Return of the NMSL?
Rich Piehl
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008
Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
Stupid hippies. I set my cruise to the speed limit in my car-I don't
really notice any appreciable difference between 55 and 65, honestly, as
far as mileage goes. One of these morons going under speed on the
freeway can cock up traffic flow really nicely.
--
Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
SP Cook
The joint crime of the insurance industry, greedy government and lazy
cops, enabled by the self-apointed illiterates unable to grasp the
results of the nation's long tragic experience with this bad idea, is
always just a few votes away.
SP Cook
Rich Piehl
You forgot those who are hellbent on removing freedoms in the name of
the dubious global warming cause.
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=9208
Rich Piehl
> Rich Piehl wrote:
>> http://www.drive55.org/
>>
>> Take care,
>> Rich
>>
>> God bless the USA
>
> Stupid hippies. I set my cruise to the speed limit in my car-I don't
> really notice any appreciable difference between 55 and 65, honestly, as
> far as mileage goes. One of these morons going under speed on the
> freeway can cock up traffic flow really nicely.
>
I was also thinking about, once again, having to cover the American west
at 55 MPH. That may be grounds for a new Civil War! And since the
hippies are anti military guess which one wins. 8^)
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
necromancer
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>http://www.drive55.org/
>
>Take care,
>Rich
>
>God bless the USA
Ugh! Let's hope not. At least not legislatively or foisted upon us by
presidential decree.
If someone wants to drive 55MPH on the freeway they are free to do so
(provided the max SL isn't lower to beginwith) as the highest minimum
SL that I know if is in FL at 50MPH.
--
I am necromancer and I approved this poast.
Laurence Sheldon
> I was also thinking about, once again, having to cover the American west
> at 55 MPH. That may be grounds for a new Civil War! And since the
> hippies are anti military guess which one wins. 8^)
OH, IL, CA, and OR do 40 for trucks then to keep the thrill in the game?
My Land of Misery
WAY.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:44:55 -0500, Rich Piehl
>
> >http://www.drive55.org/
>
> >Take care,
> >Rich
>
> >God bless the USA
>
> Ugh! Let's hope not. At least not legislatively or foisted upon us by
> presidential decree.
>
> If someone wants to drive 55MPH on the freeway they are free to do so
> (provided the max SL isn't lower to beginwith) as the highest minimum
> SL that I know if is in FL at 50MPH.
>
> --
> I am necromancer and I approved this poast.
OK Turnpikes also have a 50mph minimum limit.
Apparently the pro-55 goons have forgotten one dangerous feature of
that SL: highway hypnosis. It was a huge problem for drivers in the
80s.
Joe Blasi
mike d
"My Land of Misery" <gr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:a086c954-8441-4a1a...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I think the 65 mph states, should instead go to 70 or 75 and get with the
crowd. States like ohio and illinois where 65 makes you fall asleep
(especially on the ohio turnpike between cleveland and toledo) shouldn't
make us really fall asleep by going back to 55 but instead go to 70 or 75 so
we can get to our destinations faster.
mike d
"mike d" <mn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3p6dnS38sZlAn5HV...@comcast.com...
warming this winter? The North american continent had one of the coldest
winters in years. Temperatures in much of the country are JUST NOW getting
back to around normals. Some of washington and oregon are still seeing snow
today with frost tonight around seattle, portland, and san fran when they
should be in the 60s for highs and 40s for lows not 40s for highs and 30s
for lows like today.
Scott Nazelrod
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> http://www.drive55.org/
I like the banner across the top there with the SUV with the "55 No
Global Warming" bumper sticker.
-S.
My Land of Misery
>
> - Show quoted text -
No doubt: we had observable snow in April in Kansas City for the
second year in a row. Prior to that I hadn't seen snow in April in
Missouri since 1973. This month we might have had four days where the
highs were average or above. In the 1970s the activists were in
Chicken Little mode over potential global cooling.
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
>
> The joint crime of the insurance industry, greedy government and lazy
> cops, enabled by the self-apointed illiterates unable to grasp the
> results of the nation's long tragic experience with this bad idea, is
> always just a few votes away.
>
> SP Cook
I'd take heart. There are more than a few of us out here that see this
crap for what it really is-another red herring. The counter to this is
asking these stupid hippies why they're not worried about China and
India, who are sucking erl at a pretty huge rate-as well as driving
vehicles that belch all sorts of nasty shite into the atmosphere.
Steve Sobol
No, they do it because they're stupid.
Actually, the minimum in Ohio is 40. Speed limits are 65 for cars, and 55
for trucks over a certain GVW (I forget how much) and non-commercial buses.
It's pretty much the same here, except it's 65 just outside the big cities,
and 70 in the rural areas.
The problem is the difference in speed. Either put everyone at the lower
speed limit or (preferably) put everyone at the higher speed limit.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band" <raash...@ndki.rk> wrote:
> Rich Piehl wrote:
> > http://www.drive55.org/
> >
> > Take care,
> > Rich
> >
> > God bless the USA
>
> Stupid hippies. I set my cruise to the speed limit in my car-I don't
> really notice any appreciable difference between 55 and 65, honestly, as
> far as mileage goes. One of these morons going under speed on the
> freeway can cock up traffic flow really nicely.
Not to mention, if 55 is far enough under the prevailing traffic flow,
one could get stopped for "obstruction" or "endangerment", which carries
a more hefty fine and more points against your licence (usually) than
speeding does.
1997. Boston. 2 motorists driving 55 (the legal speed limit) on
I-93/US-1/MA-3 were stopped for that reason (prevailing traffic was
between 70-75). They both tried to fight it in court. They both lost.
Drive 55... at your own risk.
--
DJ Particle - RIAAcial Lesbian Parodist
www.djparticle.com
Otherwise known in the mundane world as "Emi-chan" :)
"Keep your ear to the radio, and keep hot water with you at all times!"
1100GS_rider
> I was also thinking about, once again, having to cover the American west
> at 55 MPH. That may be grounds for a new Civil War!
If there is an attempt to set I-10 in west Texas back to 55, there needs
to be a revolution.
Arif Khokar
> The problem is the difference in speed. Either put everyone at the lower
> speed limit or (preferably) put everyone at the higher speed limit.
Why should putting everyone at a lower speed limit be an option. Trucks
in the real world do not go that much slower than cars, so a lower speed
limit isn't required.
Honestly, I'm downright sick of the argument that we need lower limits
for everyone because certain vehicles or drivers cannot keep up with the
majority. If they really want something like that, then make the limit
25 mph so it's safe for me to ride my bicycle on the interstate.
H.B. Elkins
>The joint crime of the insurance industry, greedy government and lazy
>cops, enabled by the self-apointed illiterates unable to grasp the
>results of the nation's long tragic experience with this bad idea, is
>always just a few votes away.
This isn't going anywhere. Back when the feds allowed the states to increase the
speed limit from 55 to 65, Sen. McConnell from Kentucky worked to allow the
states to increase their limits on interstate-quality routes like Kentucky's
parkways. As long as he has the power of the filibuster, and the GOP has at
least 40 votes in the Senate, this is going to die a well-deserved painful
death.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
>
> No doubt: we had observable snow in April in Kansas City for the
> second year in a row. Prior to that I hadn't seen snow in April in
> Missouri since 1973. This month we might have had four days where the
> highs were average or above. In the 1970s the activists were in
> Chicken Little mode over potential global cooling.
But then in NY we had 70 in January, and more rain than snow. Go figure.
You can pooh-pooh Global Warming all you like, but I've noticed some
pretty weird climactic changes over the course of my life. The problem
with global warming, or any issue is that you have a binful of shitheads
at the ready to exploit the issue to advance their own agenda. That
applies to *both* 'sides'(such as they are). Something like this demands
rational, objective anaylsis, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
Just as an aside. what would be worse for the environment: driving on
the highway at a higher speed for a shorter amount of time, or driving
slower and taking longer, with the possibility that your engine isn't
running at peak efficiency?
necromancer
Damn, I missed that little bit of hypocrisy. Thanks for pointing it
out.
I did get a laugh out of that map, though. Pointing out a few dozen at
most supporters in a country of 300 million. Many of the rest who
would rather see 55NMSL remain in the dust bin of history.
necromancer
Band" <raash...@ndki.rk> wrote:
>My Land of Misery wrote:
>
>>
>> No doubt: we had observable snow in April in Kansas City for the
>> second year in a row. Prior to that I hadn't seen snow in April in
>> Missouri since 1973. This month we might have had four days where the
>> highs were average or above. In the 1970s the activists were in
>> Chicken Little mode over potential global cooling.
>
>But then in NY we had 70 in January, and more rain than snow. Go figure.
> You can pooh-pooh Global Warming all you like, but I've noticed some
>pretty weird climactic changes over the course of my life. The problem
>with global warming, or any issue is that you have a binful of shitheads
>at the ready to exploit the issue to advance their own agenda. That
>applies to *both* 'sides'(such as they are). Something like this demands
>rational, objective anaylsis, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
Ever notice how global warming is almost *always* blamed on man. Its
never a cyclical thing or naturally caused. In the eyes of the
gorites, its always man (ans the US in particular) to blame. BTW, you
never hear anything from gore or his ilk about the private jets they
use or the motorcades....
>Just as an aside. what would be worse for the environment: driving on
>the highway at a higher speed for a shorter amount of time, or driving
>slower and taking longer, with the possibility that your engine isn't
>running at peak efficiency?
That's a good question, I'd say the second option.....
--
--
"Foley, we should have known it was you...."
--From the movie Beverly Hills Cop.
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
>
> Ever notice how global warming is almost *always* blamed on man. Its
> never a cyclical thing or naturally caused. In the eyes of the
> gorites, its always man (ans the US in particular) to blame. BTW, you
> never hear anything from gore or his ilk about the private jets they
> use or the motorcades....
>
My position on this prolly needs no elucidation :) That being said,
however, I'm not going to jump on the bandwaggon with the rest of the
hippies exploiting this issue anytime soon, simply because their aim
isn't to do anything to solve the problem in any significant way, it's
just to bash the opposition on anything possible and toot their horn at
their own self-righteousness.
I note that a great hullabaloo is made about how the US has basically
made this problem all by itself. There is no one else to blame. Now
while that may contain a certain amount of 'truthiness', it's by no
means the whole story. You mean Europe had no cars and factories? What
about the former Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union? Nobody else has flown planes
or driven cars or polluted the environment? What about China and India
*right now*. An attempt at *honest* analysis would look at *all* the
factors.
Rich Piehl
One winter does not prove or disprove the existence of global warming.
Ten years certainly brings the concept of global warming in to question..
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Steve Sobol
>> The problem is the difference in speed. Either put everyone at the lower
>> speed limit or (preferably) put everyone at the higher speed limit.
>
> Why should putting everyone at a lower speed limit be an option. Trucks
> in the real world do not go that much slower than cars, so a lower speed
> limit isn't required.
I agree, but the important thing is one speed limit for everyone.
Laurence Sheldon
> On 2008-04-21, Laurence Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich Piehl wrote:
>>
>>> I was also thinking about, once again, having to cover the American west
>>> at 55 MPH. That may be grounds for a new Civil War! And since the
>>> hippies are anti military guess which one wins. 8^)
>> OH, IL, CA, and OR do 40 for trucks then to keep the thrill in the game?
>
> No, they do it because they're stupid.
>
> Actually, the minimum in Ohio is 40. Speed limits are 65 for cars, and 55
> for trucks over a certain GVW (I forget how much) and non-commercial buses.
> It's pretty much the same here, except it's 65 just outside the big cities,
> and 70 in the rural areas.
>
> The problem is the difference in speed. Either put everyone at the lower
> speed limit or (preferably) put everyone at the higher speed limit.
It must suck to have both your sarcasm alarm and your irony meter go on
the fritz at the same time.
And regarding minima, seems like there were places last time around that
hand minima posted that were higher than 55. I want to say CA was one
of them, but I am not sure.
Laurence Sheldon
Sayyyyy! There's an idea!
Laurence Sheldon
> One winter does not prove or disprove the existence of global warming.
> Ten years certainly brings the concept of global warming in to question.
I am not a statistician, nor a scientist, but I have never understood
how meaningful trends can be determined from a small number of data-points.
And I don't under stand who meaningful pronouncements can be based on
history ("biggest ice breakup in history") when history started in 1979
(ten years before I retired the first time).
And I really have trouble understanding the notion that warming is
solely and only cause but carbon dioxide concentration when for the last
ten years or so the concentration has been increasing but the
temperatures have been flat or decreasing a bit.
And I really really don't understand how making trucks (some with
diesel-powered refrigeration) run slower (meaning more time parked not
moving at all) helps at all.
Laurence Sheldon
> I agree, but the important thing is one speed limit for everyone.
Amen.
Rich Piehl
That's because you aren't pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with
the earth's climate.
That's because you aren't pushing an agenda that promotes one lifestyle
for "the common man" and living a lifestyle that is the opposite of one
the promotes.
That's because you aren't aren't arriving at conclusions that are
questionable on best based on information that is questionable at best
and are completely ignoring facts that don't support your position.
That's because you are will to consider other positions based on all
information rather than just declaring that the time for debate is over,
when there was never any debate to begin with.
Michael D. Adams
> On 2008-04-21, Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> > Why should putting everyone at a lower speed limit be an option. Trucks
> > in the real world do not go that much slower than cars, so a lower speed
> > limit isn't required.
>
> I agree, but the important thing is one speed limit for everyone.
Hear, hear!
The speed limit should be 100 kilo-furlongs per fortnight for everybody.
:)
--
Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com
davidjc...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Steve Sobol" <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:
> > On 2008-04-21, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> > > Why should putting everyone at a lower speed limit be an option. Trucks
> > > in the real world do not go that much slower than cars, so a lower speed
> > > limit isn't required.
>
> > I agree, but the important thing is one speed limit for everyone.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> The speed limit should be 100 kilo-furlongs per fortnight for everybody.
> :)
>
> --
> Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut --http://www.triskele.com
37.2 MPH?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
I have no crystal ball, but I most strongly believe this will NOT
happen. It's a waste of time to discuss it. It's nothing but a huge
STRAWMAN.
What MIGHT happen is that SOME motorists, seeking to save some money,
merely don't drive as fast as they used to, say going at 60 when they
previously went 65-70 on long trips. Having cruise control makes this
easy.
I don't know the numbers, that is, if you take a 100 mile trip, how
much long does it take to drive at 60, 65, and 70, and how much fuel
is consumed at those speeds. Obviously fuel will vary be vehicle and
load.
(I know in my own car, a 4 cyl sedan, fuel consumption goes up at 70
vs. 60; you can hear the engine work harder and see the tach move up
noticeably.)
But again, there will be NO "NMSL" and it's pointless to argue about
it.
The Chief Instigator
No arguments there...and doing it in the Dakotas wouldn't set well
with us, since it'd add about four to five hours to a drive up to
Sioux Falls, not to mention another hour between there and her family
on the northern edge of SD (and southern edge of ND).
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 1, Rockford 0 (2 OT, April 19)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, April 22 vs. Rockford, 7:05 (Game 3)
Laurence Sheldon
> (I know in my own car, a 4 cyl sedan, fuel consumption goes up at 70
> vs. 60; you can hear the engine work harder and see the tach move up
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> noticeably.)
Damn! There is a startling revelation! Who knew?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Damn! There is a startling revelation! Who knew?
What kind of an idiotic statement is that?
Aren't you aware that different vehicles perform differently, and the
gasoline savings for one vehicle's speed curve would be different for
another? High speeds affected by old 305V8 much differently than my
2.2Liter 4 and understandably so.
MSNBC says a 15% fuel savings for a 10 mph drop at high speeds, but
that's only a broad average.
Rich Piehl
I wish I could be as certain as you are about that. Look at some of the
other things that are being pushed in the name of global warming and
rights and freedoms that are being impinged/threatened. I cited an
article upthread about the California Energy Commission that is wanting
to control the thermostats in people's houses. It hasn't become
mandatory yet, but just the fact they are trying is a clear indication
you can't casually dismiss another attempt at a NMSL.
Michael D. Adams
> "Michael D. Adams" <mda-use...@triskele.com> wrote:
> > "Steve Sobol" <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:
> > > I agree, but the important thing is one speed limit for everyone.
> > Hear, hear!
> > The speed limit should be 100 kilo-furlongs per fortnight for everybody.
> > :)
> 37.2 MPH?
It sounds a little better if you think of it as 60 km/h. :)
Andrew Tompkins
> "mike d" <mn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3p6dnS38sZlAn5HV...@comcast.com...
>> "My Land of Misery" <gr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:a086c954-8441-4a1a...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 20, 9:29 pm, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-
>> WAY.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:44:55 -0500, Rich Piehl
>>>
>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.drive55.org/
>>>> Rich
>>>> God bless the USA
>>> presidential decree.
>>>
>>> If someone wants to drive 55MPH on the freeway they are free to do so
>>> (provided the max SL isn't lower to beginwith) as the highest minimum
>>> SL that I know if is in FL at 50MPH.
>>>
>>> --
>>> I am necromancer and I approved this poast.
>> OK Turnpikes also have a 50mph minimum limit.
>>
>> Apparently the pro-55 goons have forgotten one dangerous feature of
>> that SL: highway hypnosis. It was a huge problem for drivers in the
>> 80s.
>>
>> I think the 65 mph states, should instead go to 70 or 75 and get with the
>> crowd. States like ohio and illinois where 65 makes you fall asleep
>> (especially on the ohio turnpike between cleveland and toledo) shouldn't
>> make us really fall asleep by going back to 55 but instead go to 70 or 75
>> so we can get to our destinations faster.
>>
> also to those of you who are "global warming" enthusiasts, where was global
> warming this winter? The North american continent had one of the coldest
> winters in years. Temperatures in much of the country are JUST NOW getting
> back to around normals. Some of washington and oregon are still seeing snow
> today with frost tonight around seattle, portland, and san fran when they
> should be in the 60s for highs and 40s for lows not 40s for highs and 30s
> for lows like today.
>
Apples and oranges. Global warming is based on climate, not weather (a
very different animal). Climate is based on worldwide weather averages
over years, decades and centuries, not point sources of locations, data
or phenomena (El Nino, La Nina).
--
--Andy
Laurence Sheldon
> On Apr 21, 3:24 pm, Laurence Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Damn! There is a startling revelation! Who knew?
>
> What kind of an idiotic statement is that?
The one you deleted? First order idiotic, I'd say.
Most vehicular "speedometers" in fact measure the propeller shaft
rotation speed "after" the gear box.
Most vehicular "tachometers" measure the propeller shaft rotation speed
"before" the gearbox. (Yes we usually refer to that as "engine speed".)
So, absent a gear change, if one goes up, the other goes up
_without_imparting_any_new_information.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> Look at some of the
> other things that are being pushed in the name of . . .
ALL sorts of "things" are "pushed" every day. It doesn't mean there
gonna happen. Truth is, most things being pushed have their 15
minutes of fame and are then totally forgotten. "They" push for drug
legalization which hasn't happened. They push to get out of Iraq
which hasn't happened. They push to impreach bush which hasn't
happened.?
There will NOT be a new NMSL.
There won't be home thermostat regulation either, in California or
anywhere else.
There WILL be higher taxes come January, but we all knew that.
Brent Jonas
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> http://www.drive55.org/
>
> Take care,
> Rich
>
> God bless the USA
> Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008
>
> Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
> to vote for him as it does for the choices
> that we have who are living. At least he's not
> going change his position on anything.
Quite honestly, if I were legally limited to 55 MPH and wanted to keep
within 5 MPH to avoid getting pulled over, I could actually see myself
possibly becoming sleepy along stretches of I-5 in the Central
Valley...driving 75 MPH (through this 70 MPH zone) keeps me alert and
mentally focused. 55 MPH along a straight-arrow freeway for hundreds
of miles would probably cause more than a few drivers to become
inattentive.
Sounds lame, or is it?
-Brent
Laurence Sheldon
> Quite honestly, if I were legally limited to 55 MPH and wanted to keep
> within 5 MPH to avoid getting pulled over, I could actually see myself
> possibly becoming sleepy along stretches of I-5 in the Central
> Valley...driving 75 MPH (through this 70 MPH zone) keeps me alert and
> mentally focused. 55 MPH along a straight-arrow freeway for hundreds
> of miles would probably cause more than a few drivers to become
> inattentive.
>
> Sounds lame, or is it?
Yeah, I think it is.
I think this whole "highway hypnosis" thing may the most dangerous thing
the National Safety Council has ever done.
Before proceeding, let me say that I am not a psychologist or other
learned person in the area.
But in my reading, I have come to understand "hypnosis" as having three
main parts (which I will call "suggestion", "trigger" and "response" --
I don't know how those match the experts.)
Using the National Safety Council ads of some years ago, we were shown
the view of on-coming headlights through a windshield-wiper-swept
windshield, or the flashing of power ("telephone") poles past the
windshield. These views were the "triggers".
The "suggestion" was that when ever you saw these, you were to drive
into the ditch, or swerve into the oncoming traffic, or some such.
The "response", in real life was people began to see oncoming lights,
windshield-wipers and power poles as "triggers", and responded by
driving into bridge abutments, oncoming traffic, or ditches as instructed.
All of which I find to be BS.
Driving a vehicle is a full-time job that requires that the driver have
certain skills and abilities.
If you don't have those abilities, park the car or truck.
There is just simply no way that engaging in an activity that has the
inherent ability to cause you and others great pain and loss can
reasonably be described as "boring".
There are a lot of reasons why our speed-limit laws make no sense but
"boring" is not one of them.
If you have a persuasive case that people by nature can not control them
selves and their vehicles, then vehicles ought to outlawed completely.
Laurence Sheldon
> I think this whole "highway hypnosis" thing may the most dangerous thing
> the National Safety Council has ever done.
I meant to mention that if this is not the most dangerous thing, then
the whole "speed kills" nonsense must be.
Speed does not kill. A difference in speeds can be deadly.
I have traveled for hours at what 600 MPH? While that process has
injured me, the injuries have to do with bad food, cramped quarters, and
so on--nothing remotely to do with speed.
On the other hand (or foot, I should say), my left great toe collided at
low speed with the leg of a bed many years ago (35 or so, I guess) and
even at that very low difference in speeds I received an injury that
plagues me to this very day. The bed was unscathed which I guess says
something about the desirable qualities in a collision of that sort.
brad...@msn.com
The higher taxes come Jan. 2009 won't happen either. At least not on
the federal side of things.
WRT NMSL and any other gas-related item: We clearly forget that the
main reason why the '70s energy shocks were so painful was because
this nation was having actual supply severly curtailed. If the Saudis
and other OPECocrats don't want to sell to prove a political point,
they won't do it. Regretfully for their hotheads, OPEC won't try that
again.
We're just getting the ration-by-price treatment, and that will stop
when either the Fed raises interest rates a few percentage points or
when the European Central bank stops screwing most of its member
states and lowers their interest rates.
Rick Powell
<raashan...@ndki.rk> wrote:> Stupid hippies. I set my cruise to the speed limit in my car-I don't
> really notice any appreciable difference between 55 and 65, honestly, as
> far as mileage goes. One of these morons going under speed on the
> freeway can cock up traffic flow really nicely.
>
> --
> Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamotohttp://mryamamoto.50megs.com
> 'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
OT: Is Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band trad jazz, freeform,
fusion, FM "cool jazz" format, or some other idiom of the genre?
RP
Jon Morse
> OT: Is Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band trad jazz, freeform,
> fusion, FM "cool jazz" format, or some other idiom of the genre?
It's all of the above, until you actually listen to it.
--
Jon Morse
Herndon, VA
dougwi...@yahoo.com
I just sent the Drive 55 this message:
Will your campaign include a prohibition on speed traps on downgrades?
Or shall we ride our brakes and waste the free gravity induced
momentum?
I wonder what shall be their response.
Douglas A. Willinger
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/
http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/