Subject: Speed limit repeal moving forward!

From: NMA <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Sep 1995 16:52:14 GMT

Our lobbyist just called.

The speed limit repeal is now a part of the National Highway System Act! 
The House subcommittee on surface transportation voted this morning and 
we carried the day, 26-9.

The 9 nos were: Clinger (R-PA), La Tourette (R-OH), Shuster (R-PA), 
Rahall (D-WV), Clyburn (D-SC), E.B. Johnson (D-TX), Parker (D-MS), C. 
Brown (D-FL) and Mineta (D-CA).

The full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure votes on it 
tomorrow morning 9am.  

The full House will vote on the NHS Act sometime during the week of the 
18th.

Keep writing/calling your reps.  Don't know who it is?  
gopher://gopher.house.gov  will help you.

AN AMENDMENT TO UNDO THE REPEAL CAN BE INTRODUCED AT ANY TIME.  IT IS NOT 
A "DONE DEAL".  There are still more votes to go through.

-- 
National Motorists Association      Join the NMA!
[email-masked]                  $29 a year.
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Sheldon)
Date: 7 Sep 95 21:10:33 GMT

>The full House will vote on the NHS Act sometime during the week of the 

 That's cool.

 Except, our state governor has already made it clear that if this passes,
the speed limit won't be changing in Iowa.

-- 
Steve Sheldon           [These are my own opinions]    '94 Acura Integra LS
Iowa State University   ICSS Resource Facility by day  '85 Honda Spree
[email-masked]     ProMap by night                '91 Bridgestone MB5
   BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ryan Rahim)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 22:08:35 GMT

NMA ([email-masked]) wrote:

I heard a rumor that there is a proposal in Wyoming, Montana, and South 
Dakota to have no speed limits during the day; and 65 mph at night.  Is 
this true?

---

From: (Daytona)
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 03:23:49 GMT

>we carried the day, 26-9.

repealing the speed limit is the desire of babbling retards. 

most of the drivers on the road are unsafe at 55.

many of the cars on the road are unsafe at 55.

some asshole with a small penis and a 96 LT1 is unsafe at ANY speed.

this provision is a joke. 55mph sucks, but no limits at all is
laughable.

let's raise it past 65, but c'mon now. what will you do when you spot
the first load of teenagers in a '72 Monte Carlo bearing down on you
at 120? 

D

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 08:43:13 EDT

>repealing the speed limit is the desire of babbling retards. 
[SNIP]
>this provision is a joke. 55mph sucks, but no limits at all is

You obviously are speaking from a position of ignorance. The repeal that
was spoken of is a repeal of the statutory National Maximum Speed Limit,
which is to say, the law that says if states set a limit of more than 55
mph, they lose federal highway funds.

Repealing this (much hated) law will allow states to set speed limits that
their own legislature or traffic engineers feel are appropriate. It will
not suddenly remove speed limits from highways. Most highways that are 55
or 65 limited now will probably stay that way for a while. Some states,
such as midwestern and desert states, will probably raise the limits or
even selectively remove them fairly quickly. Others, such as northeastern
states, will probably not change them without a lot of resistance from the
legislatures.

The next step on the part of the NMA is to either get their Fair Speed Limit
Act written into federal law, or to work in the individual states to get
them to change their speed limit policies to use the 85th percentile rule.

Michael Johnson

---

From: NMA <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Sep 1995 16:47:40 GMT

We're not suggesting no speed limit.  NOWHERE did we say or imply that.  
Never have.  

If cars aren't safe at 55, why are they being driven at 70-75?  

If drivers aren't safe at 55, why are they driving at 70-75?

Answers:  Because it's just as safe and gets them there faster.  In fact, 
it's safer to go at the speed of traffic than dawdle at the speed limit 
under present laws.

What we want to happen requires the repeal of the speed limit law so that 
state traffic engineers can determine a safe -AND REASONABLE- speed limit 
for each individual road, not a "one-size-fits-all" limit like we have 
now.  State officials are just as concerned for your safety as federal 
officials are, in fact may be more concerned because they're elected or 
appointed in some cases.

---

From: NMA <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Sep 1995 16:47:40 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (firebug)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 19:31:29 GMT

>most of the drivers on the road are unsafe at 55.

So get them off the road.

>many of the cars on the road are unsafe at 55.

So get them off the road.

>some asshole with a small penis and a 96 LT1 is unsafe at ANY speed.

So get him off the road.

>the first load of teenagers in a '72 Monte Carlo bearing down on you

Without speed limits, the police will be forced to do something other than
sit in the bushes with radar guns. There's the chance that they may decide
to do something constructive, like go after reckless drivers.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert T. Weverka)
Date: 9 Sep 95 07:38:01 GMT

Pena Blvd, named after the Sec. of transportation, is a limited acess
freeway.  It originally had signs put up setting the speed limit
at 65 mph.
  (It is a new road to the country's newest airport).
  When they opened the airport, they dropped the speed limit to 55 and
they patrol it with radar.  They are always out there with the radar, 
and inspite of this the 85th percentile of speed on this road is 65 mph.
65 mph is perfectly safe on this extra-wide perfectly-smooth all-concrete
superhighway. 
  The radar cops grab people in the top 15th percentile, and everyone
doing 65 mph is pretty safe from tickets.  Nevertheless, if the posted
limit were 65, we wouldn't have most the people disregarding the law.
As it is, we have set the speed limit so low that most people violate
it. Rediculously low speed limits only encourage disrespect for the law.

  Let's ask Frederico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, to back this
speed limit repeal, and to get behind the 85th percentile rule for 
setting speed limits.  And as a start Pena can call for a change to
the posted limit on the road named after him.

---

From: bob morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:34:58 GMT

It's on the books in Montana to revert to a no daytime speed 
limit law once the NMSL is repealed.  However, I don't know if 
the law is auto-repealing or requires the state legislature to 
act.  If that's the case, MT will have to wait until January of 
1997.

---

From: NMA <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Sep 1995 19:38:07 GMT

Montana will go to no daytime speed limit since their laws allow that.  
We don't know when that day will come though; like does the state have to 
repeal the existing law?

Before the NMSL came to be in 1974, only Montana and Nevada had no speed 
limit.  Actually, only NV can claim that title, as MT had a nighttime 
speed limit of 55/65 (like the present daytime limits).  

South Dakota going unlimited?  Don't bet on it.  Wyoming, maybe.

---

From: bob morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Sep 1995 04:44:00 GMT

Federico Pena is part of the "speed kills" whiners and as such, 
will not support a speed limit repeal.  He and his buddy, NHTSA 
boss Ricardo Martinez, have been against this idea from day 
one.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 8 Sep 1995 17:21:47 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, Daytona <> wrote:
}NMA <[email-masked]> wrote:
}
}>Our lobbyist just called.
}
}>The speed limit repeal is now a part of the National Highway System Act! 
}>The House subcommittee on surface transportation voted this morning and 
}>we carried the day, 26-9.
}
}
}repealing the speed limit is the desire of babbling retards. 

Glad you're with us.

}this provision is a joke. 55mph sucks, but no limits at all is
}laughable.

It's what we have now, effectively.

}let's raise it past 65, but c'mon now. what will you do when you spot
}the first load of teenagers in a '72 Monte Carlo bearing down on you
}at 120? 

Accelerate to 125 or move out of the way.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto      [email-masked]     [email-masked]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

---

From: NMA <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Sep 1995 19:42:36 GMT

It's entirely likely that the eastern states, particulary the 
northeastern states, will keep their present speed limits when the 
national speed limit is repealed.  After all, NY, PA, and MD had 8 years 
to raise it to 65, and CT and NJ still haven't.  Of course, NJ still has 
a law on the books making self-serve islands at gas stations illegal...

Sammy Hagar and the rest of us won't need to drive with "one foot on the 
gas, one on the brake"  ("I Can't Drive 55")  No one will write a song 
called "I Don't Like 70" or "75 is too fast" etc...

---

From: [email-masked] (Janos Szamosfalvi)
Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:38:52 GMT

CKB ([email-masked]) wrote:

: So if that system were to be adopted in the US, you could get pulled over for 
: driving without insurance instead of speeding.

And how can a cop know, without stopping the motorist first that s/he is 
driving w/o insurance?

As far as I know, in most states cops must have a reason to pull 
someone over.     And reasons like "I just want to see your insurance
is not sufficient".

---

From: [email-masked] (John Oliver)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 09:35:24

>someone over.     And reasons like "I just want to see your insurance

The parts of CKB's post that you trimmed said that in Germany, insurance 
companies won't cover accidents that occur at more than X km/h.  So, by 
logical extension, if US insurance companies adopted that policy, if you're 
driving at more than X, you could be viewed as being uninsured.  Your speed 
would be the indirect reason to pull you over.

Of course, that assumes that ALL insurance companies adopted the SAME speed 
limit for claims.  If at least one had a higher limit, then your speed would 
not be evidence of anything.

John Oliver
Canton, MI

'94 Probe GT
'92 Trek 2100

******************************************************************************************
All opinions expressed above are my own and in no way represent the views of
Ford Motor Co. 
******************************************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (John Oliver)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:44:00

Janos Szamosfalvi writes:

>John Oliver ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: Janos Szamosfalvi writes:

>: >CKB ([email-masked]) wrote:

>: >: So if that system were to be adopted in the US, you could get pulled over for 
>: >: driving without insurance instead of speeding.

>: >And how can a cop know, without stopping the motorist first that s/he is 
>: >driving w/o insurance?

>: >As far as I know, in most states cops must have a reason to pull 
>: >someone over.     And reasons like "I just want to see your insurance
>: >is not sufficient".  

>: The parts of CKB's post that you trimmed said that in Germany, insurance 
>: companies won't cover accidents that occur at more than X km/h.  So, by 
>: logical extension, if US insurance companies adopted that policy, if you're 
>: driving at more than X, you could be viewed as being uninsured.  Your speed 
>: would be the indirect reason to pull you over.

>Wait a minute, if there's no speed limit they can't stop me for 
>speeding (maybe for reckless driving, but that's another story)
>if there's a speed limit they can stop me for speeding, but never
>for not having an insurence.

I'm not saying that they could pull you over for speeding.  But most (all?) 
states require you to have insurance, right?  So if no insurance company will 
insure you for driving faster than, say, 100 mph, then if you're going faster 
than that, you could be construed to be driving without insurance!  

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with this philosophy, but I think it's one 
that could quite easily be adopted by the "speed kills" community....

A simple solution to this problem would be for there to be one insurance 
company that would insure you for any speed.  Even if they only insured 100 
people nationwide, your speed could no longer be used to assume that you were 
uninsured.

John Oliver
Canton, MI

'94 Probe GT
'92 Trek 2100

---

From: [email-masked] (Janos Szamosfalvi)
Date: 15 Sep 1995 08:13:02 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:55:50

In article <[email-masked]> NMA  wrote:
>Date:	14 Sep 1995 20:48:21 GMT
>From:	NMA <[email-masked]>
>Newsgroups:	rec.autos.driving
>Subject:	Re: Speed limit repeal moving forward!
>
>About all the insurance companies will do is whine.  They
> were making 
>noises earlier this summer to the effect that if your state
> raised it's 
>speed limit, they may just have to raise their rates.  These
> guys will 
>raise rates at the drop of a pin.  Some are worse than
> others though.
>
>Don't be fooled by this.  It is purely financial blackmail
> designed to 
>get people to write their elected officials asking them to
> not raise the 
>limit.
>
>They haven't been saying it much recently.  Maybe they know
> people have 
>seen through their whining.

Bob.....

YOu say you are two votes and a signature away from the speed 
limit repeal.  Question: Do you honestly believe that 
President Clinton WILL provide that signature given the 
position of Secretary Pena? Somehow, I have doubts, and there 
would NOT be enough votes to override a veto!

Whatcha think?

Kenny Morse
Mr. Traffic
http://www.usbusiness.com/mr_traffic.html

---

From: NMA <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Sep 1995 17:49:56 GMT

Do we think that Prez Bubba will sign the bill over Pena's objections?  

Yes.

He had a few speeding tickets when he was younger, had to fight the silly 
law when he was governor, and the speed limit repeal is part of a bill 
that contains $6 -billion- in construction funds.  Construction workers 
and related people are generally a Democratic voter base.

He'll let Pena rail against the repeal, then likely sign the bill.

-- 
National Motorists Association      	Join the NMA!
[email-masked]                  	$29 a year.
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/    	Sign up online.

---

From: [email-masked] (Thomas Wolf)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:16:14 GMT

:I suppose this may be no great stretch, but if there is a repeal of the speed 
:limit law, expect the insurance companies to do something about it.  The 
:Autobahn doesn't have a limit, but German insurance will not cover you for any 
:incidents which occurred if your vehicle is travelling faster than 130 kph.  

Are you sure about this?  It's been awhile since I last visited the ol'
homeland, but if the above were true, most of the accidents that occur
on the Autobahn wouldn't be covered by insurance.

Just curious - a couple years ago I was riding my cousin's bike on the
Autobahn - average speed 180km/h - I'd hate to think that I wasn't covered
by his insurance (but then again, if I had an accident at that speed, I guess
there wouldn't be much need for me to get coverage :-)

Tom
--
+------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Wolf   | (908) 949-6283           |...Still can't think of anything
| Bell Labs, NJ | [email-masked]  |   original to put in my sig...
| HO 2M-203     | [email-masked]   |...So this valuable real-estate
+------------------------------------------+   is for sale...
Disclaimer: These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 17:10:21 EDT

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Todd Mullins) writes:
 
>
>Thomas Wolf ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: Just curious - a couple years ago I was riding my cousin's bike on the
>: Autobahn - average speed 180km/h - I'd hate to think that I wasn't covered
>: by his insurance (but then again, if I had an accident at that speed, I guess
>: there wouldn't be much need for me to get coverage :-)
 
I had a scary experience about a month ago. I was going home on
Sunday, on I95. Not too fast, about 90-95mph. There was light
traffic, most people were going pretty fast, so I didn't have to
change lanes to much. So, I pass this Kawasaki sports bike, no
harm intended... About 3 minutes later the bike SCREAMS past me,
going REALLY FAST, at least 140. The guy was changing lanes
every 30 meters, to avoid slower moving traffic. He was standing
on his hips every time he made a pass, to shift center of gravity
of his bike. Man, that was scary to look at.
 
>Ya.  You'd _be_ coverage, mon.
 
:-)) Good one.
 
Vlad.
>
>--
>
>Todd Mullins
>[email-masked]     On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast
>
>"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."