I'm trying to do a poll.

Now that's a fair poll, people.

Anybody who thinks that lowering the speed limit to 55 would remove the need to drill hasn't looked at the numbers.

I don't want to comment on this poll until it's over. You could probably add more options to make it better. I literally pound my head against my laptop with my friend from Ga. but I don't want tomake anymore comments until it's over.

I voted for the closest one to ...."Do away with speed limits":idea:

People don't really drive the speed limit anyway that's why they raised it from 55 to 65. We need to increase supply plus add alternative fuels.

The drive from San Antonio to Houston for Rice games is long enough as it is - adding another half hour or so would start cutting into my tailgating time. I'm opposed to anything which cuts into my beer drinking time.

Only entities that benefit from a 55 MPH Speed Limit are the little speed trap towns that obtain most of their revenues from being on the Interstate.

You cut it to 55 and I'll start driving a tank. I'll destroy alot of terrible drivers, but I'll enjoy myself far more than driving like grandma on I-85 in her Buick doing 20 under the 70 mph speed limit.

If I remember correctly, 55mph was a speed limit cap issued from the federal government to the states. The cap expired (or was removed - can't remember) in favor of the states determining their own speed limit caps.

If you're asking whether the fed should issue another nationwide cap (for reason X), I would NOT be in favor of it. Let the states decide.

I'll use the Cato institutes numbers and say we will ONLY cut it 1-2%. THAT"S a huge freakin number.

Look at this

Over 20 million barrels per day, up from January 2002, when demand was about 18.5 million barrels per day, = 777 million gallons. If lined up in 1-gallon cans, they would encircle the earth at the equator almost 6 times (about 147,000 miles of cans) — every day. Here's another image: EVERY DAY, the US consumes enough oil to cover a football field with a column of oil 2500 feet tall. That's 121 million cubic feet. 55-60% of US consumption is imported at a cost of $50 billion+ per year, amounting to the largest single element of our trade deficit.

So if we could cut that. 2%. It would have a tremendous effect. I want a fiscally healthy America. I want to drill to offset, but I also want people to understand that conservation has to be a part of the solution and many of you fail to get that.

3 g' damn people vote on conservation.... I'm breakin my own rule on wanting to comment on this after the poll. 3 g'damn people. It's like Harry Doyle in Major League. One g'damn hit, that's all we got. One g'damn hit.

This is my cross to bear. I have to get some of you guys to see this problem in a different light. The trials of Jobe I tell you. The trials of Jobe.

I can't drive.....fifty-five!

Machiavelli Wrote:3 g' damn people vote on conservation.... I'm breakin my own rule on wanting to comment on this after the poll. 3 g'damn people. It's like Harry Doyle in Major League. One g'damn hit, that's all we got. One g'damn hit.

This is my cross to bear. I have to get some of you guys to see this problem in a different light. The trials of Jobe I tell you. The trials of Jobe.

I'm not voting against conservation. I don't think that 55 mph is a very good way to achieve it. If you asked me whether I'd favor taxing gasoline up to $5-7/gallon, I'd vote yes. If you asked whether I'd favor increased development of solar, wind, nuclear, or ethanol, I'd vote yes. If you asked me whether I'd favor establishing a mass transit system the equivalent of London's or Paris's or Tokyo's in every US city with a population over 1 million, I'd vote yes. If you asked whether I'd favor establishing a network of high speed trains of comparable quality to the Eurostar or Japan's shinkansen along major metropolitan corridors, I'd vote yes. If you asked me whether I'd favor covering 30,000 square miles of the American west with solar panels, I'd vote yes. If you asked me whether I'd favor using that increased gasoline tax to fund those other developments, I'd vote yes.

Europe uses half as much oil, per capita, as we do. Their speed limits on the motorways are almost universally greater than 70 mph. There are other more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

When you have a choice between (1) reviving something that already failed once before, or (2) implementing things that have worked elsewhere, I'll take what's behind door #2, thank you.

55 mph may be reasonable when you are driving across Rhode Island. It isn't when you are transiting west Texas.

And I think you meant Job, not Jobe.

Time is money to too many people now a days. Slowing down for most people makes no sense.

Better yet, work to improve MPG at 80MPH ::

Jobe is the phonetic version. You have your King James and I have my King Jimmy version.

Machiavelli Wrote:Jobe is the phonetic version. You have your King James and I have my King Jimmy version.

It's a deal.

55 is a perfect politician's solution.

They can say they did something.
The burden will be passed off on someone else.
Their friends the bureaucrats can write a whole bunch of new regulations.
It won't solve anything, so in a few years they can spend some money on some new "solution."

If you insist on a government solution - how about this - instead of mandating that vehicles display Miles per Gallon, mandate that they display Gallons per 100 Miles - thus instead of choosing between buying a car that has 16mpg versus 20mpg, consumers choose between 6 gpm versus 5 gpm.

If a family has two cars (on which they use the same yearly mileage) and choose between (1) trading in a car that gets 25 mpg for one that gets 35 mpg or (2) trading their big car that gets 18 mpg for another that gets 25 mpg, then which do you choose?

If the choice is between (1) trading in a car that gets 4 gpm versus one that gets 2.9 gpm or (2) a car that gets 5.6 gpm for one that gets 4 gpm, then would the average consumer have made the same choice?

How much would it cost the government to make that change?

I think 5 gp100m would be the better choice, but I get your point.