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.
If they apply to to trucks then they also need to apply it to cars with a max possible speed of 75
That won't make the roads safer. Two things would:
If you make it so trucks and busses can't go over 67, then also require they stay in the farthest right lane unless exiting left. They'll be the slow traffic and there would be no reason for them to be in any other lane.
Enforce the left lane is for passing with stiff fines for those who don't comply. Accidents occur when self proclaimed speed monitors hang out doing the speed limit or less in the left lane and traffic wanting to go faster has to weave in and out of lanes to pass them or tailgates in an attempt to get them to move over.
Some people defend this left lane sitting by saying "well the speeders and tailgaters are breaking the law". Sure, but let's let law enforcement deal with that not to mention that using the left lane other than for passing is also breaking the law and is, according to studies, an identifiable issue when determining why accidents occur. Why some people get so darn insulted if another motorist chooses to travel faster than they are and purposefully impede them is beyond me. Don't play speed monitor, just move over into the right lane.
Oh I know there is no vagueness, it is pretty clear. They however claim there is and through their word play and manipulation they corrupt the meaning. My point was that we could double up on the proper meaning there by killing their attempt at manipulation. Basically a "clarification for idiots and liars" type of thing.
That is the only real approach that doesn't involve rounding up all the violators and swinging them from trees unfortunately.
Okay. However, if you believe in human freedom, you will understand that no amount of "tinkering" with a document that isn't followed anyway is futile. People believe in this nation that they have a "right" to impose their will upon others with government aggression. Until that evil belief and foundation of this "society" is eliminated, there is no hope for human freedom for anyone.
We as a people need to obey the non-aggression principle to be free beings. And any so-called "government" that is formed by these free people must also follow the non-aggression principle.
As long as any person, group, or government has an evil fictional "right" to use aggression and coercion to impose its will upon any person for any reason, the "society" that results will be barbaric. As long as people or the "government" have a "right" to initiate force upon any person for any reason, the "society" and the people will be no more advanced or enlightened than our animal ancestors...we are a nation of thugs and tyrants because we allow our government to be a thug and a tyrant on our behalf. As long as we use government aggression to impose our will upon our neighbors, we really are no more than predatory animals...
Our Constitution, intentionally or not, created a fictional right for the people and the government to impose their will upon others with violence, aggression, and coercion. It is this inherent flaw which makes even its purest reading and adherence unworkable for a free society to exist. If this foundational flaw were not present, we would not be in the situation that we are now in.
Our form of government has the same evil at its foundation as all other forms of "modern governments". They are all based upon "justifying" aggression by some upon others, whether the "some" are the State, the Party, the dictator, the "majority", the collective, or the proletariat It is the "justification" and "legalization" of aggression of some upon others to impose their will which is at the heart of the evil apparent with all forms of government in human history.
A true society, a free society, would have strict adherence to the non-aggression principle by both its people and its institutions. We have neither.
Many of the big trucking companies govern their trucks at 62 mph. They apparently believe that the severity of accidents increases with vehicle speed. I agree.
Slower speeds certainly decrease the severity of accidents but this is not going to help decrease traffic accidents. Companies would be doing this for insurance purposes. The insurance company may mandate it or they may simply be doing it to help prevent lawsuits.
If you want to decrease accidents you need a nice even flow of traffic.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,486,476 times
Reputation: 12187
I'm against mechanically making cars that can only go slightly above the speed limit. I do like the idea of black boxes on all cars that reveal the speed traveled before a crash so people whose recklessness caused a crash can pay a financial penalty.
I suspect this regulation is being presented in the guise of safety but is actually about reducing pollution. Vehicles get the best fuel economy around 55 to 60 mph and there's a big drop off above 60.
I suspect this regulation is being presented in the guise of safety but is actually about reducing pollution. Vehicles get the best fuel economy around 55 to 60 mph and there's a big drop off above 60.
This may or may not help reduce pollution, for example a truck is typically going to pick up speed before a hill. That extra speed may be the difference between going 55 up the hill or 45...
Slower speeds certainly decrease the severity of accidents but this is not going to help decrease traffic accidents. Companies would be doing this for insurance purposes. The insurance company may mandate it or they may simply be doing it to help prevent lawsuits.
If you want to decrease accidents you need a nice even flow of traffic.
A nice even flow of traffic Houston roads is great. Until some idiot decides to move from the inside lane to the exit 25 feet away, across 4 lanes of traffic. Then all you see are brake lights. Happens 4 or 5 times every time we go to the ballgame downtown.
Slower speeds certainly decrease the severity of accidents but this is not going to help decrease traffic accidents. Companies would be doing this for insurance purposes. The insurance company may mandate it or they may simply be doing it to help prevent lawsuits.
If you want to decrease accidents you need a nice even flow of traffic.
Many of the large trucking companies are self insured.
One of the benefits fro lowering the national speed limit to 55mph was a significant reduction in traffic fatalities. Just saying. Lower speeds save lives.
Think if the airlines could lobby for lower speed limits.
Collisions happen when certain vehicles are not keeping up with the flow of traffic.
So what's next, passenger vehicles? So that they're balanced out?
Okay, great, but what about vehicles manufactured before this law was in effect? Is everyone supposed to replace their cars?
I vote no.
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.
It is the "justification" and "legalization" of aggression of some upon others to impose their will which is at the heart of the evil apparent with all forms of government in human history.
trucks get pulled alot
