go with the latter (mainly because that was how I was raised), but I don't see how that could be made to happen in this country, where dry drunks are constitutionally protected from state interference in their private lives.
I would like to think that most parents would be clearsighted enough to pick up a kid, no questions asked, when he or she calls and says, "Hi, Mom and Dad, I had something to drink and I don't think I should be driving," rather than make sure flowers are put on the gravestone every Memorial Day. But I know too much about how myopic choice works to expect this to happen as a matter of course.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 05, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: corco on May 04, 2011, 10:55:59 AMIt's a chicken or the egg thing too- when I was in high school I often drove drunk because the perceived risk of getting caught drinking and driving was a lot less than the hassle of explaining to my parents why I wouldn't be coming home that night, or why I would be coming home that night without my car. It was oftentimes a choice of driving drunk or not going at all- my parents wouldn't let me leave if they knew I'd be drinking because they were worried about me getting in trouble for underage drinking. I was in a very rural part of Idaho, so taking the bus or riding a bike or something wasn't an option and frankly the odds of getting caught were almost nil (if I were to tally my entire high school graduating class plus the class above and the class below, that's around 9000 miles of drunk driving with exactly 1 DUI that I know of to show for it).
I don't buy this as an argument for not having a minimum drinking age of 21. Before the 21 minimum was handed down as a federal mandate, states had different minimum drinking ages but no state (IIRC) had a drinking age under 18. Since people typically graduate from high school around age 18-19, this means that most high schoolers would be drinking underage even if there were a drinking age of 18. It makes more sense as an argument for having no minimum drinking age at all, which may not even be a feasible public policy--let alone a good one--because of the need to control liquor sales, or alternatively in favor of having a culture of socializing children to drink responsibly from a young age. I could go with the latter (mainly because that was how I was raised), but I don't see how that could be made to happen in this country, where dry drunks are constitutionally protected from state interference in their private lives.
I would like to think that most parents would be clearsighted enough to pick up a kid, no questions asked, when he or she calls and says, "Hi, Mom and Dad, I had something to drink and I don't think I should be driving," rather than make sure flowers are put on the gravestone every Memorial Day. But I know too much about how myopic choice works to expect this to happen as a matter of course.
I graduated high school at 17 (and know many others who have), and I think you could make the case to have the drinking age 21, or earlier if you have a high school diploma. This will (at least from a legal standpoint) keep alcohol out of high school and (sadly) give an additional incentive not to drop out.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2011, 07:49:34 PM
Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?
Stupid NIMBYs. Who wouldn't want an oil spill in their backyard?
Quote from: NE2 on May 05, 2011, 05:45:55 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2011, 07:49:34 PM
Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?
Stupid NIMBYs. Who wouldn't want an oil spill in their backyard?
Considering that blowouts from rigs tend to be very rare (yes, the one in the Gulf last year was a very rare event), I'd worry more about the transportation that the extraction.
True - it's illogical to want to live in a place designed for the car.
Quote from: NE2 on May 05, 2011, 07:50:08 PM
True - it's illogical to want to live in a place designed for the car.
Care to elaborate?
Quote from: deanej on May 05, 2011, 08:21:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 05, 2011, 07:50:08 PM
True - it's illogical to want to live in a place designed for the car.
Care to elaborate?
have you seen a suburb recently? they're pure hell!!
It is not the suburb that is the problem. It is when everything is 3+ miles away down a 6 lane, 45mph highway.
Quote from: Zmapper on May 05, 2011, 08:37:55 PM
It is not the suburb that is the problem. It is when everything is 3+ miles away down a 6 lane, 45mph highway.
Not too many of those around Chicagoland. Most are 4 lanes (maybe 5 lanes) with 35-40mph limits.
Quote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 10:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
For it on all highways, except for interstates.
Quote from: Zmapper on May 05, 2011, 08:37:55 PM
It is not the suburb that is the problem. It is when everything is 3+ miles away down a 6 lane, 45mph highway.
Well, as someone who grew up in the suburbs of Rochester, NY, the idea of driving a mile to get anywhere is perfectly normal. Besides, who wants to haul grocery bags more than a few dozen feet? Granted, upstate NY was never affected by the housing bubble (either positively or negatively), so we've been artificially stuck in the 1990s for a while now.
I can't really understand why anyone would want to be stuck at 55. It's so slow!
Quote from: mjb2002 on May 06, 2011, 01:39:14 AM
Quote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 10:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
For it on all highways, except for interstates.
I hate that idea. There are a lot of roads that are as good as, or better than, many Interstates (especially when compared to older highways that were later designated as Interstates, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike) and it makes no sense to restrict them to lower speed limits just because they don't have the magic red white and blue shield.
Quote from: mjb2002 on May 06, 2011, 01:39:14 AM
Quote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 10:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
For it on all highways, except for interstates.
We did that also once before. It led to a proliferation of interstate shields here in Illinois such as I-39, I-88, I-155, I-72 west of Springfield. I-39 and I-88 wouldn't exist if not for the 1987-88 law restricting 65mph to interstates only.
QuoteQuote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 08:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it?
For it on all highways, except for interstates.
You've never been west of the Mississippi, have you?
Quote from: corco on May 06, 2011, 09:35:26 AM
QuoteQuote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 08:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it?
For it on all highways, except for interstates.
You've never been west of the Mississippi, have you?
To illustrate
corco's point, does a road like
this (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=U.S.+20,+Burns,+OR&aq=1&sll=42.365649,-97.560985&sspn=34.827568,86.572266&g=US-20+Riley,+OR&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=U.S.+20,+Burns,+Harney,+Oregon+97720&ll=43.401555,-119.64386&spn=0.270396,0.676346&z=11&layer=c&cbll=43.376406,-119.664591&panoid=g4UrcbTXYnetqoKPHfEotA&cbp=12,206.04,,0,2.92) really make sense as a 55mph? Out in the middle of the desert, nowhere near any population centers and with wide shoulders?
(Coincidentally, because of Oregon's backwards laws, that road is technically a 55 . . . it really ought to be at least a 70.)
Quote from: NE2 on May 05, 2011, 07:50:08 PM
True - it's illogical to want to live in a place designed for the car.
Guess I'm pretty illogical then - I live and breathe cars and I love driving, short and long distances. I also hate high-density housing (apartments/condos/attached townhomes, save for the row houses in the coal region of E/NE PA.) The only time I don't want to drive is when it's so short of a distance that the engine can't fully warm up - that's terribly bad for it.
Quote from: deanej on May 05, 2011, 08:21:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 05, 2011, 07:50:08 PM
True - it's illogical to want to live in a place designed for the car.
Care to elaborate?
Los Angeles and Phoenix.
Quote from: AZDude on May 03, 2011, 12:49:21 AM
No passing on the right lane even if there is a slower driver in the left lane.
So in other words, if somebody chooses to do 45 in the leftmost lane of a 65-mph freeway, then the drivers in the other lanes just have to plod along at 45 whether they like it or not.
Well, if you're willing to put up with even more road rage than there is now...
Quote
So in other words, if somebody chooses to do 45 in the leftmost lane of a 65-mph freeway, then the drivers in the other lanes just have to plod along at 45 whether they like it or not.
Well, if you're willing to put up with even more road rage than there is now...
Perhaps if you are already in the right lane when approaching the slower car then it may be an exception. But with strict rules like that the left lane hog will get caught soon enough.
The reason for no passing on the right rule is because the car you are trying to pass may abruptly merge right causing you to run into him.
What do you do in the case of left exits then? This could never work in Rochester because most of our freeway junctions involve a left exit of some kind.
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2011, 09:27:14 AM
I-39 and I-88 wouldn't exist if not for the 1987-88 law restricting 65mph to interstates only.
I've heard rumours (Where? When? How true?) that's why the original I-495 was put on the Maine Turnpike from Portland to West Gardiner.
And I-335 in Kansas. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aEQyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2226,3184796&dq=kansans+can+drive+at+65+on+680+miles&hl=en implies but does not outright state that this was the reason.
Why speed limits are rising (http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/why-speed-limits-are-rising.aspx?GT1=33033)
QuoteKansas recently raised the speed limit on more than 1,000 miles of divided four-lane highways to 75 mph; the new limit takes effect July 1. Louisiana reset portions of a rural interstate to 75 mph in April, after observing that 85 percent of drivers were going at or below that speed. The same month, Ohio upped the speed on its turnpike to 70 mph.
Late last year, Virginia raised the speed limit on its rural interstates to 70 mph. And the Texas House of Representatives recently passed legislation to boost limits to 85 mph on highways in west Texas.
If the Texas Senate goes along, these will be the first U.S. highways to break the 80 mph barrier (Texas and Utah have each tried 80 mph limits) since President Richard Nixon enacted a national speed limit of 55 mph in response to the 1973 oil crisis. The national limit was raised to 65 mph in 1987, and authority to set highway speeds reverted back to the states in 1995. Speeds have been rising slowly and sporadically ever since.
But it's hardly open season on the open road. Speed limits are rising where the highways are emptiest, and the consequences of a traffic ticket on your car insurance premiums aren't going to shrink.
Quote from: Alex on May 24, 2011, 01:44:24 PM
Why speed limits are rising (http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/why-speed-limits-are-rising.aspx?GT1=33033)
why does that link want me to update something called Microsoft Silverlight?
I had no idea such an application existed. it sure as Hell isn't something that is a plug-in to my Firefox!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2011, 01:47:30 PM
why does that link want me to update something called Microsoft Silverlight?
You'll need it for the videos and stuff like that. There should be one available on Windows Update.
Silverlight is Microsoft's version of Flash.
here I thought Microsoft had gotten off the "embrace, extend, and exploit" bandwagon, with their incessant need to clone everything.
I read the article just fine even without it installed. I see no reason to upgrade just so that I am better served by advertisements.
Silverlight has actually been around for a while now - NBC used it for the olympics. While it is (was?) technically superior to flash, it wasn't superior in a way 99% of people would notice, and Flash was/is pretty entrenched, so naturally it went nowhere. But this is Microsoft, so even though it went nowhere, it will be supported until the end of time.
^^^
Well, maybe not the end of time, but still much longer than it would go on otherwise.
Yeah, when everyone and their dog has it and it's available for three major operating systems, while hardly anyone knows of Silverlight (and it is only available on one OS), it seems pretty irresponsible to go for Silverlight over Flash, unless there is just something in Silverlight that you need that you SIMPLY CANNOT DO in flash. Which I doubt there is.
Quote from: papaT10932 on May 02, 2011, 10:25:23 PM
Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it? :hmmm:
As others have said. A big money maker to help states and local governments balance budgets
^^^
As much as I currently dislike tolls, I'd rather have them than increased revenue driven speed limit enforcement.
Quote from: mightyace on May 27, 2011, 02:22:26 AM
^^^
As much as I currently dislike tolls, I'd rather have them than increased revenue driven speed limit enforcement.
Or GPS-based tax-by-mile. Noooooooooo thanks, I'll more than happily take the tolls.