Congress Introduces 65 MPH Speed Limiter For Trucks

Robert, your method of debate is typical of someone who either doesn't have a valid point or knows that what he wants is a selfish desire that will hurt the general good but doesn't want to say so. You keep making all these vague, tiresome arguments about conspiracy theories and government intervention and inappropriate people getting involved for inappropriate reasons, but you have not explained how it will help make the highways safer or help the general public by letting 80,000 pound trucks run 80+ mph.

Please drop the political nonsense and the conspiracy baloney and give us the practical side of your argument. How will it help the general public and how it will make the highways safer if we let trucks run ungoverned?

I did stop all that Brett. I went to one specific question which nobody wants to answer and has been posed by not only myself. Besides, since when is it up to opposition to prove the counter point? Several experts in a dozen states have already proven the danger of split speed limits but that's been ignored and the group pushing the legislation has provided no reports or statistics to back their claim.

I did stop all that Brett. I went to one specific question which nobody wants to answer and has been posed by not only myself. Besides, since when is it up to opposition to prove the counter point? Several experts in a dozen states have already proven the danger of split speed limits but that's been ignored and the group pushing the legislation has provided no reports or statistics to back their claim.

Thank you for once again continuing to argue in circles without making a point. You just proved my point exactly.

You asked and I stopped, no need to continue to badger me as you often do to anyone who opposes you. Now, can you please point me in the direction of the studies that support the push for this bill? Actual, studies and numbers since you're a numbers guy and not just personal or emotional opinion.

I'll also retract my statements in regards to the ATA. One report I read stated that they supported it and were behind it. I just read another where they're actually slamming the proposition because there is NO research to back it. The DOT has delayed it a dozen times since it was initially proposed in 2011 due to not having ANY research or studies to back the claims of the groups pushing it.

Yes i understand that Laws already exist against cell phone usage and following too closely. As there are speed limits laws but yet here we are. Guy is wearing headphones so big ot looks like he should be working an airport runway fumbling with his phone but hey he is going 65. In my mind 2 questions still remain.

1. Why can't states determine the safe speed for their local environment and conditions? What makes the limits they set unsafe? What?

2. G-town made an excellent point and said "A marked increase for bunching and prolonged left hand lane running." Turtle races. We already have that everywhere how would this not make that even worse.?

My point is simple.......slower is safer. That's all there is to it. I suppose if you're desperate enough you can try to twist the argument anyway you like, but I would hope that in the end a little bit of common sense would win out. We simply don't need trucks running 80+ mph. Nobody needs it, no one benefits from it.

I also think cars should be governed because once again, slower is safer.

So it's an opinion with no statistics to back it up. Gotcha. I'm not in disagreement with the idea of driving responsibly. Heck, I rarely run over 67-68 on the big open stretches. My opposition is and has consistently been forcing a mandate with no actual data to prove a claim. The only real data out there shows that what they're trying to force is a very bad idea and completely contradicts their claim of safety improvements.

Report

Yes, Robert, if you disregard the laws of physics then it's nothing but my lowly opinion that slower is safer. Of course I also have almost 2 million miles of safe driving that helped form my opinions, and they do happen to agree with the laws of physics, but you're free to disregard both my experience and the laws of physics to make your argument stick. I'm ok with that. I don't expect to sway you. I'm just hoping we can get enough information out there for people to decide for themselves.

I would, however, encourage you to do a little test for yourself. Run into a brick wall at 2 mph and then do it again at 50 mph and let me know if you could tell which one was safer. Chances are you'll conclude that the wall was actually built by a brick corporation in an attempt to manipulate the government as part of a conspiracy against independent brick masons, and that faster is still safer, but I'm ok with that too.

See, I stopped as you asked. Then I asked for legitimate information and you respond by antagonizing. I offered up information coming from states who have conducted expert studies and made changes accordingly but yet still antagonizing. I asked for an actual study, a link to support their claim and nothing but an opinion.