National Speed limit

Some interesting statistics for the $5,000 per truck tax as proposed by Scooby...

http://www.stats.indiana.edu/topic/vehicles.asp

Next year this could generate $7,510,125,000 ... that's capital B for billions...

http://www.stats.indiana.edu/dms4/new_dpage.asp?profile_id=336&output_mode=1

In 2006, the number of total housing units was 2,532,319. If we used the 7.5 billion to stimulate renewable energy, wouldn't it best be used by providing a tax refund for solar panel kits? Lets just say "conservatively" allocate 70% for the tax benefit, and 30% for administration ... just an idea

as for safety.. I can't remember where I saw it, I think it was a discovery show or something, but people who go UNDER the speed limit are usually more responsible for accidents than those who speed.

cardinal5150 wrote:as for safety.. I can't remember where I saw it, I think it was a discovery show or something, but people who go UNDER the speed limit are usually more responsible for accidents than those who speed.

You better bring some references if you want to pass that *hit off in there

[quote="meta4
Good post, if you advocate changing the world in a day or two. I want to be clear that I was just arguing fuel econ at 55 vs 65 with the point of reference being Nixon's emergency national max speed limit of c. 1974...

Your argument proposed the safety aspect so I decided to "hitch" to your argument for arguments sake I really felt this was a (weak, as in your *hit... hehe) tangent to the main context of the Nat'l Max Speed Limit, because the 1974 emergency act by Nixon was aimed at fuel savings, not at saving lives. Currently we're facing a gas price "crisis" (for lack of a better word), not a safety issue. However, the national ad campaign afterwards featured slogans such as "55 saves lives" and was promoted in the years following the '74 act.

I agree that the Trucks/SUVs should not be exempt merely because they are trucks vs. cars.

If all the interstates went to privately owned toll roads, the federal and state taxes would not be available for these roads, leaving much more money available for non-interstate roads. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, most of the money would not be available from a state and federal level and would be paid by the counties/cities instead. How much fuel would this actually save? (rhetorical)[/quote]

I never brought up the safety aspect first you did in the statement below. Really safety isn't a big issue with me on the speed limit (which means I don't care).

meta4 wrote:

I think 10 years ago I would have agreed with you completely. Can anyone remember the reason we moved to 70mph? Just so people can go faster on the interstate doesn't mean they'll make good time to their destination. In winter it encourages not only cars to go faster than they should, but also semi's, much more dangerous in winter weather.

I believe alot of those SUV & pickups would be quickly shelved if they had to pay that type of tax.

Isn't your drive 55 a feel good moment? Hmmm.

Your crap is far weaker than mine. Your proposal still keeps those under 20 mpg on the road and really no change in buying habit or change. Mine will send consumers to used car lots and new car dealers getting rid of those inefficent vehicles. Spark innovation at university, businesses to find efficient energy.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:as for safety.. I can't remember where I saw it, I think it was a discovery show or something, but people who go UNDER the speed limit are usually more responsible for accidents than those who speed.

You better bring some references if you want to pass that *hit off in there

As I said.. I can't remember where it was.. but they were analyzing accidents and what actually causes them. Like when someone loses control.. speed was the reason, but why did they? Were they talking on the phone, did a tire pop, etc.

It does make sense though.. if you have the normal flow of traffic then someone doing 10 mpg less it's going to cause congestion, and that's when accidents happen more frequently.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

I believe alot of those SUV & pickups would be quickly shelved if they had to pay that type of tax.

Isn't your drive 55 a feel good moment? Hmmm.

Your crap is far weaker than mine. Your proposal still keeps those under 20 mpg on the road and really no change in buying habit or change. Mine will send consumers to used car lots and new car dealers getting rid of those inefficent vehicles. Spark innovation at university, businesses to find efficient energy.

Funny, I didn't realize I said anything about safety related to slower speeds... I did mention Semi's in Winter at 70mph though, but you made the comment connecting reduction of speed to fatal auto accidents...

Shelved/Parked/Burned/etc. - 'twas your idea

Feel good moment? Nah, it worked for almost 20 years before the federal restriction was nix'd. Maybe it's time another republican president tries it again the year before leaving office... Hopefully not under the same charges but does anyone else see the irony in the Nixon Whitehouse (wiretapping, fraud, gas crisis, etc.) to strangely parallel our current administration?

My proposal? Actually it was Senator John Warner, or Cincy who brought it to the discussion table here.

I just said it sounds like a great idea, not that we should make SUV's and trucks either illegal or uneconomical to drive.