Arizona Highway Cameras

[club33az]

To get where you are going faster.... duh.

If it is just about safety, the environemnt and fuel consumption, why not make the limit 25? Why not require all people in autos have helmets, 5 point restraints, NASCAR style, custom fitted, carbon-fiber seats, plus a HANS device.... Add in tube steel roll cage in every vehicle and safer barriers on all crash walls....

Then make 2 liter 4-clylendar the largest allowable engine....

And speed cams every 100 feet. Cause, you know, people can't be trusted.

1 car traveling at 55 when every other car is going 75 is FAR more dangerous, than every car going 75 even if the limit is 55.

VERY true!

[Lacrosse Boy]

Key word: change. The law hasn't, though, has it? Still 65 MPH no matter how many people wish it wasn't. Until the law is changed, it's something that should be followed.

And if the accident rates are nearly the same, why increase the speed limit at the sake of the environment and further fuel consumption? What would be the point?

Less money for the government -- good in my book!
More efficient roadways -- good in everyone's book!

If it's something that should be followed, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we? Most people don't follow it, and thus it's clearly an issue with the law, not the people driving. It's easy to say we "should" do this, and "should" do that, but the reality is that people "don't" and aren't about to change, either.

As far as environment and fuel consumption: put it up to the people for a vote. Most people won't vote to drive at 55. The only way for people to willingly cut their speeds would be for gas to rise to $4+ a gallon again. But we can't artificially prop that up with taxes. I see that as another form of dictatorship by those who think they know what's best for us "little people".

What's next, GM becoming the new Trabant?

[club33az]

Why not? GM is already Obama's little....

[Tiggerlives]

If it is just about safety, the environemnt and fuel consumption, why not make the limit 25? Why not require all people in autos have helmets, 5 point restraints, NASCAR style, custom fitted, carbon-fiber seats, plus a HANS device.... Add in tube steel roll cage in every vehicle and safer barriers on all crash walls....

There hasn't been a study yet showing cars get better fuel consumption over 65....

Fuel economy at steady speeds with selected vehicles was studied in 1973, 1984, and 1997. The most recent study[11] indicates greater fuel efficiency at higher speeds than earlier studies; for example, some vehicles achieve better mileage at 65 than at 45 mph (72 km/h),[11] although not their best economy, such as the 1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass, which has its best economy at 55 mph (29.1 mpg), and gets 2 mpg better economy at 65 than at 45 (25 vs 23 mpg). All cars demonstrated decreasing fuel economy beyond 65 mph (105 km/h), with wind resistance the dominant factor, and may save up to 25% by slowing from 70 mph (110 km/h) to 55 mph (89 km/h).[12] However, the proportion of driving on high speed roadways varies from 4% in Ireland to 41% in Netherlands.

Then make 2 liter 4-clylendar the largest allowable engine....

Cars got bigger, faster and stronger than they should be allowed to be. I will agree with that. There's no need for cars to have the ability to drive 120 MPH- except automakers don't care about safety, they care about sales...and people often want the fastest- even if it makes the least amount of sense.

[Tiggerlives]

I see that as another form of dictatorship by those who think they know what's best for us "little people".

It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It's about what's best for the environment and for our children's grandchildren. Not us. Us is shortsighted.

[club33az]

It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It's about what's best for the environment and for our children's grandchildren. Not us. Us is shortsighted.

It's about what the people want. You. Me. LB. WW. Everyone. That's the society we live in.

[Lacrosse Boy]

Cars got bigger, faster and stronger than they should be allowed to be. I will agree with that. There's no need for cars to have the ability to drive 120 MPH- except automakers don't care about safety, they care about sales...and people often want the fastest- even if it makes the least amount of sense.

Than they should be allowed to be? Who made you the judge of how fast, large, and strong a car should be? It may be your opinion that someone's car is too fast, but it's not right for you to dictate what they can buy because you think you know better. That's extremely elitist. If someone wants to drive a Jag -- fine. I don't have to like it, but you'll never hear me argue that the vehicle shouldn't have been allowed on the road because it's "too powerful". Freedom of choice, I say.

Once again, check out the Autobahn and how it operates, and the top-quality cars that are on it, going at average 81 MPH - and a lot faster! You do know, don't you, that Germany manufactures the best machinery in the world?

And are you going to stubbornly refuse to believe speed is NOT the problem, despite all evidence to the contrary? You've pretty much just crumbled your arguments about speeding into dust when I presented the statistics about the Autobahn and came back with a post about government-regulated fuel consumptions standards. Okay...

Would you just be happier if the gubernment turned GM into the new Trabant? It's only in places where government is involved that you'd get something like a Trabant. Just look at Communist East Germany.

[club33az]

Cars got bigger, faster and stronger than they should be allowed to be. I will agree with that. There's no need for cars to have the ability to drive 120 MPH- except automakers don't care about safety, they care about sales...

And who makes the sales possible? The American public. This issue over need vs. want is not something the government should be making laws about and becoming involved in. Not in a free society.

[WrongWay]

It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It's about what's best for the environment and for our children's grandchildren. Not us. Us is shortsighted.

Even if the U.S. put a $100 a barrel tax on oil, it wouldn't do a bit of good for the environment. We'd use less, drive down the price, then places like China, India and other countries would just use more.

One way or another, the countries with oil under their ground ARE going to suck that oil out of the ground and sell it to nations that will use it.

This is what is so lame about the "cap and trade" being proposed. We increase the cost of business to U.S. companies by forcing them to buy carbon credits. We then dig out coal out of the ground, put it on a ship to China, where it gets burned in a more poluting power plant that doesn't have sulfer scrubbers and where they are not operating under "cap and trade" system.

Companies actully get PAID to offshore their jobs since they can sell the carbon credits from the plant they no longer have in the U.S. while not having to buy credits for their plant in China.


That said, I'm very much in favor of an tax on imported oil since that is a MAJOR hole in our trade deficit.

[club33az]

I agree on the tax on the imported oil, but I think it needs to be done over time. Two reasons. It prevents gas prices from skyrocketing overnight and allows the US time to become less dependant on it.