National speed limit pushed as gas saver

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono Such as taking much of the money now wasted to pamper Wall Street and the military and investing it in convenient mass transit specifically and alternative energies generally. In addition, a lot of these resources might be used to plan how today's suburbia (ultimately doomed) can be shifted to a much more local lifestyle. It ain't like there's a choice in the matter. So might as well get going on doing it as painlessly as possible.

Europeans tellin' us big guys what to do again...

I think that the speed limit won't work very well.

Better to invest in nuke plants and electric rail, like Europe did years ago...

[Compugasm]

Mass transit sounds cool. But it's billion dollar projects and 15yrs in the works. And after all that construction, it does nothing for gas prices.

[Aussie]

Here's an idea? Stop making the worlds biggest problem on the roads - SUVs. And does your pickup truck really need to be that big?

[HelioPrime]

50 mph limits already exist on many sections of Highway. I-84 through the CT capital is 50 mpg all along the route. Of course it's not exactly well enforced.

If were going to do a national speed limit we should include it with a zero tolerance speeding policy. Anything is just wasting time.

I think a great option to combat gas consumption would be to use gas credits. Limit the purchase of gas to requiring special vouchers or credit cards. You are only allowed a set amount, BUT you are free to use or sell them as you please. People who don't drive or save gas right off have the benefits of being able to sell their own credits to those who consume more gas. Higher prices on the waste guzzlers and money for the savers.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 No, her point was that it's a state's rights issue. Setting speed limits is not the place of the federal government. It doesn't mean you have no speed limits. It just means that they're set by individual states.

Actually, a national speed limit is not a states rights issue. When all 50 states accepted federal money for the construction of interstate highways, road laws became a federal issue, at least on the interstates. Not to mention that transportation is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution's Commerce Clause. If the states don't like that arrangement, they can refund the money they took for their highways and forfeit all future federal transportation funds. Since they won't do that, they have to negotiate with Uncle Sam on this and other road issues.

I support the proposed new law. Most states already have 55 mph signs from the days when the law was in effect (1974-1995). Those that don't will just commission new ones from the same prison workshops that made the old ones--for a fraction of the normal cost. It's essentially a large license plate.

Perhaps we can have some exceptions for lightly inhabited areas like the Dakotas and Nevada, but not many. Most interstates are well traveled by millions of Americans every year. A reduction of a few miles per hour will save fuel and most likely a few lives as well.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Aussie Here's an idea? Stop making the worlds biggest problem on the roads - SUVs. And does your pickup truck really need to be that big?

>.> Most of us have realized big car = big gas prices.

[gela]

People won't go the speed limit to save their own life, wallet or license.

What makes you think they will go the speed limit to save petrol prices?

Generally, the speed limit is 110 km/h on free ways, and I always see the majority of traffic breaking that.

[tivodan1116]

People simply will not follow it. The average highway speed in the United States is now 74mph. Most states have their interstates set at 65mph speed limits, so the AVERAGE person is already breaking the speed limit by almost 10mph.

It's a ridiculous idea and has nothing to do with saving fuel and EVERYTHING to do with making money for the states in a recession.

Tax revenues go down... god forbid they spend less money.

[Compugasm]

According to HowStuffWorks, they provide some math reguarding what driving speed gets maximum fuel efficiency:

Quote by: HowStuffWorks In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds.

Maybe I'll have to modify my position on a national speed limit. It doesn't hold true that a national speed limit will save gas. Yes, it applies to larger vehicals. However, if the trend is to use smaller cars, then would the savings of a speed limit be offset by the design of the vehical?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Halofan48 National speed limit pushed as gas saver - CNN.com So, what do you guys think?

I think Congress should keep its nose out of it and let the states decide for themselves what their speed limits are going to be.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chancellor I think Congress should keep its nose out of it and let the states decide for themselves what their speed limits are going to be.

That's not a sensible response. It has already been explained how the national speed limit is in fact a federal issue. All you're doing is exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction in favor of so-called "states' rights". There are legitimate issues to be raised against lowering the speed limit, but this is not one of them,

Oh, and for the record, states don't have right, people do.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Europeans tellin' us big guys what to do again... I think that the speed limit won't work very well. Better to invest in nuke plants and electric rail, like Europe did years ago...

true, who the hell pays attention to the current speed laws?

[Gods_Mercenary]

50 mph limits already exist on many sections of Highway. I-84 through the CT capital is 50 mpg all along the route. Of course it's not exactly well enforced.

That's usually because of traffic.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal That's not a sensible response. It has already been explained how the national speed limit is in fact a federal issue.

No, you've explained how the feds justify their involvement in an issue in which they have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Speeding is (or can be with sufficient speed) a criminal infraction. The federal government has no jurisdiction over criminal law.

All you're doing is exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction in favor of so-called "states' rights". There are legitimate issues to be raised against lowering the speed limit, but this is not one of them,

I usually disagree with Chance, but here I agree - it's a state's prerogative to regulate the speed of vehicles within its borders. How could it not be? What is the effect on other states? There is none.

Oh, and for the record, states don't have right, people do.

You need to go see whomever taught you Constitutional law, and get your money back.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No, you've explained how the feds justify their involvement in an issue in which they have no Constitutional authority to do so.

Actually, someone else did us the courtesy of explaining it, but the explanation is quite sound. The reason the federal government built the interstate system was to encourage the interstate commerce that is its mandate to regulate.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Speeding is (or can be with sufficient speed) a criminal infraction. The federal government has no jurisdiction over criminal law.

This is simply false. Does the FBI enforce only local laws? Is treason a civil infraction? Is there such a thing as federal murder charges? Think this through. You already know the federal government has criminal as well as civil laws.

Quote by: tivodan1116 I usually disagree with Chance, but here I agree - it's a state's prerogative to regulate the speed of vehicles within its borders. How could it not be? What is the effect on other states? There is none.

The issue is what its effect is on the nation as a whole, not specific states.

Quote by: tivodan1116 You need to go see whomever taught you Constitutional law, and get your money back.

You first. You've been robbed blind.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

You first. You've been robbed blind.

The constitution explicitly states that any power not granted to the fed is the prerogative of the states, sounds like state's rights to me, individual rights were practically an afterthought.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The constitution explicitly states that any power not granted to the fed is the prerogative of the states, sounds like state's rights to me, individual rights were practically an afterthought.

Yes, the Constitution is wrong on this matter, so we've worked around that limitation as best as we could.

TC

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal That's not a sensible response.

Of course it is: we have too many federal laws, regulations and intrusions into people's lives. It's time for the federal government to return to its constitutional limits.

It has already been explained how the national speed limit is in fact a federal issue.

Well, no, it isn't a federal issue. I don't care if the federal government (under Eisenhower) created the interstate system (without constitutional authority), speed limits are the province of the states.

All you're doing is exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction in favor of so-called "states' rights". There are legitimate issues to be raised against lowering the speed limit, but this is not one of them,

Well, since it's your own piss-poor reading comprehension skills that resulted in your idiotic thinking that I even said anything against lowering speed limits, what you said is to be dismissed out of hand. If you're going to disagree with me then stick to what I said and not your interpretation of what I said. And, yes, states' rights are paramount. The Constitution gives very few powers to the federal government - everything else belongs to the states or to the people.

Oh, and for the record, states don't have right, people do.

States have powers and a whole hell of a lot more of them than the federal government.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chancellor Of course it is: we have too many federal laws, regulations and intrusions into people's lives. It's time for the federal government to return to its constitutional limits.

Yes, yes, we already know you're a states-rightist. So what? It's easy to keep asserting that we have too many federal laws but assertion is not argument.

Besides, the real issue is quality, not quantity. We need the right laws, not the most or the fewest. Amusingly, a lot of states-rightists seem to have no beef against laws like the Patriot Act infringe on our civil rights. I guess they care more about states' rights than civil rights.

Quote by: Chancellor Well, no, it isn't a federal issue. I don't care if the federal government (under Eisenhower) created the interstate system (without constitutional authority), speed limits are the province of the states.

Thank you for sharing your entirely unsupported conclusion that the interstate system exceeded constitutional authority. I'll be sure to start caring, just as soon as you support this with more than just your say-so.

Quote by: Chancellor Well, since it's your own piss-poor reading comprehension skills that resulted in your idiotic thinking that I even said anything against lowering speed limits, what you said is to be dismissed out of hand. If you're going to disagree with me then stick to what I said and not your interpretation of what I said. And, yes, states' rights are paramount. The Constitution gives very few powers to the federal government - everything else belongs to the states or to the people.

So much anger, so little clarity of thought. People's rights are paramount. State or federal rights exist for the purpose of guaranteeing the rights of individuals, and that is how we judge them.

If you think that we should lower the speed limit, then you've shot yourself in the foot by insisting that this must be a state-by-state decision. If we do it that way, the states that need it most will be the ones least likely to have it.

Quote by: Chancellor States have powers and a whole hell of a lot more of them than the federal government.

That was one of the mistaken intentions of some of the writers of the constitution, and we've been working around it since then, often quite successfully.

TC

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Yes, yes, we already know you're a states-rightist. So what? It's easy to keep asserting that we have too many federal laws but assertion is not argument.

The argument you so obviously misssed is that speed limits are the province of the states and not the federal government.

Besides, the real issue is quality, not quantity. We need the right laws, not the most or the fewest. Amusingly, a lot of states-rightists seem to have no beef against laws like the Patriot Act infringe on our civil rights. I guess they care more about states' rights than civil rights.

Actually, I oppose the Patriot Act and related legislation. I oppose all unconstitutional legislation.

Thank you for sharing your entirely unsupported conclusion that the interstate system exceeded constitutional authority. I'll be sure to start caring, just as soon as you support this with more than just your say-so.

Actually, I have the Constitution to support my argument. The Constitution enumerates all of the powers granted to the federal government. The federal government has exactly and only those powers. There is no power for creating a national road system in the Constitution.

So much anger, so little clarity of thought. People's rights are paramount. State or federal rights exist for the purpose of guaranteeing the rights of individuals, and that is how we judge them.

People's rights are automatically assumed. They exist independent of the government. But, since we're talking specifically about GOVERNMENT, your statement about the people is irrelevant.

If you think that we should lower the speed limit, then you've shot yourself in the foot by insisting that this must be a state-by-state decision. If we do it that way, the states that need it most will be the ones least likely to have it.

I have no opinion one way or the other except to say that it is a decision for the individual states.

That was one of the mistaken intentions of some of the writers of the constitution, and we've been working around it since then, often quite successfully.

There was nothing mistaken about their intentions and all this "working around it" is unconstitutional. The only way to change what the founding fathers rightly gave us is to either AMEND the Constitution or REPLACE it with a different document.