Government wants to regulate busses and trucks to max of 67 MPH or less (interstates, heroin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I should have made it more clear in the headline, but in the story it says MECHANICALLY regulated, meaning it would be physically impossible to go over 68MPH.
I understood it as such, but you did mention it in your poll ("Should the federal government mechanically limit trucks and buses to below 68MPH?").
Don't you think driving 80 MPH on any public road is more stupid?
Not at all. Texas is a big state and many of the remote roads have speed limits of 80 MPH that are completely reasonable.
My memories of the nationwide 55 MPH limit are not pleasant ones. There's nothing like getting a ticket for driving 60 MPH on a desolate stretch of interstate in the middle of nowhere.
It doesn't matter- it's just another law that won't be enforced. How often do we see trucks pulled over by police- very rarely.
This would be mechanically enforced, trucks and buses will already have a governor on them so you do not exceed the maximum RPM's. If you push the gas all the way to the floor it will go up the max RPM and no further. This would be applied to the speed.
It's a bad idea, traffic needs to flow naturally for safety and if traffic is moving at 75 it's safest for all vehicles to be moving at 75. The other issue trucks will often pick up speed before a hill, you want those RPM's maxed out when you hit the bottom.
1. Call a Constitutional Convention so the states can reign in the Feds via some clarifications that eliminate the "vagueness" the Fed uses to expand its power (commerce/general welfare clause/14th amendment abuses, etc...). Also putting in further restrictions on all branches as well and removing unconstitutional and illegally ratified amendments such as the 16th and 17th.
2. Impeaching anyone who conflicts with their oath and the focus of the constitution including the president, members of congress and especially the failed members of the SC.
Do those and we can reign this country in like you have never seen. We cut the cord of government and promote liberty and you will see a boom of excellence and prosperity that will make the roaring 20's look like a tail gate party.
"Liberty"? For whom? --the working class or the corporate class? You can't have it for both.
Don't you think driving 80 MPH on any public road is more stupid?
there is too many variables to determine what is a safe speed and arbitrary speed limits can cause accidents. The safest speed is whatever traffic is flowing at. Granted you are more likely to be injured or killed as speed increases but it's not speed that causes most accidents. It's the disruption to the flow of traffic and poor driving habits. People camping in the left lane, tailgaters, people passing on the right and people doing things like watching their speedometer is what causes accidents.
1. Call a Constitutional Convention so the states can reign in the Feds via some clarifications that eliminate the "vagueness" the Fed uses to expand its power (commerce/general welfare clause/14th amendment abuses, etc...). Also putting in further restrictions on all branches as well and removing unconstitutional and illegally ratified amendments such as the 16th and 17th.
2. Impeaching anyone who conflicts with their oath and the focus of the constitution including the president, members of congress and especially the failed members of the SC.
Do those and we can reign this country in like you have never seen. We cut the cord of government and promote liberty and you will see a boom of excellence and prosperity that will make the roaring 20's look like a tail gate party.
There is no "vagueness" to the Constitution. The so-called "clauses" do not even exist. They are prepatory statements which are explicitly defined by what follows. The Federal government has no open-ended role in providing for the "general welfare" for example. Anyone who understands how the English language works understands what a prepatory statement is and can easily read what is meant by that statement by what follows it. In Article 1 Section 8 there are seventeen points made after the "general welfare" reference clearly delineating what that "general welfare" encompasses.
Anything other than those seventeen points is pure fantasy when talking about the general welfare...
I guess it is moot though, as the Constitution is not even remotely followed in this country and everything about our "society" is based upon government destruction of individual freedom with aggression and coercion. Our "society" is the exact opposite of the supposed intent of creating a society to protect individual freedom...the experiment has been an absolute failure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
