Subject: Re: National Speed Limit Repeal

From: [email-masked] (Michael Cornell)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:29:28 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (-C.ARNONE) wrote:
>	The repeal of the National 55 MPH speed limit does not in any way mean
>that their will be no speed limits, ala the autobahn, on US interstates.  It
>simply returns this power to the states, which makes sense, because the roads
>in Montana should have higher limits than those in New York.  Of course the
>insurance companies and our elected politicians that they corrupt are 
fighting
>this.  Call your Congressman ASAP.  The repeal of this will also take power
>from the federal government in the form of stopping this nonsense whereby 
they
>blackmail the states with federal highway dollars if they don't enforce their
>speed limits (and raise our insurance rates).
>
>	Anyone who talks about this topic and says that the repeal of the
>federal speed limits mean that we automatically have unlimited speed roads
>is a jerk, plain and simple...

I can't wait for the appeal of this stupid law.  The definition of "urban 
areas" is so broad that the speed limits drop to 55-mph MILES AND MILES from 
any big-city congestion.

Mike

---

From: [email-masked] (-C.ARNONE)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:04:18 GMT

The repeal of the National 55 MPH speed limit does not in any way mean
that their will be no speed limits, ala the autobahn, on US interstates.  It
simply returns this power to the states, which makes sense, because the roads
in Montana should have higher limits than those in New York.  Of course the
insurance companies and our elected politicians that they corrupt are fighting
this.  Call your Congressman ASAP.  The repeal of this will also take power
from the federal government in the form of stopping this nonsense whereby they
blackmail the states with federal highway dollars if they don't enforce their
speed limits (and raise our insurance rates).

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Stuart)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 20:03:14 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
(-C.ARNONE) wrote:

>Of course the
>this.  

Oh for Pete's sake.  I think the repeal is a good idea.  I am a member of
the NMA.  I think money corrupts politics to an alarming degree.  I also
think that we will be more credible if we acknowledge that many who
support the NMSL honestly believe that it saves lives.  We should respect
them enough to argue facts, not call them names.

>is a jerk, plain and simple...

More likely, just mistaken.  In fact, they may even be correct in at least
a few places.  Insulting people may make you feel good.   It is also the
tactic of jerks who don't have the facts on their side.
-- 
[email-masked]