Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
August 20th, 2014 at 6:13:00 PM permalink
Quote: JB

"Grandma" doesn't pay any more for gas than I do unless she chooses a higher-priced location to purchase it from, which isn't my problem.

Also, I don't think forcing me to stop (to issue me a ticket) so that I have to accelerate again from 0mph is more conservative than just letting me continue at the speed I was going. Con$ervation of ga$oline i$ not the rea$on poli¢e $top $peeder$. How about keeping the gas tanks of police cars empty? That would save tons of gasoline.

Are you sure you aren't having a stroke? Worst post of the Year.
Follow me:
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 334
  • Posts: 2089
August 20th, 2014 at 6:51:16 PM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

Are you sure you aren't having a stroke? Worst post of the Year.

Do you actually believe police stop you for "going too fast" because they care about you?
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 169
  • Posts: 10074
August 20th, 2014 at 8:18:08 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Speed limits are stupid anyway. They have nothing to do with safety; they are just tax collectors.

Well, I don't know about that. ( I was just in an accident Friday. Someone ran into me while I was stopped at a light)

You have secondary consequences as more speed is introduced.

A low speed accident is less likely to involve additional random uncontrolled travel. Fewer vehicles or objects are going to be involved.

Had I been hit at 30 I might have involved other vehicles either in front or even another lane or damage more property.

People can drive at 80, 85 but I'm willing to bet there will be more carnage when there is an accident on average. Even if the road is clear, a high rate of speed may put you into property or damage something you wouldn't have normally hit at a lower speed.

That sounds like a safety concern to me or someone else.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
August 20th, 2014 at 8:35:24 PM permalink
Quote: JB

Do you actually believe police stop you for "going too fast" because they care about you?

Depends how fast you are going and how many dead kids he has pulled out of car wrecks lately !

I remember when crotch rockets first came out and some bad ass dudes on Harleys would pull kids over and talk to them.

Just down the street from the dealers.
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6270
August 20th, 2014 at 11:10:17 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

Aren't Florida voters going to veto Gov. Scott's governorship this November?


I'm all for higher speed limits or no speed limits. I remember driving from Boston to Cape Cod and the speed limit on the highway was like 55 the whole way there. It was driving me crazy. People were driving 20+ mph over the speed limit. What is even the point?

I lived in Atlanta for 2 years, speed limit was 55 MPH there ~15-20 miles within downtown. If you didn't go 70 in non-trafficked periods, you were getting passed. The real speed you can go/should go is set by the local police. In GA, they didn't give you points for < 15 MPH over, so 69 MPH is always safe on the interstate there I think barring traffic.

As for Florida, the only portions I drove was I-75 South to the Florida Turnpike to Orlando and I-4 from Orlando to St. Augustine. I could argue the Florida Turnpike to be upped to 75 MPH when we drove it due to good road condition/lack of traffic.

No speed limits are a bad idea I think, but the speed limit should generally be the "85th percentile" of "free flow" traffic as most civil engineers tend to think. Roughly 70 MPH for rural, and 75 MPH for "banjo chord" rural. 80 MPH could be acceptable, but those states that actually want that probably don't tax their citizens enough to safely allow it.

And this thread got more comments after the
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
August 21st, 2014 at 1:38:17 AM permalink
I live outside of the Las Vegas valley a pretty fair distance on one of those banjo cord routes. I sometimes have told people that if I ever fell asleep at the wheel I'd probably run out of gas before I managed to hit anything bigger than a coyote, only about half joking. Most of it isn't patrolled, since there's no reason to, and has little to no traffic at the time of day I'm usually commuting to the neon-bathed town on it. Once driving home with my mind on how my day had gone I glanced down to discover that I was doing well over 100 mph and creeping up towards 120 without noticing or deciding to do anything of the sort.

I really didn't intend that at all, but it also would seem ridiculous to me and I think just about anyone living in the area to be doing about half that on a highway straight as a string without so much as a pole or porta-potty or a jackrabbit amidst the vast expanse of desert populated by scorpions and scrub. Context matters to what is fast. I was accidentally too fast for my taste that night, even though the vehicle and conditions were okay enough with it to allow me not to notice right away what I'd started to do, so I set the cruise thingy now, but in large areas of the west time and distance does have a different meaning that doesn't directly translate to some other places. Oh, and that little two-seat sports car prolly still gets better mileage at triple digits than the kind of 16-seat Buick Behemoth SUX assault vehicle the size of a small house that I see some folks prefer to putter around in to fetch a loaf of bread. Plus, if I have a date there's no chance she'll start eyeing it for where to eventually put a child safety seat; that's totally off the table at first glance.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12332
August 24th, 2014 at 5:28:02 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

How fast should a finite resource be used up? That's an honest question, not a wisecrack.

Some future generation presumably is going to have to use electric cars and more mass transportation. In the meantime some very large, 'constant dollar' [real] increase in the price of oil will wean us off of our current practices [oil can be made from coal; complete exhaustion of all options is way in the future]. Should we just use it how we please, allowing supply and demand to regulate us? Or do you like the European model of making sure gas is expensive as hell?

Or is environmental impact really the more pressing issue?

Acctually we should mostly use it as we please and avoid the Euro model like the plague. In Europe, the high price mostly goes to the looters in the government. In the USA the producers keep more even if the looters get almost the biggest share both at the pump and at the cigarette counter inside thought the later is another story.

Without high profits there would be no gas from coal and no fracking. No ND boom which will soon spread to Montana. There might be outright shortage where you only get so many gallons in the first place.

Humankind has about 1,000 years left until implosion. It is easy to see the next 2-500 years needs being met with what is in the ground, and by which time someone will have found something else. In just 100 years population decline will mean a reduction in consumption.

The environment will fix itself as it always does.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: