Nearly 80% Of Drivers Oppose 55 MPH National Speed Limit

According a recent US News & World Report poll, there is strong opposition to any law that would mandate a 55 MPH national speed limit.

Fuel savings is the main argument used by the supporters of a return to a national speed limit, but it’s an argument that clearly isn’t convincing very many people.

NMA President James Baxter had this to say on the topic:

If this country was serious about significantly reducing motor fuel consumption, it could start by redeploying the money being wasted on ticket-writing campaigns, laser guns, stealth cruisers, ticket cameras, and related wages and invest the savings in strategies to better move traffic in urban and suburban environments, where most fuel consumption actually occurs.

There are huge savings to be realized by simply synchronizing and coordinating traffic signal systems. Cities that have started this process are not only reaping benefits like reduced fuel use, they are also realizing improved air quality, significantly faster commute times, far less congestion, and less wear and tear on vehicles.

Removing obstacles to smooth traffic flow, including most stop signs and traffic “calming” devices, and scrapping other strategies intended to interrupt and disrupt traffic would dramatically improve fuel economy for the entire vehicle fleet.

You can read the rest of James Baxter’s article on why a 55 MPH national speed limit is unenforceable and counterproductive at the US News & World Report website.

Not an NMA Member yet?

Join today and get these great benefits!

Leave a Comment

66 Responses to “Nearly 80% Of Drivers Oppose 55 MPH National Speed Limit”

  1. John C. Randolph says:

    Since nobody's pointed it out yet, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to impose a speed limit (or any other traffic rules) on the states.

    The commerce clause exists to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers against each other, not to provide the federal government with a pretext to overstep the 17 enumerated powers it's given in the constitution.


    • Rich says:

      Unfortunately, there is also no constitutional right provided to the states to allow them to receive federal highway funding. The Supreme Court held that this is the element that allowed the old NMSL law. States are free to ignore federal mandates of that sort if they want, but they lose out on any federal highway funding while they're in "violation." Hence why they inevitably fall into compliance with what the feds want.

    • JJ says:

      How then did President Nixon's executive order authorizing the 55mph limit become law?

      The person starting this return to 55mph nonsense is the founder of the 55org foundation. His name is listed in the US News article.

    • Randall says:

      Yeah it's strictly extortion as far as I'm concerned. Pass this law or you don't get highway funds. That's how the drinking age was raised to 21.

      Any state that didn't raise the age to 21 would lose highway funds.

    • TONY RICH says:

      The executive order that President Nixon signed was for 50mph congress sent a bill to his desk on January 2 1974 for 55mph then on January 3 1975 they passed a law makeing the law indefinate because it was set to expire in mid 1975 then in May of 1975 Senator Bob Dole sponsored a bill bumping the national speed limit up to 60mph but it did not go any whare.

  2. John Childress says:

    What's interesting of course is the absolute lack of anything here. Who in Congress is suggesting this? Is there a bill mentioning it? Or is this more pointless hyperbole about a non-issue, created to get people riled up about something no one is talking about?

    How about a pole about whether kittens should be taught to fly? Serves about the same purpse.

  3. chris says:

    In the words of Homer Simpson, "Sure it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!"

    • southernboy says:

      No proof exists that it would save one life . But tons of data is out there that proves it would cost lives …………….

    • Randy says:

      Yes Southernboy if we get back to gas lines and shortages and you are the one that does not comply with the lower fuel saving speeds it may cost your life because someone that is usually sitting in gas lines would blow you away.

  4. Kim says:

    Forget synchronized lights and all that nonsense. This is not about saving gas AT ALL. If they were interested in saving gas, they would increase taxes on gas so it became more expensive and people would have no other choice but to drive less and drive slower to get better mileage. This is 100% about states being able to collect more money in speeding tickets because on most highways 55mph is mind-numbingly slow and almost everyone is doing well above that.

    • Randy says:

      Kim your ignorance along with others is very high. You are right though that increasing gas taxes would cut back on consumption. Look what happened when gas price went up last year. Everyone was looking for fuel efficient vehicles. Now that gas price is lower again many but not all seem to forget the higher prices and slowly go back to less efficient vehicles.

      This is not all about the government collecting money for tickets and that is stupid. If you are dumb enough to drive 25 mph over the limit they will take your money. If you drive the limit or close to it then guess what? No tickets. Nada. Stupid people do not realize that. Speed limits now are high enough you do not have to drive 20 mph over the limit like some do. Are you the stupid person that drives way over the limit and then complains about a ticket being all about the money hungry government? Are you like Randall and have to drive 10 mph over the limit or more in school zones?

  5. Voltara says:

    Given the state of our democracy it is almost certain now to become law

    • George says:

      Corrupt, illegitimate, criminal, all of the above?

    • TONY RICH says:

      Except this time it will cost them one year before the NMSL was repealed congress passed another law about unfunded mandates it says that if the federal government imposes mandates on the states it has to pay for them or a state does not have to impose it.this means that the federal government will have to pay for it this time around they are running a record deficit and cannot afford it.

  6. JJ says:

    I don't see 20% of the vehicles on the road driving 55. In fact, I never see anyone driving that slow.

  7. JJ says:

    The Insurance Institute For Highway "Safety" (IIHS) is also pushing for a return to 55.

  8. Randy says:

    John Childress this site is not about common sense or what the goverment is doing but it is about finding anything that they can get the people mad enough to donate to membership. There are very very few facts here. Yes it sounds good to find a reason about complaining about the government wanting to go to 55 mph to extort more money from people but it is not even being discussed. Like you say they should be pushing for kittens to be taught to fly. Now if gas price would go back up over $5.00 in the next few years and there becoming gas lines then there may be a push to a lot lower limit than the 80 mph in some areas because it does save a lot of fuel driving slower.

  9. TONY RICH says:

    If you use 50% more gas by driveing 75mph as opposed to 55mph like the EPA says then raiseing the speed limit would be a hidden tax increase.states would make more money from the motor fuel tax if they raised the speed limit then from writeing tickets by keeping the speed limit low the state police could not write that many tickets.the only states that raised the speed limit are the real wide open western states almost every state would have raised the speed limit if this was the case.

    • JJ says:

      Driving 75 does NOT use more gas than driving 55. In fact, some vehicles get better mileage at 75.

    • George says:

      Driving 75 should use more gas than 55.
      Some people are short changed on the high end, because their vehicles are lacking systems to operate efficiently {Randy and his 5 speed stick Focus, with no VVT or EGR}
      Some people are short changed on the low end because of torque converter lockup clutches that do not lock up to about 60mph (on old vehicles) and EGR systems that also don't operate at 'transient' speeds (40-60mph)
      If I can get 40mpg @ 50mph, 30mpg@75, and 20mpg@100 [all windows up, no AC], then yeah it cost me more to move quickly, but it also benefits the states' coffers.

    • Randy says:

      Yes George I will beat you any day of the year on mpg with my Focus compared to your car. I can beat you in mpg at any speed you want to travel. If your car is so superior than why such poor mileage? 40 mpg at 50 mph and 30 mpg at 75 mph is terrible mileage. You are again being your ignorant self.

      My car gets at least 15% better mileage at any speed. You need to get a good engine. By the way get used to those red rear turn signals because the Ford Focus was the number one car sold on the cash for Clunkers program. They probably traded in Nissans.

    • Randy says:

      George I can average about 40 mpg combined driving with the air on but what can I ask is your average mpg?

    • George says:

      I am sorry my vehicle is older than yours, weighs about 1000lbs more, is not an econobox, and have more than one liter more displacement (and two more cylinders)

      I think it was the Toyota Corolla.
      and for you imaginary memory, I do not own a Nissan..

      As far as I am concerned, you don't actually drive, you just meander from place to place.

      Right now my mileage has been below average, but I am trying to enjoy some of the good days [meaning, full throttle] before the american empire collapses.

    • Randy says:

      Good George. I hope you are donating a lot to our government and my insurance company while you are practicing your full throttle.

      Why was you quoting your high MPG in your estimation anyway if you never drive the way you quoted to get the unimpressive mpgs.

      Only 30 mpg at 75 mph? You got to be kidding if you think that is good.

      JJ is delusional if he thinks he can get better mpg at 75 than 50 or 55.

    • Randy says:

      Sorry George you were the one that was talking about the Nissan Altma and saying how good a car it was because it carried a full sized spare. I guess you must not have one after all and are just envious of a car that can carry a full sized spare and that has yellow rear turn signals and hope to have one.

    • George says:

      Not insurance or the government, only the gas station.

      I think that 30mpg@75 is good for a full size vehicle that is using old technology. (and remember that is E10 Illinois gasoline)
      35mpg@75 would be better. 30mpg@90mph would be nice.

      I never said I owned an Altima. You do not have reading comprehension, or long term recall.

    • Randy says:

      George talk about not being able to read. Here is my statement right above yours:

      "I guess you must not have one after all and are just envious of a car that can carry a full sized spare and that has yellow rear turn signals and hope to have one."

      As for good mileage with old technology, since you said my car had bad old technology, how come I can average 40 mpg with it and there are few if any of your newer technology gasoline cars that can? I can easily follow any speed limits in existence in the US.

      As for your need for speed, that is ridiculous and lame. I race snow skiing and have been timed at over 50 mph and know I have been fast and do high speed turns. A car is lame compared to that unless maybe it is a true racing car on a race track.

  10. Fahrenfreude says:

    Regarding the timing of traffic signals: I have a theory about the city where I live. Imagine a basement in City Hall…there's a long, dark corridor. At the end, there's a door. As you approach this door, marked "Signal Timing Room" there's a bunch of strange noises emanating from it. As you open the door, you see…oh, no…say it isn't so…a room full of monkeys pressing buttons.

    In other news…

    Randy, you are a babe in the woods regarding speed limits. SL's are set artificially low in many communities for the express purpose of increasing revenue. This in addition to the fact that our interstates are designed to make speeds well above the posted limit completely safe to drive. In one city, where irrationally low speed limits had whipped up many incidents of road rage and a high number of accidents on a beltline expressway, they finally made the decision to raise the limit. Even the state troopers acknowledged that the change had dramitically lowered incidents of road rage as well as accidents.

    There are also lots of people who have been ticketed for just a couple miles over the limit. If you drive the wrong kind of car, or are driving when they need to finish getting their quotas, or even if they are just in a bad mood, you are toast unless you run with a RD. And have you even read the sections here about speed cameras? You don't need to trust just this site! Read your local news, national news or anything online about this. Many municipalities are struggling and willing to do almost anything to increase revenue.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude since you say there are many people given tickets for 2 miles over the limit then give me two names or have them come on here. It just does not happen. If you and others want to keep promoting your cause of the government out to get you then I have no way of stopping that. Keep telling your lies.
      As far as the road rage goes, if the limits were enforced more or people followed them there would not be any road rage. The road rage happens when someone thinks they have the right to go over the limit as much as they like and if somone gets in their way they get close to pulling out a gun.

  11. Fahrenfreude says:

    Sorry, Randy. Road Rage happens because there are far too many people out there who are willing to disobey EVERY SINGLE OTHER TRAFFIC LAW out there except the speed limit. They'll pull out in front of you, fail to yield right of way, stay in the passing lane when they should move over…the list goes on. And speaking of lies, let's talk about all those manufactured statistics that purport that higher speeds cause more accidents. Traffic flow is infinitely better since they raised the SL's and deaths have gone down. Just read articles, it's all out there.

    If self-righteous people like you would just educate yourselves about these matters, driving would be a great deal safer and more enjoyable than it is. I'll bet you speed up when people pass you too, eh? So, stow your herdly attitude, move over and moo along in the right lane.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude I can not help your ignorance. Road rage is caused by people that do not want anyone get in their way. Yes cutting them off may be one of them but driving the speed limit in front of someone even in a middle lane or on a roadway a mile from town also does. They come up inches from your rear end and it goes on and on. Your figures are not very good either. You all say that deaths are down since limits have increased. In the past we have not had shoulder belts, front and side airbags, more enforcement and checks for DUI , antilock breaks and stricter crash testing and laws about seat belts and child restraints. You all forget about all of those and leave them out because it hurts any positive numbers that you have if there are any other reasons why deaths would be down.

      If the speed limits were enforced better whether it was 55 mph or 65 mph or whatever there would be far less accidents. It goes back to a conversation I had with another guy on here. He admitted that he and others went well over the speed limit in his area and also admitted that there were many accidents. He blamed it on bad road design rather than him and others not driving the speed limit set for that road design. I also had discussions about raising speed limits and others saying that the average speed dropped. That does not take much intelligence to figure that out. They usually enforce the new speed zones a lot particularly at first and with more people driving the same speed there are less accidents..

      Fahrenfreude until you educate yourself on the facts rather than the facts that are put on this site and others that do not give all the reasons behind the facts then any facts that are put out here are irrelevant.

      Another thing you say is that driving over the speed limits does not cause problems but all the other laws that are broke cause the problem. Well if you and others say it is ok to speed, others say it is also ok to drink and drive or do the cell phone texting or whatever because laws do not mean anything because you said it is ok to break all laws.

      As for moving over to the right lane and so that you can break the law and cause accidents and other problems I say move over to the ditch and drive as fast as you like. If someone passes me I let them pass, I do not speed up. I learned a few years ago that it is more safe and fuel efficient to leave home 5 minutes early and drive the speed limit. I have been passed by people on two lane roadways even on curves and I time time them where they beat me in town by 5 to 10 seconds. Who are the ignorant people I ask? You say speed does not matter. They are 20 times more likely to be in an accident than I am. By the way the time that I have been passed are not times where someone would be late for work or any other appointment.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude, by the way where are those two people that I asked names for that recieved speeding tickets for 2 miles per hour over the limit or are you off to telling other lies. Another thing I left our is that deaths did go up in midwest states that raised limits and it is a large percentage increase and well above increased driving miles.

    • Fahrenfreude says:

      Oh, I get it, Randy. You just come on this forum to pick fights. That explains everything. And judging from your high and mighty tone you are one of those people who just can't stand it when people don't agree.

      You said it yourself: "Fahrenfreude until you educate yourself on the facts rather than the facts that are put on this site…" You mean YOUR facts, not those of the rest of the world. If you're going to just quote your own chapter and verse no matter what reality presents you with, I can't help you and there's no talking to you.

      Here's what I recommend: there's a place where you can go to bash evildoers all you want and indulge your self-righteous nature. It's called Church. Go hang out there and leave us drivers alone. But my guess is they won't want to play with you any more than we do.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude tell me one statement where I was wrong. I guess you think it is ok to make things up. How about those thousands of people that you say that get tickets for 2 miles per hour over the limit or how al the increased speeds are safer and less deadly than slower speeds are. Yes am willing to pick a fight if others are making things up. You should go to church. I do not think they would like people making things up the way you do.

      By the way I have not seen any of the names of people that got tickets for 2 miles over the limit.

    • Fahrenfreude says:


      So where are your statistics? You can't disprove the statistics on this site, can you? I've already named all the points on which you are wrong and misguided. It's absurd to ask others for something you can't, yourself, provide. You just come on this site to tell your own lies and pick fights. Admit it so we can all get back to the very serious business of discussing how to make travel on our nations roads safer and more rational.

    • Fahrenfreude says:

      From various sources on the net:

      "Peterson agreed with the premise that the media's sensationalistic reporting on road rage is totally disproportionate to the reality." Peterson is the chairman of a Michigan State Police committee on driver behavior, so he studies the issue closely.

      "We find that aggressive driving is not normally the result of distracted drivers," said Peterson. "It is usually the result of some environmental or engineering issue related to the physical roads where aggressive driving occurs."
      Peterson stated and presented data to support that major contributors to aggressive driving include: speed limits that are too low for the road, traffic congestion, poorly timed traffic lights, and stop signs placed to lower speeds. These act as instigators to drivers speeding, changing lanes, and tailgating; all characteristics of "aggressive" driving.

      Peterson explained that changes made to roadways where aggressive driving occurs reduce incidents of aggressive driving. As proof, Peterson pointed to changes made on a section of I-496 outside of Lansing, Michigan. At one point, this road accounted for 40-percent of reported incidents of aggressive driving within a particular county. When the speed limit was raised from 55 mph to 70 mph, incidents of aggressive driving dropped to zero.

      "The low speed limit frustrated many drivers, so they drove over the speed limit," said Peterson. "This caused problems for other drivers who were driving at the speed limit. The speed differential caused the tailgating, passing, and speeding that were reported as 'aggressive' driving."

      Data proved that accident rates also fell when the speed limit was raised on that section of highway. Surprisingly, the faster limit increased traffic volume, nearly eliminating all symptoms of rush hour traffic."

      "For a great understanding of speed traps, get a copy of "A Speeder's Guide to Avoiding Tickets" by Sgt. James M. Eagan, NYSP (Ret.). The writer was a NY state trooper that spent his career handing out tickets. It's an eye opener for those who say, "Just obey the law…". The truth is that speeding tickets are a huge source of revenue and the government goes to great length to keep that money coming in. Safety is barely a consideration at all.

      Don't flame me, you snails driving 5 mph below the limit or you Kool-aide drinking cops spouting the party line. Read the book."

      "My brother-in-law is an officer, and he regularly pulls people over for 1-2 mph over."

      "Depends on the City and the Officer. The state patrol surly does not allow much if any. The officers in the City of Columbus, it is usually 10 Miles over again depends on the officer. The county, not much maybe 5Miles over. The small cities forget it , you will get a ticket, when going over three miles a hour. So be careful and keep a eye open"

      "I think that you will find that local police depts/officers are much less tolorent when it comes to exceeding the speed limit than state police. In my home town the local gestapho will pop you for 1 mph over. It's their way of filling the community chest!"

      "I live in ohio and it really depends on the police officer, on the interstate most wont pick you up if your only going 7 over but in town they will pick you up for going 3-5 over. at least thats the trend i have seen from my friends and from living in ohio myself."

      "on the expressway here in chicago you can do about 8- 12 over but my uncle got a ticket for doing 3 over just like you , it was a cheap ticket though 35$ i beileve"

      "US Highway 39
      Salley, SC
      Police have unmarked cars and sit in parking spaces and stop cars and trucks for doing two to three miles over posted speed limit."

      "I just spoke to a neighbor who said che received a ticket for going 3 (THREE) miles over the speed limit. It cost her $150.00!!!"

      "77 in a 75 —- YA 77 in a 75, Virginia Trooper picked me out of crowd."

      "47 in a 45 zone when I was in college…yup…that officer had a bad day. No…it wasn't a reduced speed, he showed me the radar reading when he invited me to sit in his car."

      "57 in a 55, 1983, in el paso, tx, in a miserable 1978 or 79 Datsun B210"

      "I understand that that they were giving out tickets for doing 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. Thats how bad it is. Try to avoid the area altogether !"
      District councillor Judy Shardlow said: "On a personal level I am pleased, as I got caught by that camera and I will be getting my money back.

      "I was only going three miles an hour over the limit – I thought it was a bit harsh."

      Anyway, I have too much of an actual life to continue quoting things that you won't believe anway. There's gobs of this stuff out there.

      And Randy, have you ever posted anything factual to dispute the statistics on this site? Anything other than your own twisted, passive-aggressive, angry rhetoric?

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude where are your sources of so many getting tickets for 3 mph over? I say it still does not ever happen. If you know a few policemen that do then have them come on here.

      A $35 ticket in Illinois? Maybe 30 years ago.

      Local police will pull you over for less mph over the limit and the reason is that they almost always cover residential and lower speed highways. It is a little different going 10 mph over the limit on an interstate and 10 mph over the liimit on a 30 mph roadway. I still do not believe anyone ever gets a ticket for 2 or 3 mph over the limit unless the officer decides he wants to stop you to also check for DUI or seat belts and you act in a way that deserves a ticket just for your attitude.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude speed limits do not cause agressive driving period. It is the lack of enforcement that causes agressive driving. Find out how many people are driving agressive in Arizona where the cameras are. I bet there is almost zero agressive driving. There is no agressive driving when you are limited and can not go 20 mph over the limit any more. You set the cruise and go. If you allow drivers to drive however they want then there will be agressive driving. Even in Germany where there is a much higher speed limit they crack down on agressive driving.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude like I said before I can not prevent you and others telling lies. I know the truth. Also if pulling people over is such a huge profit maker then why is it that I can go a couple of months without seeing anyone pulled over and have gone decades without getting a ticket? I am sure there have been many times that I have accidently gone 2 or 3 miles per hour over the limit and I have never got a ticket. I guess I know to drive the speed limit when I am going through small towns because they do have a lower threshhold but others must not be able to do that. That threshold is not 2 mph over the limit though.

    • Fahrenfreude says:

      "I still do not believe anyone ever gets a ticket for 2 or 3 mph over the limit UNLESS the officer decides he wants to stop you to also check for DUI or seat belts and you act in a way that deserves a ticket just for your attitude."

      What you believe is irrelevant, and it looks like you're admitting that I wasn't lying about it but since this information doesn't fit your opinions you have to come up with excuses. I've produced the information you asked for but you still can't accept it. And where is the cop's attitude in all this? He or she is human, after all. I just pulled this information off various sites by googling keywords like "over the limit" and "ticket."

      "Fahrenfreude speed limits do not cause agressive driving period. It is the lack of enforcement that causes agressive driving."

      Did you even read the information I posted? Did you look at the articles? Before you say one more thing you'd better have read it, understood it and have prepared real arguments to refute it. Either that or just say you don't agree and leave it at that. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say "I don't agree with the facts you've presented because I don't want to," but people do it all the time.

      And are you seriously telling me you want me to go find police to testify to what I'm saying? Have you ever provided anyone in your life with the sort of detail I gave you? You'd better learn a bit about how debates are won and lost before you come on these sites and spew your nonsense without anything at all to back it up other than your combative, passive-aggressive attitude.

      "I bet there is almost zero agressive driving."

      You can "bet" and guess all you want, but that doesn't change facts. I drive in the midwest so I don't give a rodent's rear end what happens in Arizona but if you go on "" you'll find plenty of guys there that speed in Arizona routinely. It's a fact, you can verify it, and it's just that simple.

      I've also driven in Germany and all over Europe. Ich spreche fliessend Deutsch und Ich bin sechs Mal in Deutschland gewesen. Und, Ich kann dir sagen, dass….drivers like you would be eaten for breakfast and pooped out on the side of the road. Get a clue before you reference things you know nothing about.

      Seriously, Randy. Give it up. Your argument has been destroyed and it would be best if you wandered off with your tail between your legs. Go learn a few things about actual driving as well as debate. I would say, stay away from this forum but then, there's so much for you to learn here.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude I can not help your ignorance. I was referring to the article on this web site that talks about how the speeding cameras work to slow down traffic. From what I hear your friends will be getting tickets if they drive anywhere that the cameras have been installed. If they do not mind spending a few hundred a day on speeding tickets then they can speed all they like.

      As for my comments on Germany, I was only repeating what your other friends on this site state about the crack down they have for agressive type driving. Don't blame me because I have not driven there. Go argue with them.

      I have not heard from any of your thousands of friends that said they got tickets for 2 mph over the limit. It is very easy to make things up here about some of your hear say statements. We do not know if you are telling the truth and we do not know if your friends are telling the truth but go ahead and keep making things up. Like the one of the $35 ticket in Illinois.

      you also bring up facts from the later 70s about speeding. Do you know that was 30 years ago or more? Back then they did crack down on speeding. I know in the early 80s I got a warning ticket for 3 mph over the limit. Things have let up though a lot since then. Back then at least in the midwest you did not have people driving 20 mph over the limit or even 10 for that matter. people tried to stay within 5 mph of the limit for the most part. I was there.

    • Fahrenfreude says:

      Well, I can't help your ignorance either. I also remember driving in the 70's well and I saw people regulary exceeding the speed limit by 10-15 mph. Were you still suffering the effects of something you smoked in the 60's perhaps? I've offered confirmable information. You're the one who's talking about hearsay. But that's a common mistake in debate. It works in politics but not serious debate: that is to simply say that your opponent is doing what you're already doing but not to offer anything substantive in return.

      The people I referred to in Arizona use radar detectors and laser jammers. They don't recieve tickets that often and some, never.

      Have you ever heard of the straw man argument Randy? It's a logical fallacy where misrepresent your opponentss position and then try to knock it down. The $35 ticket in lllinois is from an older post. You didn't specify what year to provide information from. If anything, that strengthens my case because it establishes a pattern of police revenue gathering going back three decades.

      The information I posted can be googled and confirmed. I don't have the time to do way more work than you are willing to do to prove what is already proven. Remember, just saying I'm lying doesn't disprove anything. It only calls your debate skills into question. It's embarrassing for you.

      And do you have any idea how you just confirmed everything I've been saying? You yourself got a ticket for 3 over. You think that just because it wasn't for 2 over you have proved your point? You've embarrassed yourself. You should stop talking and start thinking more.

    • Randy says:

      Fahrenfreude again I can not help your ignorance. I said I got a warning ticket in the very early 80s. It was a warning not an actual ticket you have to pay. So if you are going back some 30+ years to prove a poiint of what the police do then why not go back 100 years? If you have to go back that far to prove outdated procedures then go for it. It helps promote your lies of the present.
      If you regularly went over the limit by 10 to 15 miles an hour in the late 70s and early 80s in the midwest you would not be driving. They would take your license away from you. I know there were other areas where they drove faster but In illinois and Iowa and Wisconsin you would get a real ticket for 5 mph over.

  12. TONY RICH says:

    What I think is funny is that the entire time we had the 55mph speed limit there was not one suggestion from the lawmakers on capital hill to put governers on all cars,trucks and busses limiting them to a top speed of 55mph what this tells me is that our government secretly wants people to speed.

    • Randy says:

      TONY RICH the government probably would have put governers on all cars if you would have volunteered to do it or pay for it. Are you saying you would? That would probably only cost a few hundred million dollars if not more to do and a few years. I guess you do not think of those very minor details though.

    • TONY RICH says:

      They did not make Ford,GM,AMC,Mopar or any other car company do this during these years they made them put emission control devices on these cars they could have done this just as easy. this is because our government secretly wants us to speed.

    • Randy says:

      Ok TONY RICH so you are going to limit new cars and not older cars? Seems to me that the last I heard was that cars last about 15 years. I guess you have the anwser for that. What if they raise the limit back to 60 from 55. Do you need to take it to the dealer for adjustment?

      A much better thought than installing governors is to shoot a missle at every car over the speed limit. That would reduce the speeding a lot faster than spending years putting governors on.

    • Randy says:

      Tony I left out how long would it have taken the car manufacturers to include the limiters in on the assembly line and what do you do about the cars already at the dealerships? People always come up with simple solutions without thinking about how easy it is to do or the cost.

      Other than the unpracticle side of your suggestion it really makes sense. Maybe in the future such a thing will be implemented with newer technology and computers. Such a thing may be available to change the limiter to the speed limit of the road you are on. How great would that be to not get any more coplaints on this board about the government out to get them with speeding tickets because there no longer would be any.

    • Randy says:

      TONY RICH name me one government official that wants you or other to speed? You guys here are only for an excuse to break the law and complain about someone else.

      What other laws do you promote as being ok to break? I would bet that if you talked to any policeman or department and I would bet that they would say that they would prefer not to have to do anything about speeding tickets but if that were to happen then people like Randall would say it is fine to drive 20 mph over the speed limit in a school zone.

    • JJ says:

      The 55mph speed limit was supposed to be temporary (we were told back in 1974).

    • TONY RICH says:

      The point I was trying to make is that only way you can get people to obay the 55mph speed limit is to put governers on the cars and then outlaw any numbers higher than 55 and then teach our kids in school that 55 is where the numbers stop other wise people will just take the governers off.

    • Randy says:

      TONY RICH you did not read the article about speeding cameras in Arizona. Now that they are up people drive on average within a couple mph of the speed limit of 65. I have not driven there but I would bet it is a lot better driving there. Not very many people dipping and diving through traffic and I would bet a lot less road rage. You would pretty much set your cruise on such roads and do not worry about anything or anyone around you .

  13. Randy says:

    One thing I left out is that if so many police give tickets for 3 mph over the limit then we would not have to pay property tax or federal or state tax because so much money would be coming in no other taxes would be needed. At least until people slowed down which I have not seen. Why is it that they were all able to drive 10 to 15 mph over the limit 30 years ago and all get tickets for 3 mph over now? I think you have your decades switched around. Maybe your 60s drugs never wore off.

  14. George says:

    Randy, you need to learn the difference between rights & privileges.
    Property tax applies to business, not to people. When 'they' send a property tax bill to you, you are supposed to send it right back to them. (please don't conflate this with your municipal bill, that is why they send them together)
    You do not own anyone a tax to retain ownership of something that you already own.
    Extortion is illegal, so why would you accept it, when it is used against you so that you pay for other peoples kids education?

    Haven't you figured that the state of Illinois is a bunch of criminals?

    or the 'income' tax. If the 16th amendment was properly ratified (it wasn't), it only pertains to a tax on the profits of businesses. But guess what? the bunch of criminals at the state/local level don't step on the toes of the bigger criminals federal reserve/IRS, so everything is in order. They are the mafia.

  15. Randy says:

    George I did not understand 90% of what you just said. I do owe property taxes and I am not classified as a business.

    As for State taxes and other things that you say we should not pay if I understand you, who is going to put up roads or take care of elderly and the unemployed and on and on?

  16. Randy says:

    I also do not believe in property taxes because I believe that they may have been the only way to tax a person hundreds of years ago but now we have things like income tax which I believe is the best and most fair way to pay any taxes owed. The reason I do not believe in property tax is that if I decide to spend more of my money on my home or other property then I would get taxed a lot more than someone else making the same income.

    I do believe that taxes are needed though. If you would prefer to not have schools that is your opinion. If you believe we should let others starve or steal to serviive then that is your opinion. If you believe we should not have roads or any public serices then that is your opinion. I just hope that if you feel like that you are not driving on the roads or taking social security or any other public services.

  17. George says:

    Another thing to learn, the difference between legal and lawful.
    The law, as the bunch of criminals who occupy government have written, make it that you OWE 'property taxes'
    You do not. They are not lawful.

    Gas taxes pay for upkeep. [and take a look at the CAFR scam, Bonds/tollway (until paid for, then becomes free highway) [Stop eminent domain abuse. Kelo vs. New London]

    I absolutely did not say we should not have public schools. I just want people to pay for their own children. If parents paid the actual cost of elementary, junior, and senior high school (like 10 grand) then we would not need 'no child left behind' because every parent would demand of their child that the do not screw around in school, and get straight As.
    and if school isn't for their children, then be a tradesmen/woman. Be a journeyman/apprentice.

    'public serices' what the hell did I say about the municipal bill!? Yes I want a garbage pickup, fire/police.

    Regarding 'take care of elderly and the unemployed' the interest on all the money overly-taken and not returned generates interest [CAFR scam], substantial quantities. That can be used to take care of the people who are unable to do so.

    Social security was doomed like ten years ago. Remember those 'budget surpluses', all they did was move money from social security to the general funds account. See Greenspans' testimony in front of a congressional hearing.

    You just don't get it. With all the tyranny, police state, and banker scams (if a bank forecloses, they should refund you all the principal that you have paid out, considering banks 'make' the money out of nothing. They take nothingness and split it into a debit & credit, you spend that credit into the money supply, creating inflation, and the banks package up your promise to repay [the mortgage] and sell it as a financial product,[even as an asset] and then derivative are sold off those!)
    All we want is a last bastion where we can be free, in our vehicle of choice.
    Remember what Kennedy said, man was born to be free and independent!

  18. Fahrenfreude says:

    Straw man, Randy. I never said everyone was getting tickets for a few miles over. I never said that they were all driving 10-15 over. Only that some were. And with radar detectors, they didn't recieve tickets. Deliberately misrepresenting your opponents position is something only politicians and bad lawyers do and only idiots believe it. Youve been busted.

    The data I offered also establishes a pattern as well as completely confirming what I said about the present. Your failure to recognize that either means you have a reading disability, a developmental disability or something even more troubling.

    You have not disproved anything I posted. Confirmable facts. You have to either concede the point or disprove it with actual, confirmable information. You have made no attempt to do either.

    Randy, you are one of those people who would say to someone with a gun, "there are no bullets in that gun!" Then the shooter would fire off a shot and you'd say, "those are blanks." Then he'd shoot something off at a distance and you'd say, "I still don't believe there are bullets in that gun." Then he'd shoot you in the leg, blood would come spurting out and you'd say, "I still don't believe it." Then he'd shoot you in the head, killing you because you're too stupid to live.

    Also, if you think that local or state governments would reduce our taxes because of so much revenue from tickets coming in then you are really even more naive than any of us could have imagined. I dare you to produce even one shred of evidence that they would do this. And the beauty of it is, I could use your tactics and just say I still don't believe it, or I would ignore it, or say "I bet" or "I guess" and propose completely hypothetical nonsense, or any of the other avoidance tactics you use to try to weasel out of any true debate or discussion.

  19. Randy says:

    Fahrenfreude where does all that money go from all the tickets that you say are given out? Is someone pocketing that money? Like I said I can not help your ignorance. You say that our taxes would never be reduced with all the ticket money that you say is brought in. Since most of our government people that make the laws or enforce them make very little and no money from the tickets, where is the money going to go in someones pocket illegally? You tell me where the money is going that you say is a huge amount.

  20. Randy says:

    Yes George I get it. You say we should not pay property taxes. Ok. You must be homeless then. Where I live if you do not pay your property taxes your home is sold to pay off your tax bill.

    Ok so you say that families should pay their own kids to go to public school. Ok. If the parents lose their job or have to get a lower paid job and can not afford the school bill you say the kids should be locked out of school because their parents can not pay. Were you home schooled so no tax money was used for your education?

  21. Randy says:

    George you say that all I do is take my opinion or guesses or bets or what ever to decide what is going on. I use my common sense which is so far above everyone elses here, what can I say. You have people say that people are getting pulled over all the time for 3 mph over the limit, there is an article written that says that speeding cameras has no affect on traffic flow, others say that driving faster takes no more fuel, others say that driving 20 mph faster has no affect on increase accidents or accident intensity, others say to not pay any taxes. I ask you who has more common sense? I take the facts that are there and interpret them far better than 95% of the people here.

  22. Fahrenfreude says:

    "Fahrenfreude where does all that money go from all the tickets that you say are given out?"

    To city, county and state budgets. It could be used for a variety of purposes, all perfectly legal, in a sense. But no, that wouldn't make them reduce our taxes. If you ran a business that made more money that you had predicted, would you slash your prices or give away all your stock? No, you'd invest it or pocket the surplus. That's what government does. Do you by any chance live in some foreign county where there is no economy and every herds yaks or something?

    "Is someone pocketing that money?"

    Yes, the city, county or state in which the ticket is written. Given what I actually wrote, that you would infer that I meant to imply that it is pocketed by individuals must mean that I was correct about your developmental level. You should go get your GED. An education is quite useful in today's world.

    "I use my common sense which is so far above everyone elses here, what can I say."

    And I could just say that I'm the King of England, or God even, but that wouldn't make it true. Randy, just saying something doesn't make it true. You challenged me to produce evidence of what I said. I did that. But you couldn't handle it and have nothing more to offer than your pitiful egotistical rants.

  23. Randy says:

    The truth of it all is that there has been no discussion of having a 55 mph speed limit this year. It sounds like someone here wants to make enough people mad so that they sign up for membership here.

    • TONY RICH says:

      It is just being talked about right now but I think the real reason why they want to do this is to help out the hotel industry.

  24. Dale Kaup says:

    I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to move cars massively more efficiently if all traffic lights held a predictable published schedule with short green and red periods.. say even 20 seconds long. Using GPS or similar technology our car could tell us if we are in a green zone or red zone as we drive advising us to slow or speed up. Then we would automatically enter every intersection on green.