Calif. Lawmaker Proposes Lower Speed Limit

Full story: NBC San Diego 35
California's newest member of Congress is proposing a new national speed limit of 60 mph. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Mike

United States

#1 Jul 10, 2008
Another idiotic proposal that wont affect the issue of the country.

Why isn't she putting a proposal to require all new building construction to generate 50% of its own power?

Why isn't she proposing increased costs to own and operate a car to change behavior to move people out of cars onto mass transit

Why isn't she proposing a new bill to infuse billions to build mass transit systems.

Why isn't she promoting conservation?

Why isn't she proposing having gas mileage standards on cars sold in CA to be 50 mpg or more?

And they wonder why the electorate thinks their idiots. Short-sighted ness does not move a society forward.
paul felenczak

Beaumont, CA

#2 Jul 10, 2008
The short answer to all your questions is because she's a liberal. She doesn't realize that by going slower it takes longer to get to where you're going so you're basically burning the same amount of fuel.
rebar

La Puente, CA

#3 Jul 10, 2008
HOW CAN DRIVING 60 MPH LOWER THE COST OF GAS ARE THE A**HOLES IN SACRAMENTO THAT STUPID OR THEY THINK WE ARE

“Brutally honest”

Since: Jun 08

Redlands

#4 Jul 10, 2008
dont fix what isnt broke, folks.
Anthony

Trenton, NJ

#5 Jul 10, 2008
Nooooooooooooo don't do it! I'd rather pay $5 a gallon than to have a slower speed limit.
rebar

La Puente, CA

#6 Jul 10, 2008
Jackie is what I call an educated idiot. Please explain how driving slower will bring down the COST of gas. Is there a shortage like befor. Jackie its not about MPG its the cost.

Since: Jul 08

Oakland, CA

#7 Jul 10, 2008
paul felenczak wrote:
The short answer to all your questions is because she's a liberal. She doesn't realize that by going slower it takes longer to get to where you're going so you're basically burning the same amount of fuel.
OMG!! Not a liberal! Hurry! Hide your children!(Sheesh)

BTW: Your miles per gallon do decrease the faster you go, but the difference between 60 and 65 mph is negligible.
David

San Diego, CA

#8 Jul 10, 2008
Take the $100,000,000 plus that it will cost to change all the speed limit signs in the country and put it towards the gas tax and lower the cost that way. Sounds more like a speed trap. Just like caltrans putting up *call ### for traffic info* on the lighted signs (I94) just three days after putting the hands free law into place. Cell phone trap. Yes they did read *HANDS FREE ITS THE LAW* for a couple of days, but we know california and what they're doing! Not to mention the CHP waiting at Euclid right after you pass the sign!
David

Oceanside, CA

#9 Jul 10, 2008
This is ridicoulus (im a horrible speller) the amount of gas we will save from going slower we will still use in the amount of time it takes to get there in essence putting more pollution in the air. So what gives, you people that dont think stuff through or you tree huggers?
xX619Xx

San Diego, CA

#10 Jul 11, 2008
David wrote:
This is ridicoulus (im a horrible speller) the amount of gas we will save from going slower we will still use in the amount of time it takes to get there in essence putting more pollution in the air. So what gives, you people that dont think stuff through or you tree huggers?
Keep the name David, I have more!
xX619Xx

San Diego, CA

#11 Jul 11, 2008
You can still be my impostor though. You know what they say, it's flatteringly terrific.
paul felenczak

Beaumont, CA

#12 Jul 11, 2008
Raelalt wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG!! Not a liberal! Hurry! Hide your children!(Sheesh)
BTW: Your miles per gallon do decrease the faster you go, but the difference between 60 and 65 mph is negligible.
My point exactly !!!

Since: Jul 08

Oakland, CA

#13 Jul 11, 2008
David wrote:
This is ridicoulus (im a horrible speller) the amount of gas we will save from going slower we will still use in the amount of time it takes to get there in essence putting more pollution in the air. So what gives, you people that dont think stuff through or you tree huggers?
While you are checking the dictionary for your spelling maybe you should check out the definition for "miles-per-gallon". It is not to hard to figure out that distance traveled is taken into account.

Tree-hugger?? So people still use that term. Fascinating. Damn beatniks.
xX619Xx

San Diego, CA

#14 Jul 11, 2008
Raelalt wrote:
<quoted text>
While you are checking the dictionary for your spelling maybe you should check out the definition for "miles-per-gallon". It is not to hard to figure out that distance traveled is taken into account.
Tree-hugger?? So people still use that term. Fascinating. Damn beatniks.
If you were able to read, you would know I have an impostor! You may now shut up RETARD!!
Carter

Johnson City, TN

#15 Jul 11, 2008
It will not matter what the speed limit is dropped down to, no one in Calif. will pay any attention. They will still drive what ever speed they want to drive, same a everyone else.

Designers need to make a car that will get at lease 40mpg to go along with the $4.oo per gal.
xX619Xx

San Diego, CA

#16 Jul 11, 2008
Carter wrote:
It will not matter what the speed limit is dropped down to, no one in Calif. will pay any attention. They will still drive what ever speed they want to drive, same a everyone else.
Designers need to make a car that will get at lease 40mpg to go along with the $4.oo per gal.
I agree 99%. The problem is the 1%. That part of me says as soon as speed limits go down, fines go up. It sucks when a moron of congress does this because it's on a national level. For those going to Vegas at 60mph will suck. Hell you can't wait to get there then you can't wait to get home. < on some trips...How about cross country trips. Ad the cost of an extra night or two or even three for eats and lodging. SHE MUST BE THE ONE WE ALL HONK AT!!!
xX619Xx

San Diego, CA

#17 Jul 11, 2008
Carter wrote:
It will not matter what the speed limit is dropped down to, no one in Calif. will pay any attention. They will still drive what ever speed they want to drive, same a everyone else.
Designers need to make a car that will get at lease 40mpg to go along with the $4.oo per gal.
ok 2 more things. Make more fuel efficient trucks and suvs. And I don't get why the govenment doesn't do something about this when they buy fuel too. I know they tax it and get it cheaper because of quantity, but they still buy it.
Bike Rider

San Jose, CA

#18 Jul 11, 2008
I don't see any difference between 65 and 70 on the bike mileage wise. It's always around 62 MPG. With overdrive in modern cars these days I think if people aired up the tires to max they would see a better improvement than driving a couple miles an hour slower. Oh and time is money and free time is fun but time on the road is a waste ether way!
Provocateur

Half Moon Bay, CA

#19 Jul 12, 2008
There are so many other things we can do lots of great Ideas on this thread, Mass transit city centers town squares less urbain sprawl, open all our roads to all traffic. I get 115 mpg but only go 40 mph give me more roads to drive on. Make real bike lanes that keeps those types of traffic safer on our roads.
Lots of countries have very wide roads and most are just dirt and everybody is on them pedestrians, semis, donkey carts, rickshaws, scooters, bikes and cars.
xX619Xx

San Diego, CA

#20 Jul 12, 2008
Bike Rider wrote:
I don't see any difference between 65 and 70 on the bike mileage wise. It's always around 62 MPG. With overdrive in modern cars these days I think if people aired up the tires to max they would see a better improvement than driving a couple miles an hour slower. Oh and time is money and free time is fun but time on the road is a waste ether way!
The more air you have in the tire the less tread on the road. This is bad for both braking and traction. Not to mention the tires will ware in the middle and increase you chance of a blow out when hitting potholes or debris, causing you to replace your tires more often. I thought the Ford/Firestone rollovers would open the eyes of people when it comes to tire pressure. I guess not everyone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tom Lantos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cutting edge Calif. tunnels poised to open (Feb '13) Feb '13 idiots united 3
U.S.-Russia Trade Relations Linked to Human Rights (Nov '12) Nov '12 dognes 6
Gingrich became House speaker after the GOP wav... (Jun '12) Jun '12 Sheik Yerbouti 4
Nancy Pelosi (Feb '12) Feb '12 scout 3
Tom Lantos (Nov '11) Nov '11 Hungarian-American 3
Clinton pushing human rights on 4-day Europe trip (Jun '11) Jun '11 Eleanor 14
Clinton heading to Europe to promote human rights (Jun '11) Jun '11 LOL 30

Tom Lantos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE