By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
55 was a joke then with the underengineered cars of that period, and it would be a ridiculous and disastrous ideal now, but in a way completely representative of the neocon power structure, inept and pointless.
Why should the US have the most repressive speed limits in the first world? The supposed positive impacts of low limits have simply been shown to be a mirage. Why should we go backwards like 34 years ago?
Yes but the U.S.and you can buy all you want. There is plenty more available on the global markets.
Would "correct" cover a desire to materially lessen the amount of US dollars flowing to foreign nations?
That's known as trade. And many of the oil-producing rely on that income as one of their few products, or else their society would be 3rd world poor. Maybe the problem is with the value of what you produce, or that we simply buy too much, and throw it in the garage, attic, or dump. Sorry I'm not sacrificing for people in society who don't get a good education, and go into debt at Walmart.
Is it infantile for some to rant about their need for speed?
It's known as progress. Of course we should be improving our transportation systems and technology to move us quicker each year. If you personally like to have your transport at the highest mpg level feel free to go slow, or ride a bike mule. But stop insisting your values have to be everyone elses.
If I recall correctly, 55 was embraced more by Democrat liberal states.
Maybe some cars are overengineered today, such as Mercedes, BMW, Porsche to be able to go well over 100 mph for no reason other than some rich person's adolescent preoccupation for speed. How "pointless" is a 150 MPH capable car?
The pot calling the kettle black?
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act
Isn't it amazing that the gist of the arguments hasn't changed much from those early days?
Plain massmarket Camcords are much better suited for 70mph cruising than their 35 year old counterparts. This is the engineering - simply more efficient engines and far better brakes. And pretty much any modern car can exceed 100mph with little mechanical danger.
A 150mph car (not so special anymore) is no more "pointless" than the beloved 7000lb SUV that every family with 2.2 kids needs, a monstrous pickup used as a commuter by an overcompensator, or some gargantuan motorhome that some here would defend. To relate your rant, those vehicles exist for no reason other than some weak person's adolescent preoccupation with size.
I was just for a couple of minutes on an interstate. Most of the secondary roads aren't safe for much over 60. But they are still fun...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
For every law that's passed, one or two should be repealed.
There oughta be a law. :P
Now I'm hungry for Spam for lunch - guess I'll settle for a Hebrew National hot dog, even if ConAgra does make 'em along with ethanol and biodiesel, and thus have a vested interest in keeping the speed limit (and gas consumption) high.
Well, all states embraced it equally because when the feds passed the law they tied compliance into receiving federal highway money. No one could afford to tell the feds to go stick it.
Mixed party things. Yeah, here in NJ we went 55 before it became a requirement. But New York, ender Republican rule, did so as well.
And the 55 nationwide became law under a Republican president.
All that said, a one size fits all speed limit for Interstates and other such highways has proven to be a bad idea. In most parts of the Northeast it's largely an inconvenience to lower the limit by 10. In the west lowering it by 20 to 30 mph becomes just crazy.
At least the gargantuan motorhome can be rationalized for its size and its intended purpose. One does need the driving compartment, kitchen, bump-out living room, bedrooms, washroom(s) while cruising/seeing the USA. One cannot say the same about 7000 lb SUV (which brand/model is that) that needs to go over 55 or a 150 MPH capable car.
No. You are concerned about what mph I want to drive; I DON'T care what mph you drive. I don't care how much energy you use or want to buy; you are concerned that others should use less.
You may be having trouble determining that you should control what you do, and give others the same respect and right?
55 is almost a random number, made once upon a time by those who lacked the knowledge and credentials to have a logical right to make such decisions.
You may be having trouble determining that you should control what you do, and give others the same respect and right?
The topic of this board concerns question of bringing back the 55. There are pros and cons expressed about the topic. To extent that a poster provides rationale for 55 and "pro" reasons does not mean the poster is trying to "control" anyone.
I'm sitting here thinking about doing a remake of 1984; I'll just call it 2084. I think the premise will be that we're all connected on the Internet 24-hr a day by chips in our head, and we get to continually vote what we think others should do. For instance: if you want to take a ski-trip any day, you're going to have to justify it to a virtual board of people who will vote whether your use of resources is justified based on their reasoning. If they can't find any social benefit outweighing the calculated resources to make said trip, you will be turned down, and your networked-access-vehicle will not be programmed to start.
You will still have the right to CHOOSE what you do, and still have the right to pursue happiness; you just won't actually be allowed to do so. Many people are already there psychologically - wanting to control, they just don't have the power at this time.
Certainly talking about the issue is not controlling anyone. But an actual system with a speed limit of 55 mph is controlling someone. Just as talking with your kid about a 11pm curfew isn't control, until you tell the kid that the 11 pm curfew is enacted - then it is control.
So are you discussing whether it is a good thing whether to control others more. And you are Pro for that.
I think guys like Ray Kurzweil will have me boarding in my basement VR chamber and one of your avatars can clone over and ride with me.
I don't think I've ever hit 55 coming down the road from Bogus (and I've certainly never hit it on the hill).
Anyone ever heard of the heaps fallacy.
"I can drive as fast as I want, and waste as much gas as I want because it doesn't really hurt anybody."
Sounds OK, but its a lie. If 1 person says it not a big deal, but what happens when 10,000 or 10 million people say the same thing. Suddenly you have a societal problem.
I agree that my efforts to conserve gas only affect me directly, TO MY BENEFIT.
But I also know that if the rest of society would slow down we would all benefit from lower prices at the pump, less imported oil, less greeenhouse emissions, etc.
Quit being so damn selfish and realize we all have an impact, 5 MINUTES added to your commute by driving slower benefits us all.
The original response to the oil embargo was 50mph.
Truckers claimed they couldn't get to top gears at 50, so the Feds bumped the limit to the so-called double-nickel.
Cheers!
Paul
Going 5mph slower is also not going to have any significant impact on pump prices or oil imports.
If you want to make a bigger impact, don't drive that big fat SUV.
"I can drive as fast as I want, and waste as much gas as I want because it doesn't really hurt anybody."
Sounds OK, but its a lie. If 1 person says it not a big deal, but what happens when 10,000 or 10 million people say the same thing. Suddenly you have a societal problem.
Ever hear of the straw man fallacy? That's where you make up a premise that no one actually said -- "waste as much gas as I want" -- and then respond to your own misstatement, tossing in a gratuitous characterization of those who disagree. Say they're "selfish" or whatever.
Here in my CT neighborhood (home of the nation's highest gas prices), the car dealers can't keep the 4 cyls on the lot and can't give away the V8s. So what happens when 10,000 people are cruising I-90 in their 4 cyl Hondas at 75 mph and getting 35 mpg? How is this this -- omy goodness -- "a societal problem?
I am in China. I did not know I was part of such a threat to the US.
My deep conviction is that US's today's problem has little to do with China or our Middle East friends and more with US itself.
Glad to see someone else refuting the straw man tactic.
Years ago, I worked with a guy who left a lucrative, stable job with advancement opportunity to "be his own boss." He left to sell life insurance and other "investments."
Before he quit, he told me one of his favorite tactics was to approach complete strangers in line at the grocery store or Wal Mart. They were essentially a captive audience for his sales pitch -- they couldn't leave because they'd lose their place in line. Anyway, he'd start in with the pitch about life insurance, and as soon as they could get a word in edgewise, they'd say, "No." Then he'd hit 'em with, "Why do you hate your children?"
He thought he had come up with some genius move, simply because they shut up after that, and he was able to complete his sales pitch. That's what they taught him at the seminar -- if he could just complete his pitch, eventually someone would buy his stuff. He thought he had found a way to hypnotize and mesmerize folks with his stunning straw man argument.
But he didn't realize that the people got quiet only because such a specious and offensive statement tagged HIM as a zealot. They got quiet because they didn't want to argue over basic logic, or make their agonizing time with him last any longer than it had to. He hadn't convinced anyone to listen to him, or to buy his product (they all still said no), but he had frustrated them into submission. He thought that meant he was on the path to success.
He was wrong. A few years later, I heard he was back doing the 9-to-5 somewhere else.
My point is, lots of people learn how to use fraudulent logic to bolster their opinions, but that doesn't make them correct. 55 mph is not some magic cure-all that will save our nation and our planet from doom. It's just another idea that a few people are trying to sell to the rest of us.
Politicians are selling it because it costs them nothing, and it makes them look like they care about the environment. Police and Insurance companies are selling it because they stand to make a fortune off everyone who exceeds the oppressive limit. "Highway Safety" organizations are selling it because they believe that their moral high ground gives them a mandate to reduce everything to the least common denominator.
And some ordinary people are selling it because they're simply frustrated with their own lives. They never achieved the success they dreamed of in their youths. They could never afford that car/boat/motorcycle they wanted, so they're assuaging their anger by demanding that no one else enjoy them, either.
They're cloaking their arguments in environmentalism and patriotism, but the truth lies elsewhere. As Mencken said of the Puritans, they have "the haunting fear that somebody, somewhere, is having a good time."
Read your constitution, Puritans. Pay particular attention to that part about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as well as "Governments .... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It was written by a bunch of guys who got tired of self-serving bureaucrats tinkering with their day-to-day lives.
Even the safest drivers among us recognize that the B.Q.E. in New York and Interstate 8 in Western Arizona are two completely different highways. We don't need the same speed limit for both of them. And we certainly don't need our government to force that on us.
We already tried the 55 mph speed limit. It didn't work. Get over it.
.
The more dangerous roads can be posted at 45 mph.
Driving quicker on suitable highways is not a wasteful behaviour. On longer trips, this would be key to save time, fatigue and ultimately lower the probability of an accident.
This is becoming crazy. Driving quicker would be selfish? And preventing anyone from going the pace one is comfortable with would not be selfish ?
>If 1 person says it not a big deal, but what happens when 10,000 or 10 million people say the same thing.
It happens that nothing bad happens. One example is Germany with 2/3rd of its Autobahnen where the 80 mph is a recommanded limit only. This is not exactly a third world country.
>the rest of society would slow down we would all benefit from lower prices at the pump, less imported oil, less greeenhouse emissions, etc.
Actually, the real culprit is cheap oil, which gave US motorists bad habits and made the big 3 lazy in regard of fuel efficient car development.
I am concerned with oil dependancy and greenhouse gases emissions. This can't be adressed with such an easy fix.
Moreover I fear such an easy solution will be put forward by politicians willing to avoid the much more structural actions needed to lower US oil dependancy. there is a 1975-1995 disastrous track record to support this view.
Firstly, I love driving too much and 70 mph is already too much punishment. 55 mph would be hell on earth!
Secondly, unlike in the 70s, there are now several technologies that save fuel (eg, hybrids, VCM, etc). Instead of introducing such a silly law, development and improvements of such technologies should be encouraged.
Thirdly, better town planning and better public transport would go a much longer way in reducing pollution and oil dependency. For example, If I can get a cheap and fairly flexible public transport to work, I will use my car less.
If 55 mph laws are introduced, I'm getting me a radar detector!
Spot on.
But it is not for tomorrow. We may well end up with a 55 mph SL as a make do.
You are lucky that speeding fines are not based on annual income like in some Scandinavian countries that do not tolerate lawlessness.
If you go back through the discussion you'll find the points made that I can drive as fast as I want and noone should be able to tell me what to do. Also you'll find the idea that I can drive what I want as I want to drive it.
???
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ah, I see. So your comment that "people are selfish" is either:
a) a response to two, maybe three, posters, in a 29-page thread, or
b) you had an opportunity to label people who disagree with you while giving yourself a pat on the back.
You never did clarify how the people clipping along at 70+ and getting 30+ mpg in their 4-cyl Hondas are creating a vast "societal problem."
We're waiting.
Where did I say that in my post as my words?
>to label people who disagree with you while giving yourself a pat on the back
Not quite sure to what you refer but it could be that I found someone trying to twist other's words to fit their own purpose? "Ever hear of the straw man fallacy? That's where you make up a premise that no one actually said"
???
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ah, that was in the title of your original post.
>to label people who disagree with you while giving yourself a pat on the back
Not quite sure to what you refer but it could be that I found someone trying to twist other's words to fit their own purpose? "Ever hear of the straw man fallacy? That's where you make up a premise that no one actually said"
Haha. Very slippery. You labeled as selfish people who disagree with you (see above) and implied that your position is built on an elevated sense of social concern. That's the premise, stated or unstated, of most of the 55 mph arguments. Yes, I agree it's weak, but there it is.
By the way, we're all still waiting for an explanation of how all those folks buzzing around in 4-cyl Civics are creating a societal problem that needs to be dealt with by Washington. No rush, take your time.
The bigger problem is what do we - all of us - do to reduce usage. I'm assuming the 55 (or 60 or 62.5 or whatever) folks are aiming at reduction of gasoline use.
We're not where we're looking for everyone to get the same mileage. Your Civic could go 100 mph but the Crown Vic is restricted to 45..... We're looking for something taht brings the fleet number down.
None of us benefit from complaining about other posters.
I'm on record that I oppose a national speed limit while understanding what the benefits would be and while granting that if that's what the feds decide they want to do that they are within their rights to do so. I don't buy the argument that it won't save gas though I have my doubts it would save enough to justify the inconvenience.
We still need to seriously start producing fuel on our own from non-fossil and non-food resources. Ethanol could be an answer but not corn ethanol. We may well find that the answer is quite diversified in taht different vehicles will use different forms of energy.
This is a complex problem and needs great minds and a strong national will to tackle it. I sure hope the next administration and Congress will buy into that. The current ones sure don't.
Is that the original post by me (laughing loudly)?
You replied here.
So my original use was when I replied to your post using the Wow some people are selfish (again laughing).
Get a grip. Chill out.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It appears you were not a part of the 1973 gas shortage, perhaps not even born yet. But the same arguements you state for going 70 mph is basicly what was said back then.
Personally, it matters not what the national speed limit is, I have intregrity and thus I will go along with the national speed limit is. Don't tell me that the transmissions of todays cars are set to get better mpg at 70 + mph, as that's a pile B.S.
If everyone had your attitude we would have chaos, and gun fights for gasoline!
farout
and details of their oh-so-late 2010 Camaro designed to compete with the 5 y/o Mustang.
If there were any semblance of recognition at GM that the mass market will be drastically altered by the rising cost of fuel the new Camaro would be summarily and immediately scrapped and replaced by a relabelled Cobalt SS with a slinky GT-style body.
If GM's design department isn't completely asleep and devoid of people who love cars the drawings already exist in someone's CAD file and could easily be tooled up and produced by 2010.
If Ford weren't asleep at the switch they's realize that the next Mustang needs to be based on the Euro Focus RS and be more like Ford's "better idea" from the 70s,
the Euro Mustang (Ford/Mercury Capri)>
Hey Detroit, WAKE UP! There's no reason fuel-efficient cars can't be fun. :mad:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Somehow some people think that if they decide to drive a gas sipper they shouldn't be asked to slow down.
Just to clear thing up for you.
Regardess of what you drive, GAS MILEAGE IS BETTER AT 55 THAN 75!
I drive a gas sipper and I used to cruise around at 75-80, happily getting 35 mpg.
Now I am even happier cruising around at 55-65 getting 43 mpg.
Saving money personally is not my motivation, I made a decision to do my part.
Quit trying to rationalize your waste. Nobody buys it. If you want to drive 80 I can't stop you, but at least be honest enough to admit you are too selfish to sacrifice 5 minutes to benefit society as a whole.
Saabgirl, there you go.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A radio talk guy had a caller saying he used to drive his van with the high speed flow from N. Cincy to E. Dayton to his job at WPAFB. He slowed down to 65 and found he saved a substantial amount of gas in a week. Then he slowed down to 55 and gets to work 10 minutes later and saves lots of fuel.
He didn't think the 10 minutes extra time would affect the GNP of the country. He also commented about a less stressful drive.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you cared about society you'd ride a 100mpg moped or maybe ride a bike or take transit
US trade with China is seldomly done with China Government or Government-owned companies. I estimate 95+% to be done with private companies such as mine.
Tax structure is complicated but overall lighter in China, means trading with China has only a marginal fraction of the money sent paying for the government.
Would you clarifiy your view ?
My original statement was that in the long run, China will be more dangerous than the oil-funded lunatics. Seeing the damage already done to western manufacturing and wage structures by greedy business entities that will exploit a system nearly devoid of social and environmental responsibility - the "opening" of China will eventually be seen as an ideal linked to a decline. And also noticing the ever-present militarism, barbaric actions at home, and threats to neighbors by the so-called communist establishment, it is hard to see anything but a negative impact.