It's interesting to see how many people in this group and others support
the 55 MPH speed limit.

The question is, where the hell are you on the highway?!?!?!
If 55 MPH is supposed to save fuel, and the speed limit is currently 65
MPH in most places, then why, when I'm doing my usual 68-70 MPH, am I
getting my damn doors blown off?!?!?!

I guess complaining and crying is good, until it effects you...

(Of all the cars I was sharing the highway with, I passed 3 of them.
Everyone else was passing me...over 70-75 MPH)

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> It's interesting to see how many people in this group and others support
> the 55 MPH speed limit.
>
> The question is, where the hell are you on the highway?!?!?!
> If 55 MPH is supposed to save fuel, and the speed limit is currently 65
> MPH in most places, then why, when I'm doing my usual 68-70 MPH, am I
> getting my damn doors blown off?!?!?!
>
> I guess complaining and crying is good, until it effects you...
>
> (Of all the cars I was sharing the highway with, I passed 3 of them.
> Everyone else was passing me...over 70-75 MPH)
>


I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
alone. I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
are stupid.

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> It's interesting to see how many people in this group and others support
> the 55 MPH speed limit.
>
> The question is, where the hell are you on the highway?!?!?!
> If 55 MPH is supposed to save fuel, and the speed limit is currently 65
> MPH in most places, then why, when I'm doing my usual 68-70 MPH, am I
> getting my damn doors blown off?!?!?!
>
> I guess complaining and crying is good, until it effects you...
>
> (Of all the cars I was sharing the highway with, I passed 3 of them.
> Everyone else was passing me...over 70-75 MPH)
>


Well I don't support 55. I put up with it for years and it is nonsense.
Sure, it saves a bit of fuel, but my time is worth a whole lot more than
that.

I'd much rather have the limit at 65 and be comfortable sticking close
to it.


DAve

On 2008-07-24, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:

> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
> alone.

So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
absurd a standard.

> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
> are stupid.

That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-07-24, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:
>
>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>> alone.
>
> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
> absurd a standard.


The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.



>
>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>> are stupid.
>
> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.
>
>
This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders. On a 3 lane
highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those
going below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps.
The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so, and the left
lane for passing and emergency vehicles. This allows for the optimum
flow of traffic and for maximum safety. But that's just too sensible for
this dumbass country...

| >> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
| >> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
| >> are stupid.

| This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
| into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders. On a 3 lane
| highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those
| going below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps.
| The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so, and the left
| lane for passing and emergency vehicles. This allows for the optimum
| flow of traffic and for maximum safety. But that's just too sensible for
| this dumbass country...

Uhm.. 58-60 where the limit is 65? YOU are the dumbass. If you don't want to
do the speed limit, get to the right. VERY simple.

Now if you're talking about a limit of 55, then you STILL are a dumbass
thinking that it's perfectly OK to speed.

If 65 is the limit, folks should just not EVER go over 65. What good is a
limit when it doesn't actually mean anything? What would you do if you
bought $20 worth of gas and was charged $25 for it?

On 2008-07-24, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>> alone.
>>
>> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
>> absurd a standard.

> The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
> account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
> the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
> set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.

Upper bound speed limits are not to be set because of what somebody feels
is 'right'. Neither should having a armed government employee stop you
on the side of road under the threat of violence be determined by his
personal speed tolerances.

Google 85th percentile method to see how speed limits should be set.

>>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>>> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>>> are stupid.

>> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
>> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
>> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.

> This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
> into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders.

*sigh* A sign with an absurdly low number on it is not a license to
drive poorly.

> On a 3 lane
> highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those
> going below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps.

WRONG. It's supposed to be the normal cruising lane. It was before the
NMSL idiotcy of 55mph and still is.

> The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so,

WRONG. It's for passing people in the right lane.

> and the left lane for passing and emergency vehicles.

Somewhat WRONG. It's for passing people in the middle lane.

> This allows for the optimum
> flow of traffic and for maximum safety.

No it does not. Optimum flow and maximum safety is achieved by a strict
keep right except to pass discipline. This is why the autobahn is safer
than the US interstate and much better to drive.

> But that's just too sensible for this dumbass country...

Actually most of those dumbasses are driving just like you, except they
have a different idea of where the speed cut offs for each lane are.
That's why your idea is pure bunk.

Keep right except to pass is pure simplicity. It works like fluid flow
in a pipe. It makes for an engineered system. Your idea is a complex
social interaction that cannot scale. That's why it breaks down so
quickly with increased traffic volumes. Too many people with different
social ideas of what speed each lane should be.

On 2008-07-24, Calab <myspam@csd.ca> wrote:

> If 65 is the limit, folks should just not EVER go over 65. What good is a
> limit when it doesn't actually mean anything?

It doesn't mean anything but as a revenue gathering mechanism for
government. It's usally a number pulled out of the ass of someone in
political office and in the case of interstates has nothing to do with
the actual upper bound limit of the road.

Google 85th percentile method and read the MUTCD.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-07-24, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie <No@Thanks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>>> alone.
>>> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
>>> absurd a standard.
>
>> The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
>> account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
>> the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
>> set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.
>
> Upper bound speed limits are not to be set because of what somebody feels
> is 'right'. Neither should having a armed government employee stop you
> on the side of road under the threat of violence be determined by his
> personal speed tolerances.
>
> Google 85th percentile method to see how speed limits should be set.
>
>>>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>>>> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>>>> are stupid.
>
>>> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
>>> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
>>> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.
>
>> This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
>> into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders.
>
> *sigh* A sign with an absurdly low number on it is not a license to
> drive poorly.
>
>> On a 3 lane
>> highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those
>> going below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps.
>
> WRONG. It's supposed to be the normal cruising lane. It was before the
> NMSL idiotcy of 55mph and still is.
>
>> The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so,
>
> WRONG. It's for passing people in the right lane.
>
>> and the left lane for passing and emergency vehicles.
>
> Somewhat WRONG. It's for passing people in the middle lane.
>
>> This allows for the optimum
>> flow of traffic and for maximum safety.
>
> No it does not. Optimum flow and maximum safety is achieved by a strict
> keep right except to pass discipline. This is why the autobahn is safer
> than the US interstate and much better to drive.
>
>> But that's just too sensible for this dumbass country...
>
> Actually most of those dumbasses are driving just like you, except they
> have a different idea of where the speed cut offs for each lane are.
> That's why your idea is pure bunk.
>
> Keep right except to pass is pure simplicity. It works like fluid flow
> in a pipe. It makes for an engineered system. Your idea is a complex
> social interaction that cannot scale. That's why it breaks down so
> quickly with increased traffic volumes. Too many people with different
> social ideas of what speed each lane should be.
>

This and your other post make it pretty clear that you are the
highway equivalent of a Gun Nut. You don't care that the 55 limit saves
both fuel and lives, and you think that the roads exist to allow people
to drive fast, with those following rational speed limits expected to
just get out of your way.

Google "plonk."

> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>alone. I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>are stupid.

Some people can't get the hint (being passed on the right). It would
be nice if cops could give a ticket for a mandatory refresher course
at the DMV.