digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Left Demands a Return to 55 MPH. Will Obama Back Them?

alternet.org — Like petulant children, having come down hard from a candy-driven sugar high and ready for a new buzz, Americans started consuming petroleum in the transportation sector again at an unprecedented rate. The rationalizing child's argument that "since she has a dollar and the candies are only a penny a piece, she should be entitled to eat 100 piec

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -11/+24The Piggies of Animal Farm must control every facet of our lives so of course the Left will receive Obama's support.
  • dennisnajee, on 06/29/2008, -2/+20I certainly hope not. It will do little to lower the price of oil and will only slow commerce down.
  • gbudavid, on 06/29/2008, -2/+20I have been through the double nickel era and it is a joke. Big Trucks go 55 and everybody goes like hell or everybody goes as fast as they can. The safety factor is huge when irritated non proffessionals and BMW drivers try to out maneuver everybody else. it will work for about 5 minutes. The reason the Dims want 55 is revenue and they think they can force us out of our car.
  • SundayBrunch, on 06/29/2008, -10/+2I don't know, 55 as the speed limit wouldn't be that bad. Or we could all just start riding motorcycles and scooters to work.
    • Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -4/+6You certainly know how to turn a phrase SundayBrunch.

      Comment in News (16 diggs, 0 replies) - 1 hour ago

      "...Here's my gay death threat. YOu piece of *****, I'm gonna take you out for nice dinner. then take you home like the bitch you are, light some candles bend you over and then ***** you in the asssssss. (see comment) ..."



      http://digg.com/users/SundayBrunch/history/comment ...
  • elleigh2, on 06/29/2008, -3/+14ARRRRRRRRRRRGH! DRILL HERE! DRILL NOW! PAY LESS!
  • aki009, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1455 in the 70's was a response to the fuel inefficient cars of the day. Modern vehicles exhibit a reduction in fuel burn if driven 55 instead of 65, but the reduction is minuscule compared to what it was in the 70's. Hence there is no real benefit from setting yet another artificial limit... unless it's for the purpose of collecting additional revenue, or perhaps to train the population to accept irrational regulations. (Both are important goals on the socialist and communist road maps, which suggests adherence to this ideology for those suggesting it.)
  • planet87, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Actually, I favor a fixed price of gas at say $4 a gallon where no matter what the cost of gasoline is, the people pay $4 a gallon. If the cost of gas is less, the goverment gets more money. If the cost is more, the government gets more tax money. This provides a free-market (? ok bad choice of words) incentive for the government to drill more oil and build more refineries. It forces the market to prepare for the future when it may not actually really cost $4-5 to make a gallon of gas.

    Some formula would have to be made where the government lowered other taxes if the revenue became too high. It's not a perfect plan and has some implementation/practicality problems but one way or another we have to become energy independent.

    Speed Limit... don't touch it. Driving faster is proven to be safer because you are on the road less time and therefore have less of chance of encountering an idiot driver. People will fall asleep at 55mph and there will be many more accidents.
  • fadeout, on 06/30/2008, -9/+2No.

    You right wing nuts - and the left nuts - both getting pissy about Barrack shows that he's doing something right.
  • shupy, on 06/30/2008, -7/+5Right wing nuts is right.

    Nixon was the one that enacted the 55 mph speed limit. (but don't let facts confuse you).
    It was repealed in 1995 (thankyou Bill Clinton).

    But hey, if the only thing Republicans can come up with is to once again try to blame democrats for a Republican idea, there you go.

    And no, driving faster is not proven to be safer. Your reasoning is very flawed and not based on reality or available statistics. Under the 55 mph speed restrictions (PASSED BY THE REPUBLICANS), the actual gas savings was about 1%, and the accident and traffic fatality rate declined. When it was recognized that it didn't save gas, it was kept in place because of the safety factor.

    One more example of a bad Republican idea that accomplished nothing.
    • Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5Nixon should have been jailed for many things, price controls, 55 mph, ending the Vietnam War but the Watergate Coverup was the most useless waste of American time and resources since the civil war.
    • vault, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10"Nixon was the one that enacted the 55 mph speed limit."

      Wasn't it a Democrat-majority Congress that passed it and a Republican-majority Congress that got rid of it, a bill which Clinton only reluctantly signed?

      http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9511/highway_bill/11-28/ ...

      Speaking of reluctance:

      "Clinton made clear his reluctance to approve the measure. He said he feared that its provisions would increase the number of highway fatalities.

      "I am deeply disturbed by the repeal of both the national maximum speed limit and the law encouraging states to enact motorcycle helmet-use laws," the president said in a written statement. "Without question, these laws have saved our lives."

      He called on states to act responsibly and added that his administration would redouble efforts to protect highway travelers. He directed the transportation department to prepare an action plan to promote highway safety."

      Yes, Nixon signed it in the midst of an energy crisis. No one is suggesting he's the greatest Republican president of all time. But it's very disingenuous of you to suggest the Democrats had nothing to do with it, and this was all the fault of those oh-so-evil Republicans who were actually trying to get rid of it.
    • ssn697, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4The traffic and fatality numbers declined for one year, then went right back up to the mean. Here, read the REAL facts. I am sure you are keen to tell the truth, right?

      http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1205

      It was a Democratic Congress, and Republican President, and an oil "crisis" that brought it on. It stuck around because people believed (incorrectly, like you) that it was "safer", despite the numbers.

      Your post is a whole lot of fail. Try a little research next time, before throwing around the name calling. It just makes you look stupid.
      • Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2Actually it was the increased attention to drunk driving that drove the fatalities down. Try doing some more reading next time you look up numbers, I'm sure you are embarrassed to have been caught in this misstatement. But you make many so who knows you may be used to them.
      • ssn697, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Did you read the doc? Tell me where it says anything about drunk driving? How about you provide proof of your statement? I am always (unlike you) happy to be proven wrong, with FACTS. Don't blame me that you have been caught lying...

        Petulant much?
      • ssn697, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5@Stevenoski:

        "Drunk driving showed a long, slow decline between 1993 and 1997, from 123 million incidents a year to 116 million. But according to a new national survey, from 1997 to 1999 that increased 37 percent to 159 million and that rate continued in 2002.

        The survey, published in the May 2005 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, also found that four out of five episodes of alcohol-impaired driving were reported by people who also reported binge drinking, defined as consuming five or more drinks or more than one occasion."

        Tell me again about how it was the crackdown on drunk driving?

        Now, are you man enough to step up, or are you still bitter that you were called out wrong AGAIN? See, I like to provide actual facts, which I did, supporting my argument. I am sorry if that makes you bitter and angry, but that is just the way it is.
  • mashimka, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1We're doing this? I didn't get the memo. Must be to save gas then huh?
  • Zacktopia, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Speed limit restrictions don't make much sense. CAFE standards are another matter.
  • aki009, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6Time for some pieces of information:

    1. Improvements in safety from the 55 limit: a Cato Institute report showed that the safety record actually worsened in the first few months, suggesting that the fatality drop was an anomaly. ( http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1205 ) Another study in 1984 estimated 2000-4000 fewer highway fatalities in 1983 (National Academy of Sciences, November 1984) Interestingly the latter study found that approximately one year of life was saved for the expenditure of one year of driving time due to lower speeds.

    2. Who enacted the law (Nixon? Reps? Dems?): the bill was essentially as bipartisan as can be. Note that it was enacted in January 1974 for one year, and renewed a year later. Nixon resigned in August 1974, thus even if one were to say he was an evil man for signing the bill, a fact remains that he was followed by Ford who did the same thing, and that Fords version made the limit permanent.

    3. Energy savings: A 1984 study estimated savings in fuel to be less than 2% of the annual highway related usage (National Academy of Sciences, November 1984)
    • Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -6/+2Ohhh, caught ssn in an outright lie. Good job.
      • ssn697, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Where did I lie? I posted the same link. I said it was bi-partisan. I said the drop was an anomaly. YOU said it was a crackdown on drunk driving, and I posted the REAL facts:

        "Drunk driving showed a long, slow decline between 1993 and 1997, from 123 million incidents a year to 116 million. But according to a new national survey, from 1997 to 1999 that increased 37 percent to 159 million and that rate continued in 2002.

        The survey, published in the May 2005 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, also found that four out of five episodes of alcohol-impaired driving were reported by people who also reported binge drinking, defined as consuming five or more drinks or more than one occasion."


        So, once again, where did I lie, and where were you right? aki009's posts completely supports what I said. Dude, you are REALLY a bitter little boy when you are caught being wrong, aren't you? Not a good trait.
      • aki009, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3I didn't put these items up to catch anyone in a lie, but rather to try to base the conversation on some points of fact. Also, the number of studies on the topic are so numerous and at times so conflicting that it would be difficult to show definitively one person to be wrong, and one right. (For example, I believe ssn also made reference to the same Cato Inst. study).

        My motivation for adding this data was that the discussion seemed to degenerate into summaries without sources.

        I personally feel that it's not the business of the Feds to regulate top speeds.
      • ssn697, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3@aki009

        I was responding to Stevanowski. He is following me around, trying upset because I pointed out an error of his.

        I agree wholeheartedly that the Feds should not regulate top speeds. They have proven to be horrible at it, being completely wrong about it's supposed advantages (gas savings, lives, etc.)

        Montana has the highest speed limit in the nation, yet we have the 3rd lowest death per 1000 people.Yes, there is less overall traffic, but those are the numbers.

        Add in the less than two percent fuel savings (I think Cato had it at something like .8% overall), and you have have non-problem that the Fed's want to turn into a solution.
      • aki009, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3ssn, stevanoski, both of you have more in common than not. Please focus your energies on pointing out crap from those who are taking away our freedoms (for example, the left, which would have been the extreme left not too many years ago).
      • Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2ssn seems to live in some altered reality. While I posted first, he posted second I am following him around?
  • DuggDowner, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2This is a non-issue as everybody speeds anyway.
  • bincoder, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Depending on the drag of the vehicle, determined by its shape and frontal area, it makes little difference if you go 10 miles per hour or 100,000 miles per nanosecond. Ok, so a well designed car may burn 1 teaspoon less gas at 55 than it would at 100mph per day, so what?
    (numbers exaggerated to make a point, but you get the general idea)
    The vast majority of fuel waste comes from sitting in traffic at zero mph and accelerating up to the blinding speed of 40mph, driving 1000 feet, then slamming on the brake to sit for the next light or other obstruction, such as people who are too busy chatting on the cell to make up their minds and drive the damn car, blocking everyone else from getting around their asses.
    You can make the speed limit 10mph and that won't help either.
    What happens when you're going downhill on the interstate at 70 coasting and not burning ANY gas and see a cop in a 55 zone? You slam on the brakes.
    Now to get back up the next hill, you have to burn even more gas accelerating uphill, which is the worst thing you can possibly do to waste fuel.
    The democrats and republicans need to learn something called 'physics'.
    Even hypermilers don't plod along like a tractor and they have no problems getting very high mpgs.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.