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
http://www.scca.org/newsarticle.aspx?hub=4&news=3219
http://thegarageblog.com/garage/jetta-tdi-cup-deadline-looming/
No, I don't think that risk cost anyone anything. There is risk involved in just about ANYTHING you do in life. That does not mean it costs you something simply because it's there.
I just get the feeling that you have some personal vendetta with Chrysler for whatever reason.
It is just possible the gas gods are looking out for VW. Talking to my neighbor a few minutes ago and he just filled his big diesel PU truck. He told me diesel is down 30 cents from yesterday. With a reported surplus of distillate fuel it may come at a perfect time for those German companies offering diesel cars and SUVs. VW, BMW, AUDI & Mercedes all have 50 state legal diesels due in this fall or the first of 2009. Where is Honda with their much touted super clean diesel?
Heck, I have yet to see it that high.
Although fuel prices in Missouri are the lowest in the country the gas companies don't usually follow logic when they increase the price. For instance, RUG was $3.84/gal Wednesday. On Thursday I read that China raised their prices and the cost of a barrel of crude went down. On my way to work today I noticed RUG is now at $3.98/gal. :confuse:
BTW, am I the last holdout for sub $4 gas on here? Maybe I could have my own special forum with the old "What Will You do When Gas Price Reaches $4 Gallon" title.
Or we could say that the problem originates from people who think that the speed limit is to low (at least for them) when in reality there are reasons for the set limit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I filled up this evening at BJs for 4.19 which is by far the cheapest I have seen in close to a month and represents a drop of about a dime. Most of the diesel stations that stopped at 4.99 have retreated back to around 4.90. The couple of stations that went over 5.00 dollars haven't dropped yet.
Public sector in action.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What is that reality?
My daily commute has me on a road where the posted limit is 55 mph. On a typical day with no weather or visibility factors the traffic safely flows at around 64 mph. At night it's probably around 59 mph. When there is fog or rain it might drop down to 50 mph. Snow or ice and the traffic is now down to 35 mph or less. So what should the posted limit be?
I've heard the argument that the posted limit is the maximum safe speed under optimum conditions. Anyone that actually believes that is somewhat delusional. Regardless, that position implies that motorists are capable of making judgement calls when conditions are less than optimal. My experience is that motorists do, in fact, make these judgment calls as to what a safe speed is. Why wouldn't they? Everyone wants to get home safely.
A static posted limit is ridiculous. If you allow motorists to use there judgment based upon adverse conditions then why not be consistent with this rational and allow it under all conditions? If some hotrodder is significantly deviating from the flow of traffic then he can be pulled over and a traffic court judge can be presented with the facts and impose an appropriate penalty.
Wonder how well that argument would work?
"Yes, I understand you quite well. You admit you were going 55 when you knew the speed limit was 45. Is that about it?"
Just because someone (the state or feds) says it is so does not make it so. The same folks who thought that 56 was the end of the world when the limit was 55 now drive 64 with the limit at 65. No wheels fall off. I have more respect for someone who says "I drive at 60 because that is where I truly feel that my combination of skill, vehicle, road and traffic conditions works best" than I have for someone who says "I drive at 60 because they said so - I don't believe that bad things happen at 67, but they said 60." BTW, I'd have zero respect for the clown who plowed into me in a rainstorm doing 50 in a 65 if that was too fast for the conditions.
I would submit that those who establish and enforce those speed limits want everyone to get home safely as well. The reality is they are also the ones who deal with the all too often tragic results when someone willfully ignores the posted speed limits.
If some hotrodder is significantly deviating from the flow of traffic then he can be pulled over and a traffic court judge can be presented with the facts and impose an appropriate penalty.
That is just begging for a judicial nightmare. The real benefit for everyone involved is that a posted, static or consistent speed limit is that it removes, or reduces the need for, the judgment call. It assures a more level playing field.
Based upon your posts you seem like a very reasonable person. Would you agree that the reason most people get in their vehicle is to get from pt. A to pt. B? Would you also agree that most people want to get to their destination safely?
I suspect that you've been on highways where the flow of traffic is at least 10 mph over the posted limit. There's an inconsistency here. Either these people don't care about their safety or they think it's safe to travel at this speed. Which one is it?
You are clearly a more law oriented person than I am.
The rub is that existing law is not concerned with acquiescence or agreement. It simply doesn't matter if we agree with an existing law or not when it comes to the enforcement of that law. Existing law is only concerned with compliance. That is rather low hanging fruit, but that is where the line must be drawn for there to be any hope of anything even remotely resembling consistency or fairness. The alternative is somewhat anarchistic. I do wish there was a bit more consistency on the enforcement though.
I can think of a few folks who might take issue with that assessment. I am much more intrigued by the necessity of law rather than the existence of any given law. I tend to think that law is necessary. I'm not sure if that position makes me any more compliant than the next guy. I do, however, tend to comply with posted speed limits. Mostly because I try to never be in a hurry.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. My issue is that I am naive enough to want honesty from my government. So, be up front and tell me that our driver is revenue, or fuel savings, or anything but my ultimate safety - it simply defies logic, since the same roads were posted at 70-75mph 35 years ago, when just about everything had 4 wheel drums, bias ply tires, and not one stinkin' airbag.
Then the compliance piece - if you drive the Garden State Parkway, or the NJ Turnpike, you see that the limit most days is really 15 above - anything under 80 would rarely get a cop rolling.... so where is the true concern for the sanctity of 65? There is a 20 mile section of the Garden State that recently went back to 55 from 65 - most people don't even notice, since they were driving 70-75 before, and still are. No more wrecks, no fewer wrecks. Maybe a few more tickets?
no
Do you believe that what is posted accurately reflects the maximum safe speed under optimum conditions?
possibly
Based upon your posts you seem like a very reasonable person.
thank you, likewise
Would you agree that the reason most people get in their vehicle is to get from pt. A to pt. B?
sadly yes
Would you also agree that most people want to get to their destination safely?
of course
I suspect that you've been on highways where the flow of traffic is at least 10 mph over the posted limit. There's an inconsistency here. Either these people don't care about their safety or they think it's safe to travel at this speed. Which one is it?
Yes, I've been in that situation many time before. Actually I think there is a consistency, to wit everyone exceeding the posted speed limit is breaking the law. I don't think those folks a really to concerned with safety in that moment. In other words safety is not in the forefront of their thoughts at that time. I would guess they are much more concerned with simply getting from point A to point B and doing so as quickly as they think they can. Obviously this scene gives us some evidence that most can accomplish that safely at 10 MPH over the speed limit. It is that most part that ought to give us pause. It is not all. That being the case, it should behoove us to set some limit that is applied to all and should be reasonably acceptable to the majority in order to cover the broadest possible spectrum of possible circumstances.
I liked this quiz, especially the essay question.
Would you still have that respect for them if that combination was infront of your house of the street where your kids play?
Lets face it people are idiots and many times grossly overestimate their combination of driving skill, vehicle, road and traffic conditions.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I've bitched about speed limits before and one of the common replies is that I should exercise by voting rights to do something about it. In my 30 years of voting I've never come across a candidate that ran on a platform of speed limit reform. I've never seen a referendum regarding raising speed limits. As far as I can tell the speed limits are what they are and the general public has zero control over them. So we need to be good sheep and obey.
While I've seen no votes on speed limits I think it is reasonable to observe traffic and consider that a poll. If the vast majority of traffic is exceeding the speed limit I think that it's reasonable to conclude that the majority thinks that the posted speed is below the maximum safe speed.
No it doesn't, but it is the law and put there by our elected officials. Sometimes it is wrong and if so we have a right to petition the lawmakers to raise/lower that limit. But we really don't have the right to summery ignore it just because we find it "wrong".
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not to be too contrarian, but this "Lowest Common Denominator" thinking is partly responsible for the lack of excellence in much of industry (now for the back to topic stretch) including the paucity of excellent engine design. If our signage philosophy is simply "a drunk, monkey on PCP can get around this corner at 35, so post it at 25 just to be sure" all we are doing is dumbing things down.
There is no rule that you HAVE to drive at the limit...so let's say that the limit was 90, there'd still be folks driving slower than 90 (and I'm sure, a few over
Would you still have that respect for them if that combination was infront of your house of the street where your kids play?
Context.
I was referring to highway conditions, with a posted limit of 65, and pointing out the choice someone might make to drive under the limit, based on those factors, NOT fear of enforcement.
I'm not advocating blowing through school zones, ignoring stop signs or general mayhem.
Bit harsh, but therein lies the necessity. (I might have put a "some" before people) No, I do not think it is the government's job to decide who is an idiot and who is not. I do appreciate that we have taken steps that attempt to marginalize them though, even if it means it takes me a few more minutes to get somewhere. Just to restate, I do wholeheartedly agree that I wish there were more consistency in the enforcement.
That's a tough question to answer. Where I grew up peopled consider the roads as a place that vehicles traveled along. Not a playground for children. My community recognized the importance of children having a place to play and there were community parks, ball fields, soccer fields, etc. but no one considered the streets as a child's playground. Maybe things have changed. Maybe we do construct roads today so that children have a place to play. If that's the case then I'm misinformed and wrong.
The US is a nation that was formed in defiance of unjust laws and idiotic governance...now it is thrilled to blindly submit to anything named "law". Defer and conform. When the public sector starts defining 'rights' without justification, the soul of the nation has died.
I didn't think that was what you were advocating, and I don't think snake did either. It is a slippery slope I know, but that's the essence of the risk. Left to our own devices, some of us can be pretty stupid. With a posted speed limit, we all know where the line is and it is the same for all of us. Well, it is supposed to work that way.
There are sections of road that I travel where you can see quite a few really cute bambis grazing on the shoulder.... A heck of a lot of venison burger if one wanders onto the roadway and gets clipped at 65. So to ensure my safety... 45? 37? 12?
You didn't qualify your statement.
But I take it to mean that you would not respect such a person in the scene that I presented.
But I did use that example because I know people like that, while they don't do 60 down neighborhood streets they do go a significant amount over the speed limit and they feel fine doing it. However it is defiantly not a safe thing to do.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I remember traveling across Montana in 1996. At the time it was the only state that did not have a posted speed limit on their interstate highways. The only thing the sign said was "SAFE AND PRUDENT". A tourist passing through might interpret that as 100 mph in their sports car, although some relatives of mine who live in Butte said that anything over around 85 mph would get you pulled over.
Locally, we have a loop around the city that is part of the interstate highway system. The posted limit is 60 but if you drive that slowly you pose a greater hazard to everyone else on the road who is driving at least 10 mph above that speed. I just try to go with the flow.
The roads in France are fun. The posted limit might be 130 kph but 150 kph doesn't seem to attract any unwanted attention. The $8/gal gas hasn't made most of them slow down.
The company uses all the shares it's been buying up as treasury stock to do a really big acquisition like the $80 billion all-share deal in 1998 to acquire Mobil. An all-stock deal would be a way for ExxonMobil to work around the big run-up in oil company share prices because ExxonMobil would be paying in its appreciated shares for the appreciated shares of a target such as Occidental Petroleum (OXY, news, msgs). (By the way, at the time the Exxon-Mobil merger was announced in 1998, oil was selling for $11.28 a barrel.)
ExxonMobil gets the kind of collapse in oil prices the company seems to be planning for and can pick up the exploration and production assets it needs on the cheap. It's hard to tell what price for oil ExxonMobil is using in its long-term calculations for return on investment. But many oil analysts speculate the company is using a planning price of somewhere between $30 and $50 a barrel as its long-term price of oil.
ExxonMobil doesn't get the collapse in oil prices it seems to be planning for and can't find a merger candidate willing to sell at a price that meets the company's targets for return on investment. In this case, ExxonMobil continues along its present course, buying back stock and paying out dividends to shareholders until, sometime around 2015 to 2018, it goes private or, having turned itself into a trust years earlier, liquidates and disappears.
I don't think the last of these alternatives would be a disaster for the economy or for shareholders. Companies should return money to shareholders -- for those shareholders to put to work in other investments as they see fit -- if they can't find a way to earn the appropriate return in their business.
The history of oil company diversification, some of it at ExxonMobil as early as the 1970s, suggests oil companies are not particularly good vehicles for developing new energy technologies. We all might be better served if ExxonMobil gave its shareholders the cash and let them invest in the most promising solar or battery or hydrogen technology companies.
Cushioned from correction
None of these alternatives should deter investors from holding ExxonMobil stock. In fact, they demonstrate the unique role the company's shares have to play in an energy portfolio. ExxonMobil's conservative approach to reinvestment means these shares are the least risky shares you can own in the sector, if the sector does suffer a major correction. (I think the odds of that are small, but the chance is greater than zero.)
Because the company is, in fact, hoping it can pick up assets cheaply in a correction and because the company has been hoarding cash and shares rather than investing in new production, it hasn't bought into the kind of high-cost production that would suffer most in a correction.
* For those who doubted when I stated oil was at $11.00 a bbl in 1998. How the oil market doth love it's extremes. Interesting fyi, xom is about 12 points lower that it's high in 2007, despite an almost doubling of crude prices from that level.The stock market doubts what the futures market states.
It may be a bit harsh but as time goes on I find it more and more the rule rather than the exception. I mean we have clerks at the kwikie marts that cannot make change without a computer telling them what to give.
No, I do not think it is the government's job to decide who is an idiot and who is not.
Neither do I, I am just saying that the number of people who over estimate their driving ability and their cars ability would simply amaze you. This is very evident with the number of AWD vehicles in ditches after a bad winter storm.
I do wholeheartedly agree that I wish there were more consistency in the enforcement.
So do I but at this time I don't think it is possible. A police officer can only pull over so many vehicles and issue citations (along with other activities) in a given amount of time. With the great number of people actually violating traffic laws police have to be more selective in enforcing traffic laws (I do believe some here call it cherry picking).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yeah, because the image of anyone who wants to proceed safely at anything above the existing limit is " death on wheels, lookin' for a pole to wrap around"... we've done a great job of demonizing. Ironically, we can hold our government to be incompetent - except for the positions we agree with
Again, I have no problem with the rule if the rationale is rational - so tell me we see this as a fuel saving measure, tell me it's for enhanced revenue...
Now they do cross streets to get to and from places.
They also play in parks and yards that are next to streets (and cars can and do run off the road).
But I never said that they play in the street.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Mostly though, I guess I just don't get why so many are in such a hurry. I still just like to take my time. I'll get there. I'll go the posted speed limit on a highway. I still like to just take a drive to nowhere in particular. That's getting to be an expensive pass time though.
And I don't have any issue with you having the right to exercise your choice - like I said, no one actually has to drive at the limit, or at a speed they are not comfortable with. I also enjoy a "drive to nowhere." I just enjoy two versions; I love the slower, scenic drive on a Sunday afternoon.... I also enjoy the occasional 2 a.m. blast down a technically challenging curvy 2 lane in a great car. Both can be safe.
I have no issue with the 20 mph residential street, the 30mph school zone etc.
As to sensitivity... well, an overtired trucker with a fudged log killed 4 family members of mine (and severely injured 2 others) in Pennsylvania a few years ago, so I don't take highway safety lightly either.
That's a tough nut with the truck. Hard pain to deal with.
http://www.wvdot.com/6_motorists/6c5_speedlimits.htm
"Establishing Speed Zones
The nationally accepted principle, which is followed by the Division of Highways, is to set the posted speed limit at the speed below which 85% of the vehicles are travelling on the road or street, in the absence of factors which may introduce a special hazard. Experience has shown that at least 85% of motorists drive at a speed which is reasonable and prudent, operating their vehicles at a speed which reflects the character of the roadway and the amount of development along it. The other 15% are those who may be subject to enforcement action."
I think it is obvious that setting one speed limit is more of a compromise. It does not take into account the skill of the driver or the capabilities of the car. The 85% rule is probably the best they can do knowing that some drivers could go faster and some probably should go slower.
The set speed limit also does not work well when conditions change as you mention with the clown plowing into you. Eventually the cars will start nagging us telling us we are driving too fast or too slow.
Take them down? Like the ornaments at Christmas? Plates stored in the attic?