Previous Next
Are you in favor of reducing the speed limit to lower greenhouse gas emissions?
Asked at Massachusetts Street on October 6, 2008
“I would be in favor of that. I think it’s a small thing to do to make a big difference. What’s the hurry, anyway?”
“I’m definitely in favor of lowering emissions to help the environment, but I think there are more practical solutions than lowering the speed limit. I would have to see the facts and know that it was greatly reducing them before I would be in favor of it.”
“I think they should lower it. It would probably make driving a lot more safe as well.”
“No. I think that the speed limits are already too slow. I have a hard time staying under 70 as it is.”
Top ads RSS
- MAINTENANCE Responsibilities include: HVAC, plumbing, carpentry, & painting. Prefer 5 ...
- SINGLE COPY DRIVER Lawrence Journal-World is hiring for a Single ...
- KU Continuing ED
- Inside Plant Coordinator Sunflower Broadband is seeking a full time ...
- Leasing Agent Part-time/Full-time Applicant must be self motivated, and have ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Wind leadership December 2, 2008 · 48 comments
- Second-grade boys add touch of class with neckties December 3, 2008 · 11 comments
- Friends, family pay tribute to accident victim at crash site December 2, 2008 · 297 comments
- Suspect accused of injuring officer in police chase faces 11 charges December 3, 2008 · 62 comments
- Chavez seeks to remove term limits December 3, 2008 · 41 comments
- Lawrence police officer hit during high-speed chase December 2, 2008 · 134 comments
- Kansas site top recommendation for NBAF site December 3, 2008 · 52 comments
- On the street: Should the city fine property owners $50 for not clearing snow from their sidewalks? December 3, 2008 · 58 comments
- Blog: Interactive David Bowie Song Title Game November 6, 2008 · 543 comments
- Highest tide in 20 years floods Venice December 2, 2008 · 77 comments
- White House goes green with Hallmark holiday card made in Lawrence December 3, 2008
- Maddox leaves Intrust bank December 3, 2008
- Second-grade boys add touch of class with neckties December 3, 2008
- Kansas site top recommendation for NBAF site December 3, 2008
- Police searching for clues in sexual assault December 2, 2008
- Neighbors plan workday at burned house August 22, 2008
- KCK teens injured in turnpike crash November 27, 2008
- Suspect accused of injuring officer in police chase faces 11 charges December 3, 2008
- KU connected to another White House ornament December 3, 2008
- City leaders agree on allowing chickens December 3, 2008
6 October 2008
at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
No
6 October 2008
at 6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Negatory.
6 October 2008
at 6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
looza (Anonymous) says…
when I eat alot of vegtables at home my house is full of greenhouse gases. I'm all for eliminating veggies!
6 October 2008
at 6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
Does anybody remember that the KS legislature raised the speed limit in 2005 to 75 on the interstate like it is is Colorado and Nebraska? It is not valid until it is posted. Why did we never get around to changing our signs? The argument was that interstate travelers would avoid the slower drive across Kansas, and not be buying gas, meals, and motel rooms paying Kansas taxes.
Post it properly and we can still save the world's largest prairie dog.
6 October 2008
at 6:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BuffyloGal (Anonymous) says…
Gotta go with more fuel-efficient cars as being part of the answer. If 36 mpg is the best we can do, we have a long way to go!
6 October 2008
at 6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
I'm soon to embark on a vacation that will include about 2500 highway miles. The difference between 70 and 55 is about 10 hours of driving time—more than one full day!
If the speed limit must be changed, change it in the over-populated east and west coasts, where most of the driving is done, and where most of the benefit will be. Leave the great open spaces of the midwest, the plains and the southwest alone.
6 October 2008
at 6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
I'm going to have to agree with the no contingent.
And, that's not because I drive fast or am opposed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. I prefer 55-mph 2-lane roads and drive the most efficient car made in the US. But, I accept that I am a rare bird.
Ultimately, what I'd like to see is a set of high-speed highways at a Darwinistic free-for-all. Then, I'd like to see a fully-connected grid of the secondary routes, friendly for cyclists, underpowered electric vehicles, farm equipment, animal teams, and hypermiling dawdlers restricted to, say, 45mph and *strictly* enforced. Speed cameras, etc. I'd pick the latter much of the time.
6 October 2008
at 7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…
As long as I can pay speeding fines in carbon offsets, like not mowing my lawn, cutting down less trees, and giving cows Beano so they fart less.
6 October 2008
at 7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nobody1793 (Anonymous) says…
No, I'm in favor of lower speed limits because life already moves too fast, and people need to generally chill out.
Ahonui. Aloha.
6 October 2008
at 7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Donnuts (Anonymous) says…
Actually as I understand it the faster I go in my car the more fuel efficient it is. This has to do with the gearing of the car. When the RPM meter is up and I am in overdrive, I am actually using less gasoline if I go faster and when I am using more gasoline it is minimalistic based on the car you have. As it is, I usually walk about everywhere if I am not using a bike. One in a while I go to another town to see something and I drive to the grocery store, but I don't have to go to Westport where it is all happening every weekend to entertain my luxurious pompous @ss either, do I? I am not a trendy environmentalist.
Maybe we should add another gear to make cars more efficient when they are driven faster.
6 October 2008
at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tonythetiger (Anonymous) says…
I haven't heard too much about my horse and buggy. The horse poop isn't anything I have heard any complaints about by other people and it doesn't cost me anything in gasoline so I don't know how fuel efficient it is. Grass doesn't cost anything.
My Bethany Alvarez special doesn't use any gasoline either. In fact I don't have to drive the buggy very far to find out.
6 October 2008
at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
No.
6 October 2008
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Easy_Does_It (Anonymous) says…
Lowering the speed limit will even the playing field for those who can't afford to buy gas. Do we really want an America where only those who exploit the labor of poor people can drive their cars at high rates of speed?
Power to the people!
6 October 2008
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
countrygirl (Anonymous) says…
Nobody drives the speed limit now.
6 October 2008
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SMe (Anonymous) says…
Ahhhhhhhh. For the good ol' days when the Turnpike speed limit was 80.
6 October 2008
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lmatt (Anonymous) says…
NO! 5 mph wont do anything to change the emissions. If the slower speed limit was for safety, then I might be in favor of it. But not just to help with this emissons BS! 5mph wont even help with gas mielage. All the cars today are still programmed with a 55mph limit set for best fuel mileage. I work at FORD so I know this as a fact!
6 October 2008
at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
This will never happen. People will start calling their elected officials and it will be a 100 - 1 deal with those opposing being the majority. No politician would ever diss the voters like that.
6 October 2008
at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
I'd drive slower while I was enjoying a Klondike bar.
6 October 2008
at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sunflower_sue (Anonymous) says…
no
6 October 2008
at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sgtwolverine (Anonymous) says…
Yes, if it were 1975.
6 October 2008
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
Wowzers. Just glanced at the Dow number. It appears I don't have nearly enough ammo, booze, and duct tape.
6 October 2008
at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
Bob,
The market is exceeding the speed limit due to the Washington gas emissions of late.
I heard a year's supply of hops was lost in the Free State fire. Now that is depressing.
6 October 2008
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
71_Hawk (Anonymous) says…
I'm more in favor of reducing greenhouses, they keep too much oxygen in a confined area instead of letting it out in the atmosphere. Makes about as much sense as lowering the speed limit.
6 October 2008
at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
“I heard a year's supply of hops was lost in the Free State fire. Now that is depressing.” 'Spector.
Damn. I was counting on Free State to be a prime source of my booze when market completely collapses.
6 October 2008
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
TOB, if you have ammo, you can get booze.
6 October 2008
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ms_canada (Anonymous) says…
Nowhere in Alberta is the speed limit above 110KPH (65MPH) and we seem to be able to get to our destination quite nicely, thank you. On secondary highways it is only 60MPH. And since there are not too many freeways (where the speed is 110), we are mostly driving at 100KPH.
I would wonder if our rate of highway deaths is less than south of the border.
I don't think lowering the speed rate would lower emissions that much, so why bother, except for lower death rate, that is.
6 October 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
ms_canada,
It appears the high price of gas can be credited for less highway deaths
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/oct…
6 October 2008
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldvet (Anonymous) says…
Yes, definitely lower the speed limit… lower it to 80mph on interstates/turnpike and to 70mph on other rural highways…
6 October 2008
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
I do not care what the speed limit says. I still going to drive 80 miles an hour.
6 October 2008
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mixolydian (Anonymous) says…
How does driving slower reduce emissions? I can see that it would save gas, but not reduce emissions.
Didn't they already ask this question a month ago?
6 October 2008
at 1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
I love driving K-10 everyday and having those driving 80 pass me. It's even better when I pull up next to them at the Harper stoplight in Lawrence. Good thing you rushed!
6 October 2008
at 1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
janeyb (Anonymous) says…
I like the way Illinois does it's I-70 speed limit using a slower speed for Semi-trucks. Leave the speed limit in Kansas 70 mph, but drop the trucks to 60 and enforce it. It would do wonders for I-70 and I-44 in Missouri. I just drove to Indianapolis and back—at 68 mph—because Dad was with me and is on the save energy kick. His car perfoms best at 68 mph.
6 October 2008
at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LooPerkinsucks (Anonymous) says…
I wanna GO FAST!!!
6 October 2008
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacehog (Anonymous) says…
Hey, Nobody 1793, I'm a former kamaaina Hawaii resident, but I forget what Ahonui means. Could you please re-inform me? Much Mahalos!!
6 October 2008
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
badger (Anonymous) says…
So, if I drive 65 instead of 70, I gain perhaps an extra mile per gallon.
If I have properly inflated tires, a tuned-up engine, a current oil change, a clean air filter, steady non-aggressive driving habits, cruise control on the long stretches, windows closed at speeds higher than 50 with the AC on 'recirculate', and proper alignment, I can gain four or five miles to the gallon.
Instead of mandating tiny, incremental change with speed limits that doesn't do anything to address vehicle maintenance or aggressive/wasteful driving habits, why not mandate regular maintenance (easy to enforce as speed limits, frankly) and teach more efficient driving habits in Driver's Ed?
Better yet, let's mount an aggressive campaign to tell people about more environmentally friendly driving habits, and let the cost of gas sort it out Darwin-style? I save probably a couple hundred bucks a year in gas with a three-dollar tire gauge.
6 October 2008
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…
I think reducing the speed limit is the wrong way to go about it. What we need are mandated fuel efficient vehicles that can still go 65. I think I would go insane if I had to drive 55 everywhere.
6 October 2008
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…
Why stop there? Let's go after the two biggest dumpers of carbon into our atmosphere. That's why I am spearheading the charge to lower the incidents of volcanoes and earthquakes. If we work together, maybe we can eliminate these mega polluters. Oh….and cows. Cows passing gas pumps a lot of carbon into the atmosphere too.
Sincerely, the Chairman of the Stop Volcanoes and Earthquakes….oh, and cows Society.
6 October 2008
at 5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…
The Stop the Volcanoes and Earthquakes…oh, and cows, Society has claimed their first victory. Even though I knew he was not the single biggest producer of carbon, I was well aware of my Uncle Frank's evil deeds (usually done in a 12 year old Lazy Boy in his living room). That's why I hid in his house until he got home from work and then whaled on his fat ass. I then removed all beer, cauliflower, and bratwurst from his lair.
Victory! from the Stop Volcanoes and Earthquakes and Cows…and my Uncle Frank Society.
6 October 2008
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Puff_Dragon (Anonymous) says…
I agree. B*utt plugs for all cows in captivity.
6 October 2008
at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nobody1793 (Anonymous) says…
“Hey, Nobody 1793, I'm a former kamaaina Hawaii resident, but I forget what Ahonui means. Could you please re-inform me? Much Mahalos!!”
Means patience.
6 October 2008
at 6:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
There is a better way to get people to slow down if that is some kind of magical thing to encourage…
Provide every driver with a cell phone with unlimited minutes. People talking on the cell phone tend to slow down. That is why it always seemed strange to me, that the same people who want to control all your actions such as by laws to slow you down, also hate cell phone talkers because they slow down traffic. My guess is because they are jealous of people who have friends to talk with all the time.
6 October 2008
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
peachesncream (Anonymous) says…
as long as im still allowed to quailfy im good.
6 October 2008
at 9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
No. We tried it in the 70's and it turned out it was a total crock.
NO.
6 October 2008
at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I am so mad at my generation who are/were the teachers of this generation for turning out two generations of lemmings.
If you went to college in the 60's and 70's, and you are a teacher or, worse, a college professor, I hold you, you, all you you NEA members and tenured professors, personally, really, really, personally, responsible for the mess we are in.
Your mantra in the 60's was “f*ck the estalbishment.” Congratulations. You have just f*cked yourselves and your children and their children.
6 October 2008
at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tennesseerader (Anonymous) says…
Maybe we should lower the speed limit to 40; or how about 20? Hell, let's just abandon our cars and walk;
6 October 2008
at 11:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LiberalDude (Anonymous) says…
No
6 October 2008
at 11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
ms_canada (Anonymous) says:
“I would wonder if our rate of highway deaths is less than south of the border.”
I wonder if your highways are as congested as ours. (Congestion which would be made worse by lowering the speed limits, and congestion which leads to more accidents.)