So PA is like the autobahn of the eastern seaboard
Still far from the autobahn. You are still on the watch for LEOs all the time; 80-90 mph is still not 120+; most importantly, a lot of "inconsiderate" (well, simply "bad") drivers to watch out; camping in left lanes; the worst - occupying all lanes (mostly we have only 2 of them :-() while moving at the same speed; poor maintenance (although the autobahns which I know were also far from perfect). If and when you get a ticket, I think it is in the same ballpark. (Or was it ~$175 for my wife about 5 y ago?)
fintail: Real income? I suppose if you don't pay attention to the costs of housing, energy, medical, education, etc. Or is that some kind of deceptive household income stat?
Income and cost of goods are two entirely separate categories.
Since 1960, the cost of clothes, food and cars have FALLEN in inflation-adjusted dollars. The lower cost of food explains why, today, in 2012, obesity is the real problem and we associate poor people with the condition. It wasn't that way in 1960. Look at photos of that era. People were thinner, and poor people had the bodies of today's fashion models.
A brand-new 1960 Lincoln Continental Mark V cost $42,000 in 2012 dollars. Today you can get a 2013 Ford Fusion for half of that cost that is better built, faster, safer, cleaner, more reliable, longer lasting and has equipment (anti-lock brakes, air bags, etc.) not available in 1960 at any price.
Interestingly, the sectors you mentioned - housing, education, energy and medical care - have all been the subject to either heavy government regulation (for example, restrictions on exploration for energy or restrictions on what land can be developed for housing), or government subsidies to make them more "affordable." Yet, it hasn't worked that way.
fintail: The US now has the greatest socio-economic gap since before the depression, and a much greater one than can be seen in other first world nations.
As you noted above, what ultimately matters is what things COST. If the cost of goods is lower here than it is in Europe, you can live better here on a lower income than you can elsewhere. The fact that Donald Trump has lots more money than me is therefore irrelevant. What matters is what I can afford to buy with my money.
Which may be why my European friends and relatives always lots do of shopping for clothes and other goods while they are here, and always comment on the generous portions at restaurants and family dinners. Clothes and food are cheaper here than in Europen.
fintail: Manufacturing is a tangent.
What a minute...the supposed decline in the United State's manufacturing sector is always held up as proof of our decline. Now that it's shown that it isn't declining, but is actually quite robust...it doesn't matter? Sorry, but no.
fintail: You can drive that fast almost anywhere - even on surface streets, what kind of ticket will it earn in you in PA? I am pretty sure the authorities don't tolerate 80-90 in that leader of free world amenities and driving fun.
Here are speed limits in other European countries:
These limits are not consistently faster than the limits in a large part of the United States. In one very urbanized European nation (the Netherlands), the limit is lower than that of every U.S. state except one (Hawaii, with a 60 mph speed limit).
I have it from my friends on the Pennsylvania State Police that they won't pull you over for 75 mph as long as you aren't doing anything stupid (tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, etc.) and the weather isn't bad. Most people are travelling at 75 mph on limited access highways around here. This is even though the official speed limit is 65 mph in Pennsylvania.
I would argue that REAL highway speeds (meaning, the speeds at which people are really driving, not the numbers posted on the sign) in the United States people aren't slower than those in Europe, except for Germany. And note that enforcement is more draconian in many continental European countries than it is in most of the United States. The use of photo radar is more widespread there than it is here.
fintail: Enforcement is all about revenue, and job security for the enforcers and related administration.
And it isn't in Europe?
fintail: I don't know if Italy can be called "developed Europe"
In Pennsylvania, the rules state that, if the officer is using radar, in order to be pulled over, you must be at least six miles over the posted speed limit.
If the speed limit is 65, then the police using radar to measure your speed cannot pull you over unless you are driving at 71 mph.
If the police officer is following you with a cruiser, and the speedometer is certified, it is my understanding that he or she can pull you over for 66 mph.
In the real world, most people drive 75 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the police don't bother with anyone going that speed in the 65 mph zone, unless they are doing something else (tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, etc.) or the weather is bad. Construction zones, of course, are a different matter. Enforcement is heavier there.
I was with a group of cars cruising along at 80 mph on Sunday night in the eastbound lane. A Nissan Murano and Ford Escape were passing us at 85 mph. There was a marked police cruiser pulled off to the side of the road, tracking cars with radar. No one got pulled over. Maybe he was enjoying a donut and coffee and didn't want to be bothered.
it is my understanding that he or she can pull you over for 66 mph
I remember, when my wife got a ticket (in Pittsburgh, PA), I saw somewhere a fine schedule (tiered, depending on the degree of violation) where fines did not apply if you were within 6 mph. That is why I was saying this, FWIW. I may be wrong, of course.
Agree, my experience with cruisers on the Turnpike is similar, though more often than not they are already busy with someone else. Probably, there are quite enough folks going much faster than 80-85.
can best be viewed by travelling between San Diego/LA and Vegas by I15.
The CHP will let everyone get away with speeds well above the 65 or 70 speed limit, with many cars going between 80-100 MPH, which is a completely harmless speed on the flat straight highway, until every 60 miles or so one of them gets picked off for a revenue generation event. If you stick to groups, there's safety in numbers, like the way wild animals cross crock infested waters in great numbers.
So you can get away with the speed every 60, 120, even 200 miles, but perhaps every 100 miles you have to watch out!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
When it comes to any kind of quality of life issue, income and costs are key factors. And a lot has been lost in the past few decades. To insinuate that people are overall better off is a stretch at best.
Cheaper clothes, but shoddier. Cheaper food, but junkier. Obesity is more a function of bad food rather than too much good food. People were thinner in the past for that reason. Cheap isn't better, quantity shouldn't always beat quality.
Deceptive to compare technology - it gets cheaper over time. The Joads even had a car and a radio, toys for the rich a generation earlier. Household electronics are the same. Today you can get a TV for the same price as a nice unit in raw 1960 dollars that would have been science fiction then. Relative to a normal car in 1960, that Lincoln was at least as overequipped as a new Lincoln is compared to a base Fusion.
Those sectors I mention were also regulated when they were far more affordable to the average wage earner. Before a small group took power and profits to levels not seen in generations.
When I visit people in Europe, who are my age, I don't see the worries people who aren't entitled snarky old boomers have here. I don't see frets about healthcare or student loan debt that have overtaken a generation in this land of capitalism and freedom. Wait a minute, yourself. The loss of living wage manufacturing jobs is only a small chapter in the problem.
I'd say 10mph+ over average speed limits from one place to another is significant. Amusing that in that "very urbanized" area, the limit is still higher than within 40 miles of me - and this area has much less overall population density. Limits are generally lower in the US, the land of the lowest common denominator, even if only by a few mph - and often by 10 or more.
One can also argue that passive enforcement is less "draconian" than speedtraps and active patrols that the scaredy cats love here. In my experiences in Europe, EVERYONE knows where the cameras are, slows down for them, and then continues on. And it's not like such cameras are unknown here, especially when crony capitalists like Redflex have their noses in the works.
I doubt Europe employs as many schoolyard bully speedtrappers per capita as the US. Sounds like a subsidized career field.
Just go with the flow. Blend in to traffic. Quit trying to be above the law all the time.
Sure genius, what do you do when your all alone on the road? Blend in with the insects? They probably move at no more than 5 MPH; at least you'll be safe! :sick:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
fintail: Cheaper clothes, but shoddier. Cheaper food, but junkier. Obesity is more a function of bad food rather than too much good food. People were thinner in the past for that reason. Cheap isn't better, quantity shouldn't always beat quality.
There is far more selection and variety in both food and clothes today than there were in 1960. I remember when, in 1977, it was a big deal that the bakery section of the local grocery store in our town offered...kaiser rolls and different varieties of bread. Today, fresh fruit and vegetables are far more common and available than they were well into the 1970s. And for a lower, price, too.
Same with clothes...the quality of clothes today is equal to anything in 1960, and, in many cases, better.
fintail: Deceptive to compare technology - it gets cheaper over time. The Joads even had a car and a radio, toys for the rich a generation earlier. Household electronics are the same. Today you can get a TV for the same price as a nice unit in raw 1960 dollars that would have been science fiction then.
That's the dreaded free market in action.
fintail: Relative to a normal car in 1960, that Lincoln was at least as overequipped as a new Lincoln is compared to a base Fusion.
What matters is that today's Fusion, which sells to the customers who, in 1960, would have bought a Chevrolet Impala or Ford Galaxie, is better in every way than a 1960 Lincoln and Cadillac, which most people at that time would have considered to be "the best." And the Fusion costs less than half of what the Lincoln or the Cadillac cost, when all prices are adjusted for inflation.
fintail: Those sectors I mention were also regulated when they were far more affordable to the average wage earner. Before a small group took power and profits to levels not seen in generations.
Housing was not subject to the nearly the same level of land-use restrictions in 1960 that it is today, and 1960 was before massive government involvement in the health care sector sector via the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Nor was there nearly as much government "help" for college students. Most paid their own way, and tuition, in inflation-adjusted dollars, was lower than it is today. Meanwhile, the quality of a college education has, if anything, gone down over the past 50 years. The last time I checked, our universities and colleges were not being run by conservatives or libertarians. Quite the opposite, as most of the left are proud to note.
fintail: When I visit people in Europe, who are my age, I don't see the worries people who aren't entitled snarky old boomers have here. I don't see frets about healthcare or student loan debt that have overtaken a generation in this land of capitalism and freedom.
I hear these same concerns when I visit Europe, and recent headlines show that an increasing number of countries cannot afford to maintain their level of benefits. Hence, the economic crises in countries ranging from France to Greece. Just because people don't complain about something doesn't mean it isn't happening. Ignorance is bliss in Europe, too.
fintail: Wait a minute, yourself. The loss of living wage manufacturing jobs is only a small chapter in the problem.
The reason for the loss is important. If the loss is due to automation and improved production processes, and not outsourcing or the usual bogeyman, free trade, then it shows that the wailing over these two phenomenon has been misplaced.
fintail: I'd say 10mph+ over average speed limits from one place to another is significant. Amusing that in that "very urbanized" area, the limit is still higher than within 40 miles of me - and this area has much less overall population density. Limits are generally lower in the US, the land of the lowest common denominator, even if only by a few mph - and often by 10 or more.
What is relevant is the speeds at which people are driving, which, outside of Germany, are not any higher than they are here. So apparently most of Europe is the "land of the lowest common denominator, too."
Note that the 62 mph limit I cited for the highly urbanized Netherlands is the MAXIMUM limit in the entire country. There are still rural areas in the Netherlands, too, but the maximum limit is still a whopping 62 mph.
In Washington state, the maximum limit is higher - 65 mph. In Oregon, the limit is 70 mph. The complete picture shows that limits are not consistently higher in the Netherlands than in either Washington state or Oregon, and it is still possible to legally drive faster in both states than it is anywhere in the Netherlands.
Also note that many STATES in the United States are larger than entire European countries.
France, for example, is 211,209 square miles (including Corsica). Which means that it's not as large as Texas, which is 268,581 square miles. France has a speed limit of 81 mph, while Texas has a speed limit of 75 mph in most of the state, 65 mph in some eastern counties, 80 mph in some western Texas counties, and 85 mph on one newly opened toll road. Given the relative size of European countries to our states, that is the more relevant comparison, and I'm not seeing where France is more "advanced" in this regard than Texas.
fintail: One can also argue that passive enforcement is less "draconian" than speedtraps and active patrols that the scaredy cats love here. In my experiences in Europe, EVERYONE knows where the cameras are, slows down for them, and then continues on. And it's not like such cameras are unknown here, especially when crony capitalists like Redflex have their noses in the works.
That's a distinction without a difference. The simple fact is that Europe has plenty of speed limits, and they are not necessarily higher than those in the United States (if anything, the opposite, once you leave Germany).
I see nothing to document clothing quality improving in the past 50 years. Just cheaper, and too often from areas where have waged a trade surrender, or take advantage of the local ability to produce social and environmental abuse. But that's way off topic. If you lived in podunk that only could produce one type of bread, too bad for you.
Free markets are a ruse. There are no free markets. And the last ones produced robber barons, child abusing sweatshops, and a Dickensian reality where you'd toil to death by age 50. Have fun with that.
No matter your endless excuses, housing, healthcare, energy, and education are often wildly more expensive for young people today than for the previous generations who got theirs and now tell the rest to go pound sand. If you've actually been to a university, check out the leanings of the business and hard science areas, far from the liberal conspiracy you seem to imply.
You know economic crisis can exist without heavy social programs, in places where large sections of the country are second world at best? You know, like the US?
Free trade is an oxymoront. Free trade should be fair trade. I challenge anyone who claims that offshoring and defective trade policies have not made a general negative impact to ante up what pays their own meal ticket. I expect no answer. Simply look at how much of what is consumed was once made at home and is now made by social and environmental criminals who take our money and then scheme against us a minute later. Free trade, deceptions by pseudo capitalists who dream they are a step away from being a tycoon, but never will arrive.
"What is relevant is the speeds at which people are driving, which, outside of Germany, are not any higher than they are here. "
I see no data to support actual speeds of travel. Much of the US isn't the PA turnpike that goes from one abandoned coal mine to one decaying industrial town.
Lowest common denominator? Have you examined licensing standards in developed Europe? I find it extremely hard to believe you have ever been to Europe, not to mention driven there. The average driver there is simply more skilled than here - simply because they drive a manual, if anything. End of story.
WA has 70mph limits in very low density areas (although the scaredy cats have reduced many of these to 60). All of those 100kmh areas in NL would be 60mph here - so they are still marginally faster. And local experience here has many who plod along at 50-55 in those 60 zones, even in light traffic. It's slow. And impossible to compare relatively empty eastern WA and OR with anywhere in NL.
Everywhere has speed limits. The simple fact is that most of Europe does have speed limits that are often higher than the US, especially when taking population density into account.
And to be on topic, I've logged quite a few miles on European roads, and see much less idiocy there than here. Take that as you wish.
Funny thing about speed limits is how little time is really affected if speeding. If you drove 65mph vs 80 mph over 10,000 miles a year in highway driving, that would equate to 1/2 hour per week of driving, or about 6 minutes per day of extra driving.
One less 1/2 hour of stupid TV to watch each week! Plus most cars I've driven get about at least 10% worse MPG at 80mph vs 65mph, so that could be a couple of hundred dollars per year in extra gas by going 80mph.
Of course it's all a personal decision, but to me saving a couple hundred dollars per year for 6 extra minutes of driving isn't a bad trade-off.
fintail: I see nothing to document clothing quality improving in the past 50 years. Just cheaper, and too often from areas where have waged a trade surrender, or take advantage of the local ability to produce social and environmental abuse.
You're the one who made the assertion that clothing and food were of higher quality in 1960 than today, and I have yet to see any documentation from you to support your assertion. "Because I said so," does not constitute sufficient proof.
fintail: But that's way off topic. If you lived in podunk that only could produce one type of bread, too bad for you.
It helps to have been around in the 1970s, and thus know what food was available and have at least a vague idea of what it cost. It helps to have seen actual research on food costs in 1960 versus today.
In 2012, the typical family today spends 7.5 percent of its income on food, for example, compared with about 21.5 percent in 1960. Clothing accounts for just 3.4 percent of the family budget, down from 8.8 percent in 1960.
Now, if you have proof (meaning, an actual comparison) that food in the 1960s was of better quality than what we get today, and have a comparison between a typical garment from 1960 and one from today, with actual points as to how the newer garment is of inferior quality, I'll consider it. But until then, that is just your opinion, not a fact.
And, if more variety of food, and of better quality, is now available in "Podunk" than there was in 1960, guess what, that further proves that my original contention is correct. One of the hallmarks of improved efficiency and quality is that EVERYONE gets to enjoy the benefits, not just those who live in Manhattan or Los Angeles.
fintail: Free markets are a ruse. There are no free markets. And the last ones produced robber barons, child abusing sweatshops, and a Dickensian reality where you'd toil to death by age 50. Have fun with that.
If you are referring to the 1800s, that was a century of improving standards of living, rapid technological advances, the spread of the concept of free, compulsory, universal education in the United States and Europe and longer life spans for people. Have fun with that.
It was customer demand for better vehicles that produced enormous gains in vehicle quality and performance. That sounds like the free market at work to me.
fintail: No matter your endless excuses, housing, healthcare, energy, and education are often wildly more expensive for young people today than for the previous generations who got theirs and now tell the rest to go pound sand.
There not "excuses," there facts, based on a study of these fields. The simple fact is that, in these cases, government regulations driven up costs, along with subsidies to "help" make them more affordable (which has, over the long run, backfired).
fintail: If you've actually been to a university, check out the leanings of the business and hard science areas, far from the liberal conspiracy you seem to imply.
I have an advanced degree, thank you very much, and I've spoken to plenty of professors and administrators as part of my job. The business and hard science areas are two departments at most universities, and do not constitute the entire school. And even they are not uniformly stocked with conservatives or libertarians. If you believe that they are, then you need to visit one to become better informed.
fintail: You know economic crisis can exist without heavy social programs, in places where large sections of the country are second world at best? You know, like the US?
The United States does not have "heavy" social programs?
I guess that two of the three largest expenditures by the federal government budget - Social Security (20 percent) and Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP (21 percent)- aren't social programs?
Have you also never heard of Medicaid, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutritional Assitsance Program (SNAP)?
Your contention that the United States does not spend lots of money on extensives social programs is not supported by the evidence.
fintail: Free trade is an oxymoront. Free trade should be fair trade. I challenge anyone who claims that offshoring and defective trade policies have not made a general negative impact to ante up what pays their own meal ticket. I expect no answer.
As I've explained before, job loss is being driven by automation and improved production processes, not trade. I have yet to receive an answer from you regarding this fact.
Our top 10 trading partners, in order, are:
Canada China Mexico Japan Germany United Kingdom South Korea Brazil France Taiwan
Soooo...Germany and Canada and France and Japan and South Korea and the United Kingdom are engaging in "unfair" trade practices with the United States? They are really third-world backwaters? Who knew!?
We need to cut off all trade with them immediately!
fintail: Simply look at how much of what is consumed was once made at home and is now made by social and environmental criminals who take our money and then scheme against us a minute later. Free trade, deceptions by pseudo capitalists who dream they are a step away from being a tycoon, but never will arrive.
I hear that Elvis and the guy on the grassy knoll are in on the scam, too.
fintail: I see no data to support actual speeds of travel. Much of the US isn't the PA turnpike that goes from one abandoned coal mine to one decaying industrial town.
For someone who claims to have traveled extensively, you're curiously ignorant of what another state is really like (coal is no longer dominant, and agriculture is actually Pennsylvania's number-one industry).
The Turnpike runs from Philadelphia to the Ohio border in Beaver County, and skirts Pittsburgh along the way. Pittsburgh, for example, is now a center for high technology and health research. It's actually a very nice place to live. As are most of the other towns along the way. The farmland bordering the Turnpike is quite beautiful, as are the forests. Not a coal mine in sight...and I've driven the length of it numerous times.
fintail: Lowest common denominator? Have you examined licensing standards in developed Europe? I find it extremely hard to believe you have ever been to Europe, not to mention driven there. The average driver there is simply more skilled than here - simply because they drive a manual, if anything. End of story.
I've been to Europe several times, as I have relatives there.
The fatality rate per 100 million miles driven of European nations is not consistently lower than ours. And being able to drive a manual transmission is not necessarily a sign that you are a more skilled driver, or a better driver.
Funny thing about speed limits is how little time is really affected if speeding
This is another heresy on my part, but, yes, the poster is correct. Time savings when speeding vary from negligible to insignificant (save on a thousand-mile-long straight and wide highway, which almost never happens anyway, at least to me). This is because the time in travel is mostly determined by its low-speed parts (turns, lingering behind trucks, traffic lights/crossings, bridges, road works, congestions, food/pee stops, what not.
Having said that, I would submit that speeding/driving is not at all about saving a tad of time or a paucity of money. It is, first of all, about sanity. Every car has it optimum cruising speed at which it 'wants' to ride by itself (for most cars, 70 mph and above). Moreover, every driver also has his optimal cruising speed when his attention/alertness/capabilities/sanity are at their best. For most drivers, between 60 and 90.
To retain sanity/composure, some of us have to drive fast. Commuting is like a fitness club to me before/after a day of work. I cannot drive slow. I become distressed and morbid. I cannot even walk slow. I walk fast to very fast. I do not appreciate people who walk slow. I do not even appreciate people who are ABLE to walk slow. I just lose my sanity. ;-)
If you stick to groups, there's safety in numbers, like the way wild animals cross crock infested waters in great numbers.
Oh, yes, absolutely. That is exactly what my driving instructors taught long ago: Don't speed ahead of the group, you are then exposed (to police). Don't speed on declines, you are exposed. When speeding, drive behind someone else, you are much safer. If you are not too 'proud', drive behind two other cars, then you are safe, guaranteed.
This simple advice served me well for decades, except when I was caught once in Brazil on a speed-camera from behind, while driving dead last in a flock. The fine was $500+ at that time!
Very true...any vehicle built within the last 20 years has no trouble cruising along at 75 mph. So, why not use the vehicle's capabilities?
Yes, driving faster does result in greater gasoline consumption, which does cost more money.
Of course, I could save even more money by disconnecting our electric service and relying on candles and oil lamps (and going to bed soon after it gets dark), but I find the extra expense of electric service to be well worth the cost. Same with driving at 75 mph on a limited access highway instead of 60 mph.
I'm usually on the PA turnpike when I'm skiing, so it is winter, but I usually find the pavement is in terrible shape. Speeds are high likely because you get a lot of long-haulers there. Lots of big trucks in a hurry. It's one of the very few roads where I think the limit should not be higher.
Wow, do you ski at 7 Springs or Hidden Valley? Yes, trucks are a sort of pace-setters, you better not to be too slow. Yes, the Turnpike is sometimes pretty scary (especially when there are road works, that is, always). Still, we drive 80+ there, even in winter.
no AWD/4WD, stay home or bum a ride from a friend. Hated getting stuck behind cars that couldn't climb the hill at the entrance. They had to wait for sand.
So far, we managed to go skiing weekly FWD only. Well, I learned driving (and drove for a long time) in a place with long snowy/icy winters, RWD-no-frills only, on bald tires. So, FWD looks like an improvement.
I've found that most of the trucks are governed for top speed, so they aren't the fastest vehicles on the road. If anything, they tend to be slower than the rest of the traffic.
The large number of hills on the western portion of the Turnpike slows them down even more.
Trucks are not fastest for sure, but they set your minimum comfortable speed pretty high, maybe 75-80. And many of them pass some hapless sedans and CUVs pretty often. Hills slow them down, yes. But the hills have downhill slopes too, and that's when it becomes interesting.
Specially for the LLC'ers match the speed of the driver in the car on the right... thinking that they have the divine right to govern the speed of all the other drivers on the road.
News at 11: LLC'er meets multi-ton semi, traffic snarled for miles.
(And in situations like that, here's a big "Thank you very f#$@ing much for this, @$$hole LLC'er!!! Had you passed and got back over, you'd be alive and hundreds of people would not have been negatively influenced.)
:mad:
(But hey, for some, even some here... it's the gospel that there must not be any speed differential between the lanes of traffic. For that makes the road a safe place to be!)
I saw a goodie today that touches on this issue. Toyota Tundra with a big wind/bug deflector on the hood. Written on it, backwards so it will be read in the rear view mirror of the car in front of it: "Slow Traffic Keep Right" - fantastic. Sadly with the typical passive-aggressive western WA driver, it will probably incite road rage by the LLCer wannabe traffic deputies.
My drive today was in ridiculous traffic as expected, but nothing glaring other than slowness. But while jogging, had a close call with a young woman in an older Sonata, who lurched blindly into a crosswalk - with a phone in her hand. Guy stopped at a cross street on one of the cool BMW GS adventure bikes watched the spectacle and smiled. Phone shenanigans need to have those "draconian" penalties.
>Written on it, backwards so it will be read in the rear view mirror of the car in front of it: "Slow Traffic Keep Right" - fantastic.
That's the attitude of too many of the large vehicle drivers: they are the larger fish--get out of their way.
In reality we need dual speed limits and these large, gas hungry vehicles need to be kept to a slower speed to save some of the fuel that they are guzzling. That fuel could be sipped by a gas-saving vehicle by a driver more appreciative of our natural resources.
To retain sanity/composure, some of us have to drive fast. Commuting is like a fitness club to me before/after a day of work. I cannot drive slow. I become distressed and morbid. I cannot even walk slow. I walk fast to very fast. I do not appreciate people who walk slow.
I found this very interesting in the context of this discussion. I think it's a good example of the attitude many drivers bring to the road: "This is how I like to drive, how I want to drive. So this is how I'll drive--to heck with the rest of you! Get out of my way! I have to drive this way for my mental health!"
I think this kind of attitude is a major contributor to inconsiderate driving. How can we drive in a considerate fashion when we have so little consideration for others?
Did it occur to you that some people have to walk slowly--they can't walk fast? And that some people like to walk slowly--just as you (and I) like to walk fast or very fast? Maybe they walk slowly to keep their sanity?
Commuting is like a fitness club to you? Here's an idea: join a fitness club, and get your excess energy and frustration with how other people behave out of the way there, before you hit the road (or the sidewalk).
I see the aggressive truck stuff mostly out of larger diesel truck drivers. And around here, it is different - highway drivers will constantly be battling those who dawdle down the road at 54 in a 60, in any lane they please. 405 and 167 are notorious for this. Wish there was a way for a car to display a sign like that.
For the guzzling, I see fuel expense as a personal choice. Someone could say the same about your Buicks too, you know :shades:
I was really wondering, where are those argumentative guys? Why I don't hear from them after all that I posted here? Thanks God, nothing bad happened, and the things returned to normal.
So, you are saying that pedestrians on the sidewalk should be regulated so that nobody walks fast beyond their own backyard? What do we do with joggers on the streets? Should they hit the tartan at the stadium first before hitting the sidewalk? (Although that might seem, in all fairness, not a bad idea).
Some can't walk fast? Fair enough. Walking is a right. But driving is a privilege. Everybody can drive slow if they prefer to, sometimes I do it too; just do it in the proper lane. If you drive slow in the left lane, then yes, "Get out of my way!" Thank you very much.
The complaints are totally reciprocal. I hear the slow driver in the left lane saying: "This is how I like to drive, how I want to drive. So this is how I'll drive--to heck with the rest of you! Get out of my way! I have to drive this way for my mental health!" I also think that "this kind of attitude is a major contributor to inconsiderate driving. How can we drive in a considerate fashion when we have so little consideration for others? " Isn't it the very definition of "passive agressive"?
It is not difficult to make space for all people and all tastes. One just should remember that he is not the only one on this Earth, and that he cannot legislate his tastes for everybody.
>Someone could say the same about your Buicks too, you know
Yup, I guess 33 mpg at 65 - 70 mph traveling is high consumption? Or 24 in around local driving to Meijer, Walmart, Kroger, etc., in day-to-day is probably worse than a Cruse but better than a Mercedes.
But back to reality, the type of dawdlling you and others describe on interstate level roads I rarely, if ever, see on interstates here in the left lane. Even on the 3 and 4 lane interstates completed here, the 2nd from left is rarely at or below speed limit.
The arch example of a tailgater who is dominating is a large SUV in a hurry to get to the next bumper 100 feet in front of the car they are tailgating in traffic--or the semi driver to which Fintail refers. Typically the SUV is driven by a female in commute traffic and by a male at other times.
I see fuel expense as a personal choice. Someone could say the same about your Buicks too,
And they do say. When Germans come here, they are so puzzled and almost sick seeing all those cars with open windows and especially flags on the roof. It increases the fuel consumption! - they say.
but to me saving a couple hundred dollars per year for 6 extra minutes of driving isn't a bad trade-off.
Nice try but no cigar. Your math and arithmetic don't add up.
If were talking years, lets talk years. If were talking days, let's talk days.
If you drive 10,000 miles at 80 MPH it'll take 125 hours. If you do it at 65 MPH it'll take about 154 hours. That's a difference of 29 hours, or more than a whole DAY!!!!!
Even dividing that by 52 for weeks, you get .56 hours per week.
So if you somehow magically save a couple hundred dollars over the course of a year by going 65 MPH (which is highly doubtful in a modern car at $4/gallon), you are doing so at a cost of 29 hours, not just 6 minutes.
If you get paid $30 per hour in your job, then by wasting 29 hours driving insanely slow, you just spent $870 of opportunity cost (in time) for that couple hundred savings in gas.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So, you are saying that pedestrians on the sidewalk should be regulated so that nobody walks fast beyond their own backyard?
That's pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
What I'm saying is, other people have a right to walk slowly just as you have a right to walk fast--as long as you do so safely. If you're walking so fast that you can't watch out where you're going, bump into other people, leap into intersections without looking, etc., then it's a problem. It's this attitude towards people who want to walk slowly that I find disturbing.
You must realize there's a big difference between a sidewalk and a roadway: there's no speed limits for walking on a sidewalk. Another big difference is, the possible dangers to yourself and others for walking fast on a sidewalk are very small compared to what they are on a roadway.
And there's no "lanes" on a sidewalk, as on roadways, so if you choose to walk fast, don't expect those who walk more slowly, by need or desire, to clear a path for you. You need to be ready to go around them.
But there ARE lanes on a roadway, and rules and laws that state how drivers are to use those lanes--e.g., left lane for passing only on highways. LLCs who think "This is how I like to drive!" as an excuse for camping are just as guilty as the people who look down on others who like to walk slowly or drive more slowly than they do, thus don't see any problem with tailgating them, swerving around them at close proximity, etc.
This isn't about legislation... something many of us have lost track of in this discussion, btw... it's about CONSIDERATION, for others. Accepting that not everyone is the same as you are, and treating others considerately and respectfully even if they are "slower" than you are.
If you get paid $30 per hour in your job, then by wasting 29 hours driving insanely slow, you just spent $870 of opportunity cost (in time) for that couple hundred savings in gas.
Do you do all your driving during working hours?
If you are driving on a particular day during working hours, and cannot do anything else related to your job e.g. think about the agenda for your next meeting or about other customers you will call that day or any number of other things, then you could say that you just wasted up to 6 minutes of time for that day, which comes to $3 at $30 an hour.
And if you toss in the cost of getting just one ticket in a year--not just the fine but, especially in your case, the lost hours prepping for and attending trial (and making all the posts about it here!), how much does THAT add up to?
Fuel consumption would be a personal choice, if each person's fuel consumption didn't affect the supply, and price, of fuel for all. Except it does. If everyone averaged, say, 30 mpg instead of 25, that would reduce demand and therefore price.
Also keep in mind that oil is not a renewable resource. So the more we each burn--and burn more driving fast--the less there is for our children and grandchildren etc.
Until everyone understands that driving is not just about "me", we'll continue to have inconsiderate drivers.
For the eco-weenie crowd in their hybrids and penalty boxes, yes, your car is as much of a guzzler as a Hummer H1. And a MB diesel can easily beat those numbers :shades: - not to mention, I drove a 2012 E350 which puts out 302 hp, easy 32mpg in highway driving.
I think some of the more restrained drivers here need to visit the Seattle metro area. You can go as slow as you want - it's expected. When I am out in the old car, which I seldom push to more than 5 over, I am in the leftmost lane a lot. You can also drive with no forethought or situational awareness - they very diverse local driving demographic ensures it becomes the norm.
Tailgaters in traffic are the Seattle way - I can't go any faster when 100 cars in front of me are matching my speed. They seem to tailgate more on less crowded roads if they are towing a boat/jet skis etc, too.
And if you toss in the cost of getting just one ticket in a year--not just the fine but, especially in your case, the lost hours prepping for and attending trial (and making all the posts about it here!), how much does THAT add up to?
If he got paid $30 per hour in his job, then by wasting 30 hours fighting the ticket and posting about it, he just spent $900 of opportunity cost (in time) for that speeding ticket.
but to me saving a couple hundred dollars per year for 6 extra minutes of driving isn't a bad trade-off.
6 extra minutes of driving... I will assume that is round trip, per workday. an hour every 10 workdays, so if you work 250 days a year, that's 25 hours. You're paying yourself $8/hr to save gas.
So if you somehow magically save a couple hundred dollars over the course of a year by going 65 MPH (which is highly doubtful in a modern car at $4/gallon), you are doing so at a cost of 29 hours, not just 6 minutes.
Your example is 10,000 miles of driving, at 80mph vs 65mph. Let's say you get 25mpg when you drive 80. Not so outlandish, because that's about how well my Volvo does. You'll use 400 gallons of gas, for a total cost of $1600. In order to save $200, you'll need to use only 350 gallons... which means getting 28.6mpg. So in your example, YES it IS possible to save $200 a year that way, at a cost of 29 hours of your time.
So is your time worth more than $7-8 an hour? Mine is.
I see the Euro sickness about the low speeds and strange intersection controls that makes driving here the best in the world. Keep right is some kind of evil socialist anarchy! And speed kills!
Regarding some other posts - slow walkers need to learn how to walk straight. I jog on sidewalks and encounter so many dawdlers who appear drunk. But that's just how they walk. Texters are a big pedestrian hazard too. I don't mind dodging the pylons, but please keep it straight. Blunder into the path of a 6'1" 200lb jogger, and that phone will land about 3 counties over when it finally hits the ground :shades:
Fuel consumption is a personal choice. No less so than living in a large house or buying Chinese crap. Those who make tenuous claims about supply and demand need to walk the walk they talk - move the family into an 800 sq ft LEED apartment, buy things made less than 50 miles from home, live a very short distance from work, etc, before they preach. On the same tangent, I'd wager the net worth of every slowpoke scaredy cat middle American that the fuel wasted by negligent and irresponsible traffic controls far exceeds anything related to driving say 10mph above arbitrarily low limits. Fuel consumption also has little relation to inconsiderate drivers, perhaps only for LLC hypermilers. And by the time the kids of today have driving-age grandchildren, internal combustion for personal transport will be an anachronism for hobbyists.
Fuel consumption is a personal choice. No less so than living in a large house or buying Chinese crap. Those who make tenuous claims about supply and demand need to walk the walk they talk - move the family into an 800 sq ft LEED apartment, buy things made less than 50 miles from home, live a very short distance from work, etc, before they preach. On the same tangent, I'd wager the net worth of every slowpoke scaredy cat middle American that the fuel wasted by negligent and irresponsible traffic controls far exceeds anything related to driving say 10mph above arbitrarily low limits. Fuel consumption also has little relation to inconsiderate drivers, perhaps only for LLC hypermilers.
Agreed. My wife's E90 pulls down 30+ mpg at 75-80 mph, as does my E36/5- and my MS3 isn't more than a couple of MPG behind.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
My E55 can easily hit 25mpg in highway cruising - for something of that power and speed, I am happy with that. I also live relatively close to work, don't drive a huge mileage each year, and don't waste in other ways - I bet I have a much smaller energy footprint than the typical finger pointing nanny.
My in town mileage also improves massively when I can maintain momentum and not be forced to stop for every controlled intersection.
The average driver there is simply more skilled than here - simply because they drive a manual, if anything. End of story.
Say. Do the race cars in the premier racing series in the world have automatic transmissions? The best drivers in the world pilot these cars.
In latest issue of Motor Trend, 9 top sports cars in the world were evaluated for fun and driveability. Six of these had automatic transmissions. :shades:
In reality we need dual speed limits and these large, gas hungry vehicles need to be kept to a slower speed to save some of the fuel that they are guzzling. That fuel could be sipped by a gas-saving vehicle by a driver more appreciative of our natural resources.
Agree. All trucks - semis, vans, pickups, etc - along with suvs should be relegated to the right lane at 55 mph. Cars "only" should have the higher speed limit - 65, 70, whatever.
Comments
Still far from the autobahn. You are still on the watch for LEOs all the time; 80-90 mph is still not 120+; most importantly, a lot of "inconsiderate" (well, simply "bad") drivers to watch out; camping in left lanes; the worst - occupying all lanes (mostly we have only 2 of them :-() while moving at the same speed; poor maintenance (although the autobahns which I know were also far from perfect). If and when you get a ticket, I think it is in the same ballpark. (Or was it ~$175 for my wife about 5 y ago?)
Income and cost of goods are two entirely separate categories.
Since 1960, the cost of clothes, food and cars have FALLEN in inflation-adjusted dollars. The lower cost of food explains why, today, in 2012, obesity is the real problem and we associate poor people with the condition. It wasn't that way in 1960. Look at photos of that era. People were thinner, and poor people had the bodies of today's fashion models.
A brand-new 1960 Lincoln Continental Mark V cost $42,000 in 2012 dollars. Today you can get a 2013 Ford Fusion for half of that cost that is better built, faster, safer, cleaner, more reliable, longer lasting and has equipment (anti-lock brakes, air bags, etc.) not available in 1960 at any price.
Interestingly, the sectors you mentioned - housing, education, energy and medical care - have all been the subject to either heavy government regulation (for example, restrictions on exploration for energy or restrictions on what land can be developed for housing), or government subsidies to make them more "affordable." Yet, it hasn't worked that way.
fintail: The US now has the greatest socio-economic gap since before the depression, and a much greater one than can be seen in other first world nations.
As you noted above, what ultimately matters is what things COST. If the cost of goods is lower here than it is in Europe, you can live better here on a lower income than you can elsewhere. The fact that Donald Trump has lots more money than me is therefore irrelevant. What matters is what I can afford to buy with my money.
Which may be why my European friends and relatives always lots do of shopping for clothes and other goods while they are here, and always comment on the generous portions at restaurants and family dinners. Clothes and food are cheaper here than in Europen.
fintail: Manufacturing is a tangent.
What a minute...the supposed decline in the United State's manufacturing sector is always held up as proof of our decline. Now that it's shown that it isn't declining, but is actually quite robust...it doesn't matter? Sorry, but no.
fintail: You can drive that fast almost anywhere - even on surface streets, what kind of ticket will it earn in you in PA? I am pretty sure the authorities don't tolerate 80-90 in that leader of free world amenities and driving fun.
Here are speed limits in other European countries:
Belgium: 74 mph
Czech Republic: 81 mph
Denmark: 81 mph
Great Britain: 70 mph
France: 81 mph
Italy: 81 mph
Netherlands: 62 mph
Romania: 81 mph
Spain: 68 mph
Sweden: 68 mph
Switzerland: 74 mph
These limits are not consistently faster than the limits in a large part of the United States. In one very urbanized European nation (the Netherlands), the limit is lower than that of every U.S. state except one (Hawaii, with a 60 mph speed limit).
I have it from my friends on the Pennsylvania State Police that they won't pull you over for 75 mph as long as you aren't doing anything stupid (tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, etc.) and the weather isn't bad. Most people are travelling at 75 mph on limited access highways around here. This is even though the official speed limit is 65 mph in Pennsylvania.
I would argue that REAL highway speeds (meaning, the speeds at which people are really driving, not the numbers posted on the sign) in the United States people aren't slower than those in Europe, except for Germany. And note that enforcement is more draconian in many continental European countries than it is in most of the United States. The use of photo radar is more widespread there than it is here.
fintail: Enforcement is all about revenue, and job security for the enforcers and related administration.
And it isn't in Europe?
fintail: I don't know if Italy can be called "developed Europe"
Don't tell the Italians.
If the speed limit is 65, then the police using radar to measure your speed cannot pull you over unless you are driving at 71 mph.
If the police officer is following you with a cruiser, and the speedometer is certified, it is my understanding that he or she can pull you over for 66 mph.
In the real world, most people drive 75 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the police don't bother with anyone going that speed in the 65 mph zone, unless they are doing something else (tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, etc.) or the weather is bad. Construction zones, of course, are a different matter. Enforcement is heavier there.
I was with a group of cars cruising along at 80 mph on Sunday night in the eastbound lane. A Nissan Murano and Ford Escape were passing us at 85 mph. There was a marked police cruiser pulled off to the side of the road, tracking cars with radar. No one got pulled over. Maybe he was enjoying a donut and coffee and didn't want to be bothered.
I remember, when my wife got a ticket (in Pittsburgh, PA), I saw somewhere a fine schedule (tiered, depending on the degree of violation) where fines did not apply if you were within 6 mph. That is why I was saying this, FWIW. I may be wrong, of course.
Agree, my experience with cruisers on the Turnpike is similar, though more often than not they are already busy with someone else. Probably, there are quite enough folks going much faster than 80-85.
The CHP will let everyone get away with speeds well above the 65 or 70 speed limit, with many cars going between 80-100 MPH, which is a completely harmless speed on the flat straight highway, until every 60 miles or so one of them gets picked off for a revenue generation event. If you stick to groups, there's safety in numbers, like the way wild animals cross crock infested waters in great numbers.
So you can get away with the speed every 60, 120, even 200 miles, but perhaps every 100 miles you have to watch out!
Grow up
Cheaper clothes, but shoddier. Cheaper food, but junkier. Obesity is more a function of bad food rather than too much good food. People were thinner in the past for that reason. Cheap isn't better, quantity shouldn't always beat quality.
Deceptive to compare technology - it gets cheaper over time. The Joads even had a car and a radio, toys for the rich a generation earlier. Household electronics are the same. Today you can get a TV for the same price as a nice unit in raw 1960 dollars that would have been science fiction then. Relative to a normal car in 1960, that Lincoln was at least as overequipped as a new Lincoln is compared to a base Fusion.
Those sectors I mention were also regulated when they were far more affordable to the average wage earner. Before a small group took power and profits to levels not seen in generations.
When I visit people in Europe, who are my age, I don't see the worries people who aren't entitled snarky old boomers have here. I don't see frets about healthcare or student loan debt that have overtaken a generation in this land of capitalism and freedom. Wait a minute, yourself. The loss of living wage manufacturing jobs is only a small chapter in the problem.
I'd say 10mph+ over average speed limits from one place to another is significant. Amusing that in that "very urbanized" area, the limit is still higher than within 40 miles of me - and this area has much less overall population density. Limits are generally lower in the US, the land of the lowest common denominator, even if only by a few mph - and often by 10 or more.
One can also argue that passive enforcement is less "draconian" than speedtraps and active patrols that the scaredy cats love here. In my experiences in Europe, EVERYONE knows where the cameras are, slows down for them, and then continues on. And it's not like such cameras are unknown here, especially when crony capitalists like Redflex have their noses in the works.
I doubt Europe employs as many schoolyard bully speedtrappers per capita as the US. Sounds like a subsidized career field.
Italians don't listen, so that's moot :shades:
Some days, the cops would win and the drug users would die; and other days, the cop would die and the drug user lives to do it again.
Sure genius, what do you do when your all alone on the road? Blend in with the insects? They probably move at no more than 5 MPH; at least you'll be safe! :sick:
There is far more selection and variety in both food and clothes today than there were in 1960. I remember when, in 1977, it was a big deal that the bakery section of the local grocery store in our town offered...kaiser rolls and different varieties of bread. Today, fresh fruit and vegetables are far more common and available than they were well into the 1970s. And for a lower, price, too.
Same with clothes...the quality of clothes today is equal to anything in 1960, and, in many cases, better.
fintail: Deceptive to compare technology - it gets cheaper over time. The Joads even had a car and a radio, toys for the rich a generation earlier. Household electronics are the same. Today you can get a TV for the same price as a nice unit in raw 1960 dollars that would have been science fiction then.
That's the dreaded free market in action.
fintail: Relative to a normal car in 1960, that Lincoln was at least as overequipped as a new Lincoln is compared to a base Fusion.
What matters is that today's Fusion, which sells to the customers who, in 1960, would have bought a Chevrolet Impala or Ford Galaxie, is better in every way than a 1960 Lincoln and Cadillac, which most people at that time would have considered to be "the best." And the Fusion costs less than half of what the Lincoln or the Cadillac cost, when all prices are adjusted for inflation.
fintail: Those sectors I mention were also regulated when they were far more affordable to the average wage earner. Before a small group took power and profits to levels not seen in generations.
Housing was not subject to the nearly the same level of land-use restrictions in 1960 that it is today, and 1960 was before massive government involvement in the health care sector sector via the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Nor was there nearly as much government "help" for college students. Most paid their own way, and tuition, in inflation-adjusted dollars, was lower than it is today. Meanwhile, the quality of a college education has, if anything, gone down over the past 50 years. The last time I checked, our universities and colleges were not being run by conservatives or libertarians. Quite the opposite, as most of the left are proud to note.
fintail: When I visit people in Europe, who are my age, I don't see the worries people who aren't entitled snarky old boomers have here. I don't see frets about healthcare or student loan debt that have overtaken a generation in this land of capitalism and freedom.
I hear these same concerns when I visit Europe, and recent headlines show that an increasing number of countries cannot afford to maintain their level of benefits. Hence, the economic crises in countries ranging from France to Greece. Just because people don't complain about something doesn't mean it isn't happening. Ignorance is bliss in Europe, too.
fintail: Wait a minute, yourself. The loss of living wage manufacturing jobs is only a small chapter in the problem.
The reason for the loss is important. If the loss is due to automation and improved production processes, and not outsourcing or the usual bogeyman, free trade, then it shows that the wailing over these two phenomenon has been misplaced.
fintail: I'd say 10mph+ over average speed limits from one place to another is significant. Amusing that in that "very urbanized" area, the limit is still higher than within 40 miles of me - and this area has much less overall population density. Limits are generally lower in the US, the land of the lowest common denominator, even if only by a few mph - and often by 10 or more.
What is relevant is the speeds at which people are driving, which, outside of Germany, are not any higher than they are here. So apparently most of Europe is the "land of the lowest common denominator, too."
Note that the 62 mph limit I cited for the highly urbanized Netherlands is the MAXIMUM limit in the entire country. There are still rural areas in the Netherlands, too, but the maximum limit is still a whopping 62 mph.
In Washington state, the maximum limit is higher - 65 mph. In Oregon, the limit is 70 mph. The complete picture shows that limits are not consistently higher in the Netherlands than in either Washington state or Oregon, and it is still possible to legally drive faster in both states than it is anywhere in the Netherlands.
Also note that many STATES in the United States are larger than entire European countries.
France, for example, is 211,209 square miles (including Corsica). Which means that it's not as large as Texas, which is 268,581 square miles. France has a speed limit of 81 mph, while Texas has a speed limit of 75 mph in most of the state, 65 mph in some eastern counties, 80 mph in some western Texas counties, and 85 mph on one newly opened toll road. Given the relative size of European countries to our states, that is the more relevant comparison, and I'm not seeing where France is more "advanced" in this regard than Texas.
fintail: One can also argue that passive enforcement is less "draconian" than speedtraps and active patrols that the scaredy cats love here. In my experiences in Europe, EVERYONE knows where the cameras are, slows down for them, and then continues on. And it's not like such cameras are unknown here, especially when crony capitalists like Redflex have their noses in the works.
That's a distinction without a difference. The simple fact is that Europe has plenty of speed limits, and they are not necessarily higher than those in the United States (if anything, the opposite, once you leave Germany).
Speeds are high likely because you get a lot of long-haulers there. Lots of big trucks in a hurry.
It's one of the very few roads where I think the limit should not be higher.
Free markets are a ruse. There are no free markets. And the last ones produced robber barons, child abusing sweatshops, and a Dickensian reality where you'd toil to death by age 50. Have fun with that.
No matter your endless excuses, housing, healthcare, energy, and education are often wildly more expensive for young people today than for the previous generations who got theirs and now tell the rest to go pound sand. If you've actually been to a university, check out the leanings of the business and hard science areas, far from the liberal conspiracy you seem to imply.
You know economic crisis can exist without heavy social programs, in places where large sections of the country are second world at best? You know, like the US?
Free trade is an oxymoront. Free trade should be fair trade. I challenge anyone who claims that offshoring and defective trade policies have not made a general negative impact to ante up what pays their own meal ticket. I expect no answer. Simply look at how much of what is consumed was once made at home and is now made by social and environmental criminals who take our money and then scheme against us a minute later. Free trade, deceptions by pseudo capitalists who dream they are a step away from being a tycoon, but never will arrive.
"What is relevant is the speeds at which people are driving, which, outside of Germany, are not any higher than they are here. "
I see no data to support actual speeds of travel. Much of the US isn't the PA turnpike that goes from one abandoned coal mine to one decaying industrial town.
Lowest common denominator? Have you examined licensing standards in developed Europe? I find it extremely hard to believe you have ever been to Europe, not to mention driven there. The average driver there is simply more skilled than here - simply because they drive a manual, if anything. End of story.
WA has 70mph limits in very low density areas (although the scaredy cats have reduced many of these to 60). All of those 100kmh areas in NL would be 60mph here - so they are still marginally faster. And local experience here has many who plod along at 50-55 in those 60 zones, even in light traffic. It's slow. And impossible to compare relatively empty eastern WA and OR with anywhere in NL.
Everywhere has speed limits. The simple fact is that most of Europe does have speed limits that are often higher than the US, especially when taking population density into account.
And to be on topic, I've logged quite a few miles on European roads, and see much less idiocy there than here. Take that as you wish.
One less 1/2 hour of stupid TV to watch each week! Plus most cars I've driven get about at least 10% worse MPG at 80mph vs 65mph, so that could be a couple of hundred dollars per year in extra gas by going 80mph.
Of course it's all a personal decision, but to me saving a couple hundred dollars per year for 6 extra minutes of driving isn't a bad trade-off.
You're the one who made the assertion that clothing and food were of higher quality in 1960 than today, and I have yet to see any documentation from you to support your assertion. "Because I said so," does not constitute sufficient proof.
fintail: But that's way off topic. If you lived in podunk that only could produce one type of bread, too bad for you.
It helps to have been around in the 1970s, and thus know what food was available and have at least a vague idea of what it cost. It helps to have seen actual research on food costs in 1960 versus today.
In 2012, the typical family today spends 7.5 percent of its income on food, for example, compared with about 21.5 percent in 1960. Clothing accounts for just 3.4 percent of the family budget, down from 8.8 percent in 1960.
Now, if you have proof (meaning, an actual comparison) that food in the 1960s was of better quality than what we get today, and have a comparison between a typical garment from 1960 and one from today, with actual points as to how the newer garment is of inferior quality, I'll consider it. But until then, that is just your opinion, not a fact.
And, if more variety of food, and of better quality, is now available in "Podunk" than there was in 1960, guess what, that further proves that my original contention is correct. One of the hallmarks of improved efficiency and quality is that EVERYONE gets to enjoy the benefits, not just those who live in Manhattan or Los Angeles.
fintail: Free markets are a ruse. There are no free markets. And the last ones produced robber barons, child abusing sweatshops, and a Dickensian reality where you'd toil to death by age 50. Have fun with that.
If you are referring to the 1800s, that was a century of improving standards of living, rapid technological advances, the spread of the concept of free, compulsory, universal education in the United States and Europe and longer life spans for people. Have fun with that.
It was customer demand for better vehicles that produced enormous gains in vehicle quality and performance. That sounds like the free market at work to me.
fintail: No matter your endless excuses, housing, healthcare, energy, and education are often wildly more expensive for young people today than for the previous generations who got theirs and now tell the rest to go pound sand.
There not "excuses," there facts, based on a study of these fields. The simple fact is that, in these cases, government regulations driven up costs, along with subsidies to "help" make them more affordable (which has, over the long run, backfired).
fintail: If you've actually been to a university, check out the leanings of the business and hard science areas, far from the liberal conspiracy you seem to imply.
I have an advanced degree, thank you very much, and I've spoken to plenty of professors and administrators as part of my job. The business and hard science areas are two departments at most universities, and do not constitute the entire school. And even they are not uniformly stocked with conservatives or libertarians. If you believe that they are, then you need to visit one to become better informed.
fintail: You know economic crisis can exist without heavy social programs, in places where large sections of the country are second world at best? You know, like the US?
The United States does not have "heavy" social programs?
I guess that two of the three largest expenditures by the federal government budget - Social Security (20 percent) and Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP (21 percent)- aren't social programs?
Have you also never heard of Medicaid, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutritional Assitsance Program (SNAP)?
Your contention that the United States does not spend lots of money on extensives social programs is not supported by the evidence.
fintail: Free trade is an oxymoront. Free trade should be fair trade. I challenge anyone who claims that offshoring and defective trade policies have not made a general negative impact to ante up what pays their own meal ticket. I expect no answer.
As I've explained before, job loss is being driven by automation and improved production processes, not trade. I have yet to receive an answer from you regarding this fact.
Our top 10 trading partners, in order, are:
Canada
China
Mexico
Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
South Korea
Brazil
France
Taiwan
Soooo...Germany and Canada and France and Japan and South Korea and the United Kingdom are engaging in "unfair" trade practices with the United States? They are really third-world backwaters? Who knew!?
We need to cut off all trade with them immediately!
fintail: Simply look at how much of what is consumed was once made at home and is now made by social and environmental criminals who take our money and then scheme against us a minute later. Free trade, deceptions by pseudo capitalists who dream they are a step away from being a tycoon, but never will arrive.
I hear that Elvis and the guy on the grassy knoll are in on the scam, too.
fintail: I see no data to support actual speeds of travel. Much of the US isn't the PA turnpike that goes from one abandoned coal mine to one decaying industrial town.
For someone who claims to have traveled extensively, you're curiously ignorant of what another state is really like (coal is no longer dominant, and agriculture is actually Pennsylvania's number-one industry).
The Turnpike runs from Philadelphia to the Ohio border in Beaver County, and skirts Pittsburgh along the way. Pittsburgh, for example, is now a center for high technology and health research. It's actually a very nice place to live. As are most of the other towns along the way. The farmland bordering the Turnpike is quite beautiful, as are the forests. Not a coal mine in sight...and I've driven the length of it numerous times.
fintail: Lowest common denominator? Have you examined licensing standards in developed Europe? I find it extremely hard to believe you have ever been to Europe, not to mention driven there. The average driver there is simply more skilled than here - simply because they drive a manual, if anything. End of story.
I've been to Europe several times, as I have relatives there.
The fatality rate per 100 million miles driven of European nations is not consistently lower than ours. And being able to drive a manual transmission is not necessarily a sign that you are a more skilled driver, or a better driver.
This is another heresy on my part, but, yes, the poster is correct. Time savings when speeding vary from negligible to insignificant (save on a thousand-mile-long straight and wide highway, which almost never happens anyway, at least to me). This is because the time in travel is mostly determined by its low-speed parts (turns, lingering behind trucks, traffic lights/crossings, bridges, road works, congestions, food/pee stops, what not.
Having said that, I would submit that speeding/driving is not at all about saving a tad of time or a paucity of money. It is, first of all, about sanity. Every car has it optimum cruising speed at which it 'wants' to ride by itself (for most cars, 70 mph and above). Moreover, every driver also has his optimal cruising speed when his attention/alertness/capabilities/sanity are at their best. For most drivers, between 60 and 90.
To retain sanity/composure, some of us have to drive fast. Commuting is like a fitness club to me before/after a day of work. I cannot drive slow. I become distressed and morbid. I cannot even walk slow. I walk fast to very fast. I do not appreciate people who walk slow. I do not even appreciate people who are ABLE to walk slow. I just lose my sanity. ;-)
Oh, yes, absolutely. That is exactly what my driving instructors taught long ago: Don't speed ahead of the group, you are then exposed (to police). Don't speed on declines, you are exposed. When speeding, drive behind someone else, you are much safer. If you are not too 'proud', drive behind two other cars, then you are safe, guaranteed.
This simple advice served me well for decades, except when I was caught once in Brazil on a speed-camera from behind, while driving dead last in a flock. The fine was $500+ at that time!
This is pretty inconsiderate, and touches on an entire can of worms that nobody has the guts to confront.
Oh well, there goes my inheritance! LOL
Yes, driving faster does result in greater gasoline consumption, which does cost more money.
Of course, I could save even more money by disconnecting our electric service and relying on candles and oil lamps (and going to bed soon after it gets dark), but I find the extra expense of electric service to be well worth the cost. Same with driving at 75 mph on a limited access highway instead of 60 mph.
Speeds are high likely because you get a lot of long-haulers there. Lots of big trucks in a hurry.
It's one of the very few roads where I think the limit should not be higher.
Wow, do you ski at 7 Springs or Hidden Valley? Yes, trucks are a sort of pace-setters, you better not to be too slow. Yes, the Turnpike is sometimes pretty scary (especially when there are road works, that is, always). Still, we drive 80+ there, even in winter.
no AWD/4WD, stay home or bum a ride from a friend. Hated getting stuck behind cars that couldn't climb the hill at the entrance. They had to wait for sand.
So far, we managed to go skiing weekly FWD only. Well, I learned driving (and drove for a long time) in a place with long snowy/icy winters, RWD-no-frills only, on bald tires. So, FWD looks like an improvement.
The large number of hills on the western portion of the Turnpike slows them down even more.
News at 11: LLC'er meets multi-ton semi, traffic snarled for miles.
(And in situations like that, here's a big "Thank you very f#$@ing much for this, @$$hole LLC'er!!! Had you passed and got back over, you'd be alive and hundreds of people would not have been negatively influenced.)
:mad:
(But hey, for some, even some here... it's the gospel that there must not be any speed differential between the lanes of traffic. For that makes the road a safe place to be!)
My drive today was in ridiculous traffic as expected, but nothing glaring other than slowness. But while jogging, had a close call with a young woman in an older Sonata, who lurched blindly into a crosswalk - with a phone in her hand. Guy stopped at a cross street on one of the cool BMW GS adventure bikes watched the spectacle and smiled. Phone shenanigans need to have those "draconian" penalties.
That's the attitude of too many of the large vehicle drivers: they are the larger fish--get out of their way.
In reality we need dual speed limits and these large, gas hungry vehicles need to be kept to a slower speed to save some of the fuel that they are guzzling. That fuel could be sipped by a gas-saving vehicle by a driver more appreciative of our natural resources.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I found this very interesting in the context of this discussion. I think it's a good example of the attitude many drivers bring to the road: "This is how I like to drive, how I want to drive. So this is how I'll drive--to heck with the rest of you! Get out of my way! I have to drive this way for my mental health!"
I think this kind of attitude is a major contributor to inconsiderate driving. How can we drive in a considerate fashion when we have so little consideration for others?
Did it occur to you that some people have to walk slowly--they can't walk fast? And that some people like to walk slowly--just as you (and I) like to walk fast or very fast? Maybe they walk slowly to keep their sanity?
Commuting is like a fitness club to you? Here's an idea: join a fitness club, and get your excess energy and frustration with how other people behave out of the way there, before you hit the road (or the sidewalk).
For the guzzling, I see fuel expense as a personal choice. Someone could say the same about your Buicks too, you know :shades:
So, you are saying that pedestrians on the sidewalk should be regulated so that nobody walks fast beyond their own backyard? What do we do with joggers on the streets? Should they hit the tartan at the stadium first before hitting the sidewalk? (Although that might seem, in all fairness, not a bad idea).
Some can't walk fast? Fair enough. Walking is a right. But driving is a privilege.
Everybody can drive slow if they prefer to, sometimes I do it too; just do it in the proper lane. If you drive slow in the left lane, then yes, "Get out of my way!" Thank you very much.
The complaints are totally reciprocal. I hear the slow driver in the left lane saying: "This is how I like to drive, how I want to drive. So this is how I'll drive--to heck with the rest of you! Get out of my way! I have to drive this way for my mental health!" I also think that "this kind of attitude is a major contributor to inconsiderate driving. How can we drive in a considerate fashion when we have so little consideration for others? " Isn't it the very definition of "passive agressive"?
It is not difficult to make space for all people and all tastes. One just should remember that he is not the only one on this Earth, and that he cannot legislate his tastes for everybody.
Yup, I guess 33 mpg at 65 - 70 mph traveling is high consumption? Or 24 in around local driving to Meijer, Walmart, Kroger, etc., in day-to-day is probably worse than a Cruse but better than a Mercedes.
But back to reality, the type of dawdlling you and others describe on interstate level roads I rarely, if ever, see on interstates here in the left lane. Even on the 3 and 4 lane interstates completed here, the 2nd from left is rarely at or below speed limit.
The arch example of a tailgater who is dominating is a large SUV in a hurry to get to the next bumper 100 feet in front of the car they are tailgating in traffic--or the semi driver to which Fintail refers. Typically the SUV is driven by a female in commute traffic and by a male at other times.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And they do say. When Germans come here, they are so puzzled and almost sick seeing all those cars with open windows and especially flags on the roof. It increases the fuel consumption! - they say.
Nice try but no cigar. Your math and arithmetic don't add up.
If were talking years, lets talk years. If were talking days, let's talk days.
If you drive 10,000 miles at 80 MPH it'll take 125 hours. If you do it at 65 MPH it'll take about 154 hours. That's a difference of 29 hours, or more than a whole DAY!!!!!
Even dividing that by 52 for weeks, you get .56 hours per week.
So if you somehow magically save a couple hundred dollars over the course of a year by going 65 MPH (which is highly doubtful in a modern car at $4/gallon), you are doing so at a cost of 29 hours, not just 6 minutes.
If you get paid $30 per hour in your job, then by wasting 29 hours driving insanely slow, you just spent $870 of opportunity cost (in time) for that couple hundred savings in gas.
That's pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
What I'm saying is, other people have a right to walk slowly just as you have a right to walk fast--as long as you do so safely. If you're walking so fast that you can't watch out where you're going, bump into other people, leap into intersections without looking, etc., then it's a problem. It's this attitude towards people who want to walk slowly that I find disturbing.
You must realize there's a big difference between a sidewalk and a roadway: there's no speed limits for walking on a sidewalk. Another big difference is, the possible dangers to yourself and others for walking fast on a sidewalk are very small compared to what they are on a roadway.
And there's no "lanes" on a sidewalk, as on roadways, so if you choose to walk fast, don't expect those who walk more slowly, by need or desire, to clear a path for you. You need to be ready to go around them.
But there ARE lanes on a roadway, and rules and laws that state how drivers are to use those lanes--e.g., left lane for passing only on highways. LLCs who think "This is how I like to drive!" as an excuse for camping are just as guilty as the people who look down on others who like to walk slowly or drive more slowly than they do, thus don't see any problem with tailgating them, swerving around them at close proximity, etc.
This isn't about legislation... something many of us have lost track of in this discussion, btw... it's about CONSIDERATION, for others. Accepting that not everyone is the same as you are, and treating others considerately and respectfully even if they are "slower" than you are.
Do you do all your driving during working hours?
If you are driving on a particular day during working hours, and cannot do anything else related to your job e.g. think about the agenda for your next meeting or about other customers you will call that day or any number of other things, then you could say that you just wasted up to 6 minutes of time for that day, which comes to $3 at $30 an hour.
And if you toss in the cost of getting just one ticket in a year--not just the fine but, especially in your case, the lost hours prepping for and attending trial (and making all the posts about it here!), how much does THAT add up to?
Also keep in mind that oil is not a renewable resource. So the more we each burn--and burn more driving fast--the less there is for our children and grandchildren etc.
Until everyone understands that driving is not just about "me", we'll continue to have inconsiderate drivers.
Both. :shades:
Got engaged at Hidden Valley.
7 Springs is a bit better.
Cool town, too. Love the ice sculpture competition. Now that's art!
PA Turnpike should state a speed MINIMUM of 65-70 or so, else you get run over by a Semi.
Edit: you basically said the same thing! Great minds think alike.
I think some of the more restrained drivers here need to visit the Seattle metro area. You can go as slow as you want - it's expected. When I am out in the old car, which I seldom push to more than 5 over, I am in the leftmost lane a lot. You can also drive with no forethought or situational awareness - they very diverse local driving demographic ensures it becomes the norm.
Tailgaters in traffic are the Seattle way - I can't go any faster when 100 cars in front of me are matching my speed. They seem to tailgate more on less crowded roads if they are towing a boat/jet skis etc, too.
If he got paid $30 per hour in his job, then by wasting 30 hours fighting the ticket and posting about it, he just spent $900 of opportunity cost (in time) for that speeding ticket.
6 extra minutes of driving... I will assume that is round trip, per workday.
an hour every 10 workdays, so if you work 250 days a year, that's 25 hours. You're paying yourself $8/hr to save gas.
So if you somehow magically save a couple hundred dollars over the course of a year by going 65 MPH (which is highly doubtful in a modern car at $4/gallon), you are doing so at a cost of 29 hours, not just 6 minutes.
Your example is 10,000 miles of driving, at 80mph vs 65mph. Let's say you get 25mpg when you drive 80. Not so outlandish, because that's about how well my Volvo does. You'll use 400 gallons of gas, for a total cost of $1600. In order to save $200, you'll need to use only 350 gallons... which means getting 28.6mpg. So in your example, YES it IS possible to save $200 a year that way, at a cost of 29 hours of your time.
So is your time worth more than $7-8 an hour? Mine is.
Regarding some other posts - slow walkers need to learn how to walk straight. I jog on sidewalks and encounter so many dawdlers who appear drunk. But that's just how they walk. Texters are a big pedestrian hazard too. I don't mind dodging the pylons, but please keep it straight. Blunder into the path of a 6'1" 200lb jogger, and that phone will land about 3 counties over when it finally hits the ground :shades:
Fuel consumption is a personal choice. No less so than living in a large house or buying Chinese crap. Those who make tenuous claims about supply and demand need to walk the walk they talk - move the family into an 800 sq ft LEED apartment, buy things made less than 50 miles from home, live a very short distance from work, etc, before they preach. On the same tangent, I'd wager the net worth of every slowpoke scaredy cat middle American that the fuel wasted by negligent and irresponsible traffic controls far exceeds anything related to driving say 10mph above arbitrarily low limits. Fuel consumption also has little relation to inconsiderate drivers, perhaps only for LLC hypermilers. And by the time the kids of today have driving-age grandchildren, internal combustion for personal transport will be an anachronism for hobbyists.
Agreed. My wife's E90 pulls down 30+ mpg at 75-80 mph, as does my E36/5- and my MS3 isn't more than a couple of MPG behind.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
My in town mileage also improves massively when I can maintain momentum and not be forced to stop for every controlled intersection.
People run stop signs anyway.
Say. Do the race cars in the premier racing series in the world have automatic transmissions? The best drivers in the world pilot these cars.
In latest issue of Motor Trend, 9 top sports cars in the world were evaluated for fun and driveability. Six of these had automatic transmissions. :shades:
Agree. All trucks - semis, vans, pickups, etc - along with suvs should be relegated to the right lane at 55 mph. Cars "only" should have the higher speed limit - 65, 70, whatever.