Just what We Needed
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Off-Road MFFY
Next: 2 killed by Toyota accelerators in 2009 - 39,998 killed by speeders, DUIs, redlight runners, and cell-drivers
From: richard on 23 Feb 2010 00:27 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:12:50 -0800, Scott in SoCal wrote: > As if it weren't easy enough already, a new law would make it easier > for towns to set ridiculously low speed limits for political reasons. > Nothing wrong with that idea. In Ohio, it's been that way for decades. But when it comes to US and state highways, then Ohio DOT sets the SL. Ever hear of "home rule"? I didn't know school buses could do 70.
From: Brent on 23 Feb 2010 02:17 On 2010-02-23, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:12:50 -0800, Scott in SoCal wrote: > >> As if it weren't easy enough already, a new law would make it easier >> for towns to set ridiculously low speed limits for political reasons. > Nothing wrong with that idea. In Ohio, it's been that way for decades. > But when it comes to US and state highways, then Ohio DOT sets the SL. > Ever hear of "home rule"? And that's the reason Ohio is known as a state with speed trap towns? Ohio used to let the local yokels run their speed traps on state and US highways and interstates as I recall. Government licensed professionals and intellectuals dependent on state grants for a living are used as justification for what government wants to do anyway. So it's going to get the stupid low speed limits that won't be obeyed and will be selectively enforced. Low speed limits won't even change things noise wise because actual speeds won't change.
From: N8N on 23 Feb 2010 09:10 On Feb 23, 12:27 am, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:12:50 -0800, Scott in SoCal wrote: > > As if it weren't easy enough already, a new law would make it easier > > for towns to set ridiculously low speed limits for political reasons. > > Nothing wrong with that idea. In Ohio, it's been that way for decades. > But when it comes to US and state highways, then Ohio DOT sets the SL. > Ever hear of "home rule"? > > I didn't know school buses could do 70. To my knowledge, they can't. Generally they are speed limited to the maximum freeway speed limit of the state in which they are used, if not less. nate
From: Brent on 23 Feb 2010 09:21 On 2010-02-23, N8N <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 12:27�am, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:12:50 -0800, Scott in SoCal wrote: >> > As if it weren't easy enough already, a new law would make it easier >> > for towns to set ridiculously low speed limits for political reasons. >> >> Nothing wrong with that idea. In Ohio, it's been that way for decades. >> But when it comes to US and state highways, then Ohio DOT sets the SL. >> Ever hear of "home rule"? >> >> I didn't know school buses could do 70. > > To my knowledge, they can't. Generally they are speed limited to the > maximum freeway speed limit of the state in which they are used, if > not less. Must be fairly recent. I remember being in a school bus doing 70 or close to it on the way back from a field trip in grade school. Of course that was way before today's control-freak-safety-of-the-precious-snowflakes mentality. (the two school bus drivers for the field trip were actually racing each other I believe)
From: Harry K on 23 Feb 2010 09:22
On Feb 22, 9:27 pm, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:12:50 -0800, Scott in SoCal wrote: > > As if it weren't easy enough already, a new law would make it easier > > for towns to set ridiculously low speed limits for political reasons. > > Nothing wrong with that idea. In Ohio, it's been that way for decades. > But when it comes to US and state highways, then Ohio DOT sets the SL. > Ever hear of "home rule"? > > I didn't know school buses could do 70. Or that they were "noisy" and ran at night. Harry K |