Michigan pondering lower speed limits to reduce consumption?

[Vater Araignee]

I have no quarrel with your data about lower speeds equaling lower consumption Troy... I've kept pretty good track of mine for a couple years now. I think the 27% number is a bit generous. I'd call it more like 10%. But, I want the choice to go a little faster if needed. Let the consumption question sort itself out via gas prices. Those that can afford it will burn more, those that want to save will slow down. The vast majority can't afford to burn it like they used to... they'll make adjustments.

You are closest without going over Turbo but I must point out that those that can afford to waist and do waist will inevitably be instrumental in causing further price increases for those of us who can not.

The simple financial truth is, if less is being sold then they have three choices

1. Raise the prices which will start causing a cascade forcing ever increasing income brackets to consume less causing prices to be raised to make up profit losses. I do coke so I can work more to make more money so I can do more coke.
2. Decrease consumer cost so they can sell more and maintain the dollar per quarter level. While they ween us towards alternative fuels.
3. Run at break neck speeds to develop alternative fuels supplies and vehicles and eat the profit losses for about a decade because the lower half wont be able to afford a new alt fuel vehicles.

Unfortunately most of those old money fools not only think inside the box but they don't get any where near the sides so we have to pray that people like that dumb cunt make the right decisions for the wrong reasons. We all know by now she cunt make the correct ones for the right reasons.

[Msterbeau]

You are closest without going over Turbo but I must point out that those that can afford to waist and do waist will inevitably be instrumental in causing further price increases for those of us who can not.

The simple financial truth is, if less is being sold then they have three choices

1. Raise the prices which will start causing a cascade forcing ever increasing income brackets to consume less causing prices to be raised to make up profit losses. I do coke so I can work more to make more money so I can do more coke.
2. Decrease consumer cost so they can sell more and maintain the dollar per quarter level. While they ween us towards alternative fuels.
3. Run at break neck speeds to develop alternative fuels supplies and vehicles and eat the profit losses for about a decade because the lower half wont be able to afford a new alt fuel vehicles.

Unfortunately most of those old money fools not only think inside the box but they don't get any where near the sides so we have to pray that people like that dumb cunt make the right decisions for the wrong reasons. We all know by now she cunt make the correct ones for the right reasons.

No matter what, we'll start using less, which I totally advocate. If gas prices don't do it, the latest CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rules will. Remember too, that the cost will climb not only because they sell less, but because there IS less. We're using it up. People should be able to go a reasonable and efficient speed, not a mind-numbingly slow one... we can more then make up the difference in fuel consumption by buying fuel efficient cars, not giant gas hogs. And many will drive slower anyways, because they want to conserve. Hopefully in the next twenty years we will have figured out a reasonable alternative to power our vehicles.

[Nienna]

I've noticed more lives lost by people not paying attention to what they were doing because of cell phones, reading, being drunk, etc in town than because of going too fast on the highways. So I support Marc's suggestion. They should, however, make the speed limits closer to the same for semis as well as cars. Seen too many instances where a car misjudged the distance of a truck coming up so he could pass someone else and end up about rear-ending the semi. The slower a truck is supposed to go with a faster car speed limit, the better the chance of a serious accident occurring. That is why a lot of states have a flat speed limit for everyone whether it be Kentucky's 65 mph, or Arizona/New Mexico's 75 mph.

I agree here. Often it feels like semis are like huge, slow moving obstacles.

They don't count on us having our wits about..they think we are lured by the carrot.

Anyone who's not MAD AS HELL right now about what our country's become, will be the FIRST to fall.

I'll be out in the streets, beating on my biggest roasting pan, calling the people "To Arms!!"

Watch me.

This totally gave me a "Tale of Two Cities" flashback. Gee thanks! ;P

[Vater Araignee]

No matter what, we'll start using less, which I totally advocate. If gas prices don't do it, the latest CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rules will. Remember too, that the cost will climb not only because they sell less, but because there IS less. We're using it up. People should be able to go a reasonable and efficient speed, not a mind-numbingly slow one... we can more then make up the difference in fuel consumption by buying fuel efficient cars, not giant gas hogs. And many will drive slower anyways, because they want to conserve. Hopefully in the next twenty years we will have figured out a reasonable alternative to power our vehicles.

True but I would rather see no. 2 happen because I cant afford 1 or 3 and that means taking legal action. Because taking legal action against the corporations typically means that they will still get great profits if they just keep paying fines because the politicians are tied into them, that means legal actions have to be taken to the consumer level so it will hit the corporations in the pocket big time by reducing consumer spending. Yup they gotta unintentionally shoot themselves in the foot.

Personally I don't care if she lowers or raises the maximum speed limit, I want the minimum lowered. I tried using the service drives so I could go slower but all the stops actually increased my consumption to the point that I may as well get on the e-way and do that frelling 55 minimum.

[Msterbeau]

True but I would rather see no. 2 happen because I cant afford 1 or 3 and that means taking legal action. Because taking legal action against the corporations typically means that they will still get great profits if they just keep paying fines because the politicians are tied into them, that means legal actions have to be taken to the consumer level so it will hit the corporations in the pocket big time by reducing consumer spending. Yup they gotta unintentionally shoot themselves in the foot.

Personally I don't care if she lowers or raises the maximum speed limit, I want the minimum lowered. I tried using the service drives so I could go slower but all the stops actually increased my consumption to the point that I may as well get on the e-way and do that frelling 55 minimum.

Minimum is 45, isn't it? The thing about going that slow, if there's a decent amount of traffic, you become a significantly higher safety risk. Large speed differentials will do that.

[Vater Araignee]

Minimum is 45, isn't it? The thing about going that slow, if there's a decent amount of traffic, you become a significantly higher safety risk. Large speed differentials will do that.

The minimum is 55.

The far right hand lane is suppose to be for the slower speeds. In that one lane if you are doing the minimum and a cop gives you an Impeding ticket, not only will it be thrown out but you are entitled to sue the cop for any losses resulting from fighting the ticket. Wouldn't it be funny if you mentioned in court you where doing the minimum to save gas and then sued the cop because of the gas you had to buy to come to court?

On 96 or 23, if I tried to reduce the speed differential so that I was within 15 mph of the average speed I would have to do about 70 mph because the average asshole is going over 80. I'll bet they are the same cumwads that do 20 in a 45 because of an 1/4 inch of snow causing a mile long backup.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I'm not waiting for the state to tell me the same thing that common sense does. I've already backed off to driving 65 on the freeways and speed limit (or a bit under when possible) on the surface streets. I'm already seeing the $aving$.

[Msterbeau]

The minimum is 55.

The far right hand lane is suppose to be for the slower speeds. In that one lane if you are doing the minimum and a cop gives you an Impeding ticket, not only will it be thrown out but you are entitled to sue the cop for any losses resulting from fighting the ticket. Wouldn't it be funny if you mentioned in court you where doing the minimum to save gas and then sued the cop because of the gas you had to buy to come to court?

On 96 or 23, if I tried to reduce the speed differential so that I was within 15 mph of the average speed I would have to do about 70 mph because the average asshole is going over 80. I'll bet they are the same cumwads that do 20 in a 45 because of an 1/4 inch of snow causing a mile long backup.

Hmmm.. Wonder when it changed to 55? It was 45 for many, many years.

I choose to go slower for gas mileage (And not getting tickets) these days. Since well before the current prices, in fact. However, You're the one I'd be calling the asshole for going far slower then normal. I have no quarrel with you saving gas, but don't get on other people's case for wanting to be more efficient with time, or just plain enjoying driving more quickly. Personally, I fall asleep at the wheel going much less then 65.

And don't get me started about people's lack of driving skills.

[creatureofthenyte]

I think if people want to drive alittle slower to save gas, thats ok.

I think if people drove at the speed limit on the road, that would save too.

However I am against the decision made by some people to drive soo slow that they become an impedance to the flow of traffic.

I have from time to time, been on inner city roads out here, where there is a 35 mph speed zone, and I have gotten stuck behind someone doing 20mph in that 35 mph zone. <--that is what pisses me off.

On the highway though, It really doesn't bother me if someone chooses to drive slow, because that is what the passing lanes are there for; my turn signal and gas pedal work quite well.

[Msterbeau]

I think if people want to drive alittle slower to save gas, thats ok.

I think if people drove at the speed limit on the road, that would save too.

However I am against the decision made by some people to drive soo slow that they become an impedance to the flow of traffic.

I have from time to time, been on inner city roads out here, where there is a 35 mph speed zone, and I have gotten stuck behind someone doing 20mph in that 35 mph zone. <--that is what pisses me off.

On the highway though, It really doesn't bother me if someone chooses to drive slow, because that is what the passing lanes are there for; my turn signal and gas pedal work quite well.

Large speed differentials are dangerous and disruptive to traffic. Some people need to slow down a bit... and a few should really speed up. I'm assuming that's why the minimum speed went up.