# Save some money? Cut your police force.



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Tiny Texas city lays off entire police force - CBS News

(CBS News) As cities and towns across the country trim their budgets, some of them can't even afford some basics anymore - basics such as law enforcement.

The small east Texas city of Alto, population 1,200, is one such place, reports CBS News correspondent Don Teague.

And now, crime is on the rise.

No one knows that better than Charles Barron. He has plenty of time now to care for his cattle. That's because Barron is Alto's police chief, and no longer has a police department to run. The patrol cars are locked in an impound lot. The police station is locked, except when Barron stops in to check the mail.

And all five police officers, including Barron, are unemployed, after the city council cut the police budget to zero......


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Our city has also been cutting police and fire. We are supposedly down 200 officers and they are not hiring fast enough to just replace the ones that retire. 

I am usually not one to advocate for police officers -- they might do well to do with less and spend more time going after drug dealers and bank robbers instead of pulling me over for going 42 in a 35 but all that being said when their budgets are cut they still pull folks over for speeding... I dunno... to cut or not to cut police? Its a question for which I have no answer but it is certainly being done where I live.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

It's all part of what will happen with hyperinflation. Government at all levels will go bankrupt. There will be no police, fire protection, or any other kinds of government services.

In Oakland there are crimes the police won't respond to:
Oakland Police Announce They Will Not Respond To Burglary, Grand Theft, and Other Crimes « JONATHAN TURLEY

burglary
theft
embezzlement
grand theft
grand theft:dog
identity theft
false information to peace officer
required to register as sex or arson offender
dump waste or offensive matter
discard appliance with lock
loud music
possess forged notes
pass fictitious check
obtain money by false voucher
fraudulent use of access cards
stolen license plate
embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
extortion
attempted extortion
false personification of other
injure telephone/ power line
interfere with power line
unauthorized cable tv connection
vandalism
administer/expose poison to another's


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Pontiac is doing the same thing.

Pontiac's financial meltdown gets even worse | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

"...The fresh setbacks more than wipe out $2.2 million the city expects to save next year, after Pontiac police are replaced July 1 by county sheriff's deputies. The change, delayed since January, is possible after Monday's voiding of the city contract with its 11 police dispatchers, who bargained with the city to an impasse, officials said...."

I'm not really against the police force. Only against those individuals who abuse their power. Also, being in the one state that doesn't allow for carrying (concealed or otherwise) I am forced to a degree to rely on the police to keep the MZBs at bay. I really wish our politicians who are so against carrying would be forced to do with out their body guards like the rest of us.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> Our city has also been cutting police and fire. We are supposedly down 200 officers and they are not hiring fast enough to just replace the ones that retire.
> 
> I am usually not one to advocate for police officers -- they might do well to do with less and spend more time going after drug dealers and bank robbers instead of pulling me over for going 42 in a 35 but all that being said when their budgets are cut they still pull folks over for speeding... I dunno... to cut or not to cut police? Its a question for which I have no answer but it is certainly being done where I live.


 We need them for speeding kids,they slowed down my lead foot granddaughter,may have saved her life.Teens feel they are invincible.She has had 3 wrecks,but nothign like paying tickets and insurence to slow one down.

This nation is escalating into third world.It does'nt even look like America anymore .

Without police it will soon be madmax and marchall law will be imposed on us all.


----------



## power (May 7, 2011)

I can only wish the town I live in would cut their police force. That won't happen as they have a real good agreement between the cops who run the ticket scam and the judge who finds the people guilty and collects fines.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

power said:


> I can only wish the town I live in would cut their police force. That won't happen as they have a real good agreement between the cops who run the ticket scam and the judge who finds the people guilty and collects fines.


 They now have survalence cameras to keep a watch on us and send us tickets in the mail.We are watched and controlled already and don't even realize it.


----------



## power (May 7, 2011)

Meerkat said:


> They now have survalence cameras to keep a watch on us and send us tickets in the mail.We are watched and controlled already and don't even realize it.


They have the same things in some places around here. The capital city had to remove them when they caught a politician running a signal light with a woman who wasn't his wife. At the time he was running the signal light he was supposed to be out of the country. Guess they caught the wrong person.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

power said:


> I can only wish the town I live in would cut their police force. That won't happen as they have a real good agreement between the cops who run the ticket scam and the judge who finds the people guilty and collects fines.


Tickets are not a scam. If people were not breaking the law, they would not recieve tickets.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

power said:


> They have the same things in some places around here. The capital city had to remove them when they caught a politician running a signal light with a woman who wasn't his wife. At the time he was running the signal light he was supposed to be out of the country. Guess they caught the wrong person.


 LOL, thanks for the laugh!:congrat: I love it when their spy vs spy turns on them.Use to read the magazine with a picture of Jimmy Carter as a boy on the cover'Mad Magazine '.I think it was Jimmy.:dunno:


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Tickets are not a scam. If people were not breaking the law, they would not recieve tickets.


 I agree.Also I don't think cops are any worse than the rest of us.But they too are affected by our immoral,imperialistic society.All they see is crime and destruction,no more getting cats out of trees now they just shoot em out.


----------



## power (May 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Tickets are not a scam. If people were not breaking the law, they would not recieve tickets.


The reason it was a scam was the people weren't breaking the law. 
They call this town the quarter mile swerve. Cops wait on the major highway going through town for mostly out of state people. When they get within a quarter mile of the out going city limit signs the cops pull them over for swerving. The majority will pay the ticket rather than coming back to traffic court. They usually have 3 cops working the same road. When you top the hill coming into town look for the flashing blue lights. If you don't see them look in your rear view mirror. The cops usually have their next victim in sight when they finish writting their last ticket.

According to the Chief of Police they had to come up with something when they wouldn't allow them to be a speed trap.


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

I work for the Police Department in a large suburb of Houston. I am a dispatcher. For those who think they don't need the police, think about this... we do NOT send EMS or the Fire Department to many calls without police protection. This means, no police= no emergency medical care.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

*A little ranting...*

Tickets are a scam, because the speed limits are way too low. 55mph on the highway is a joke. If everyone in the DC metro did this, traffic would be waaay worse than it already is.
On a major thouroughfare leading into DC, there are 2 speed cameras in 3 blocks, owned by the 'city' of Chevy Chase, MD. They are not there to protect people, they exist to make money.
I like to drive pretty fast. I have driven on the Autobahn at 125 in a rental car with a governor. I got a ticket in Utah for going 97 in a 75, and the ticket was $200, I almost laughed. Beating the limit by that much here would get you a huge fine, and in VA, maybe 1k for an out of state driver (someone verify this, they changed the laws around recently and it created quite an uproar).
If 'they' were actually more concerned for your safety, every road would have speedbumps. Those cameras generate tons of cash for the municipality, and are split with the camra manufacturer.

Back to cutting the police force.
There are too many laws as it is. Drugs should be legalized. This would save us a ton of money in a hundred ways. The gubt has no right to tell you what you can or cant put in your own body.
If you disagree, then I'll assume you are for prohibition, and think that caffeine and cigarettes should be illegal too. Please explain the differrence.
Just think about how much this costs us. Police, prisons, the ATF, the tons of money we send to Mexico and Columbia to combat drugs. Its a fortune.
For pot its especially silly. Its illegal to own/consume a weed that will grow just about anywhere? The gubt is not your father. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. If you are not hurting ayone, then it is noones business but their own. Anything else smacks of fascism. Period.

Note: I am not an illegal drug user, I just feel pretty strongly about gubt interference in private affairs, and this is a perfect example.


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

Our town should send all the local cops home for good, you can go thru town almost any night and see the town cop, a trooper and deputy all parked side by side BSing, we have triple coverage while many towns don't have single coverage and we're not a high crime area or even have a bar, just a couple closed up factories and many people looking for a job.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Traffic enforcement measures are in place to discourage people from breaking the law. They establish consequences for actions which have been deemed to violate a law. I am not a big fan of the use of automated citations, either, but I can see their value; no sense in tying up an officer strictly to hand out tickets to morons who can't understand that they need to stop before the light turns red.

As for the issue of the speed limits... the common highway speed limit of 55 mph was established in the 1970's to limit fuel consumption during a fuel shortage and to attempt to reduce highway fatalities in a time when the government was just beginning to regulate minimum safety standards for vehicles. Some people still fail to see the corelation between slowing down and saving fuel, or slowing down and saving lives.



Immolatus said:


> Tickets are a scam, because the speed limits are way too low. 55mph on the highway is a joke. If everyone in the DC metro did this, traffic would be waaay worse than it already is.
> On a major thouroughfare leading into DC, there are 2 speed cameras in 3 blocks, owned by the 'city' of Chevy Chase, MD. They are not there to protect people, they exist to make money.
> I like to drive pretty fast. I have driven on the Autobahn at 125 in a rental car with a governor. I got a ticket in Utah for going 97 in a 75, and the ticket was $200, I almost laughed. Beating the limit by that much here would get you a huge fine, and in VA, maybe 1k for an out of state driver (someone verify this, they changed the laws around recently and it created quite an uproar).
> If 'they' were actually more concerned for your safety, every road would have speedbumps. Those cameras generate tons of cash for the municipality, and are split with the camra manufacturer.
> ...


To address your point about legalizing drugs... To use your mentality, it would be okay for someone to market paint thinner as a baby formula, and no one should attempt to regulate that? There are a number of controlled dangerous substances which have no medicinal use and no positive outcome of their use, yet there are still idiots who choose to put these substances in their bodies. Remember that at one time, mercury was used to treat any number of illnesses; it actually has no medicinal value and only creates new problems. It is for reasons such as this that the government has stepped in and regulated what is and what is not safe for human consumption.

Now, that is not to say that there are some questionable decisions on the part of the government. I have never used any illegal drugs in my life, but I can see the argument for equating marijuana and other similar drugs with alcohol and tobacco. That is an entirely different debate.


----------



## power (May 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> I am not a big fan of the use of automated citations, either, but I can see their value; no sense in tying up an officer strictly to hand out tickets to morons who can't understand that they need to stop before the light turns red.


On the subject of automated citations. The biggest part of the fines do not go to the city the violation happened in. It goes to a company that provides the camera, sets the fees and collects the fines. The city does get a very small part of the fine. It is a business, no thought is given to the violation and the danger it might cause. It is a money maker.

In some areas the times on the signal lights are also changed to allow more tickets to be mailed out.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Well.... yes and no. The automated cameras are largely in place to discourage criminal activity. When people realize that they are being monitored, either by a camera or by an actual officer, they are more likely to obey the law. This is why one so often sees marked vehicles pulling traffic duty; by maintaining visibility, fewer people violate the law in their presence. Thus, even if a given jurisdiction does not actively make money from the use of cameras, they free up other resources by not having an officer and a $50k patrol vehicle tied up.


----------



## power (May 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Well.... yes and no. The automated cameras are largely in place to discourage criminal activity. When people realize that they are being monitored, either by a camera or by an actual officer, they are more likely to obey the law. This is why one so often sees marked vehicles pulling traffic duty; by maintaining visibility, fewer people violate the law in their presence. Thus, even if a given jurisdiction does not actively make money from the use of cameras, they free up other resources by not having an officer and a $50k patrol vehicle tied up.


In a city near where I live there is a large building down town. It was built by Homeland Secutiry. Inside there are cameras showing all major streets, highways, and most businesses in the city. The cameras are clear enough to count the change a person gets in the drive thru of just about any fast food place. They can check tags on all the main streets.
It is vacant and the door is locked.
If protecting the public was of much importance this building would be manned around the clock. True criminals could be caught. Criminals could be caught on camera and the tapes used to convict.

Every few years some local news channel will do a piece on the locked building and ask why it isn't used. No answers yet. They did take down the signs on the building though.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

*"To use your mentality, it would be okay for someone to market paint thinner as a baby formula, and no one should attempt to regulate that? There are a number of controlled dangerous substances which have no medicinal use and no positive outcome of their use, yet there are still idiots who choose to put these substances in their bodies."*

I dont know where you got paint thinner as baby formula out of my point.
I did not say "unregulate" I said "legalize". If you ingest a product you know is bad for you, thats your business. I smoke cigarettes. I have noone to blame but myself for the consequences. They obviously contain drugs, carcinogens, and lots of other nasty things that kill people. Should it be legal? Why?

*"The automated cameras are largely in place to discourage criminal activity."*
Yes, when we are talking about actual 'crime', but not when addressing traffic citations. Red light and speed cameras exist to generate revenue, not to discourage criminal activity.
Around here, the speed cameras are set to give you a ticket over 10 miles above the limit. Why? Because they want to grant us leeway? Because they understand that the limit is rediculously low in the first place? If the limit is the 'law' then you are breaking it going 1 mph over it, no?
I know I'm ranting, sorry, and I'm not trying to attack you Turtle.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

power said:


> In a city near where I live there is a large building down town. It was built by Homeland Secutiry. Inside there are cameras showing all major streets, highways, and most businesses in the city. The cameras are clear enough to count the change a person gets in the drive thru of just about any fast food place. They can check tags on all the main streets.
> It is vacant and the door is locked....Every few years some local news channel will do a piece on the locked building and ask why it isn't used.


You sure it isn't being used? One small piece of fiber can easily handle the bandwidth and uplink all the video data to pretty much anywhere. It's not hard to put remote pan/zoom/etc. on a camera. This locked building could easily be sending all of its data just about anywhere at anytime. No need to have someone there unless something breaks and they have to show up to fix it.


----------



## power (May 7, 2011)

CulexPipiens said:


> You sure it isn't being used? One small piece of fiber can easily handle the bandwidth and uplink all the video data to pretty much anywhere. It's not hard to put remote pan/zoom/etc. on a camera. This locked building could easily be sending all of its data just about anywhere at anytime. No need to have someone there unless something breaks and they have to show up to fix it.


Yes, positive it isn't used. Every once in a while a TV news station will do a story about the building. Each time they are told it would take too much money to man or use the building.

What would be the use of sending the data to some other place? Crooks are never caught. The evidence is never used to convict a criminal. The city has the ability to react quickly to crime in just about any area just by manning the cameras. As it is now a 911 call is, many times, ignored. The city has one of the highest crime rates of any city in the U.S.

Even had a former mayor take the police down and remove the locks from the building and invited the TV news stations on a tour. It was on the evening news. Immediately after that all signs on the building were removed and it was locked up again.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> The automated cameras are largely in place to discourage criminal activity.


If this were true then why do they move them when they cease to bring in revenue? If they are working and nobody is breaking the law then why move them so that laws can be broken again?

ANSWER: Simple, if they arent bringing in revenue then they move them somewhere they will bring in revenue. A single camera isnt going to reduce traffic violations, the spectre of a cop around every corner can.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

I know someone who works for Homeland Security in Miami and they have live feed cameras everywhere that can zoom in and monitor all you do! Big Brother, our should I say Big Sis, is watching you and the stories I have heard are scarry!


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

I was just using the paint thinner as an analogy to the idea that products must be regulated. Even if some drugs were legalized, there would still be a problem with unregulated black-market product. Look at moonshine, for instance; even though alcohol is legal and regulated, there is a huge problem in this country with illegal booze. It is being ignored because it seems like small potatoes next to some of our other problems, but there are millions of dollars in unregulated alcohol sold each year. Anyone remember the problems with making whiskey with a car radiator? lol



Immolatus said:


> *"To use your mentality, it would be okay for someone to market paint thinner as a baby formula, and no one should attempt to regulate that? There are a number of controlled dangerous substances which have no medicinal use and no positive outcome of their use, yet there are still idiots who choose to put these substances in their bodies."*
> 
> I dont know where you got paint thinner as baby formula out of my point.
> I did not say "unregulate" I said "legalize". If you ingest a product you know is bad for you, thats your business. I smoke cigarettes. I have noone to blame but myself for the consequences. They obviously contain drugs, carcinogens, and lots of other nasty things that kill people. Should it be legal? Why?
> ...


Generally, that variance is given to account for things like improperly calibrated radar and mechanical variance from actual speed to what your dash is indicating. Believe it or not, most cops do not like being dicks. I know that I have given out far more verbal warnings than citations, and judging from radio traffic and the amount of citations which I see being turned in at the end of a shift, that is a pretty common mentality. Personally, when I pull someone over, it was because I saw something unsafe which could have, or almost did, hurt someone. I feel that that is reason we are out there: to protect people, not flex our legal muscles.

I don't feel as though you are attacking me. We are trying to present two different opinions. That is what these forums are about, right? Sharing perspectives and opinions? I'm sorry if I came across as attacking anyone, that was not my intention. :wave:


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

TheAnt said:


> If this were true then why do they move them when they cease to bring in revenue? If they are working and nobody is breaking the law then why move them so that laws can be broken again?
> 
> ANSWER: Simple, if they arent bringing in revenue then they move them somewhere they will bring in revenue. A single camera isnt going to reduce traffic violations, the spectre of a cop around every corner can.


... Or....

The presence of the cameras has trained the locals to alter their behavior (which obviously previously necessitated the use of the some sort of traffic control device), and since they are now complying with the law, that resource can be moved to another location to address a similar issue. Saying that the placement depends upon how much money it generates is a case of the tail wagging the dog. 90% of the time, those units are put in place because a large number of people in the community are complaining about that area being a problem.

I can assure everyone that law enforcement is not an activity which anyone expects to generate money. That is not the point. Yes, fines are collected which help offset the cost of running a police department, but I am absolutely certain that there is not a single law enforcement agency which was created with the exclusive idea that it would be a money-maker. And before someone says it, the IRS is not a law enforcement agency, though they do have some agents with investigative and enforcement powers, but then, nearly all federal agencies have the same.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Turtle, I didnt think you were on me, just didnt want you to take it the wrong way.
I mean, thats it, Im driving to Annapolis, and were gonna duke it out! 

*"Look at moonshine, for instance; even though alcohol is legal and regulated, there is a huge problem in this country with illegal booze"*
How is it a huge problem? The huge problem is the gubt isnt getting any tax revenue from it? Is it even an issue if someone was making it solely for their own consumption, and not selling it or distributing it in any way?


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

I personally don't have a problem with people brewing their own for personal comsumption or for sharing with friends; I'm trying to gather stuff to try my hand at mead, for example.

The problem is that illegal alcohol production has a large organized crime aspect. Not long ago, there was an explosion at an "abandoned" factory in Philadelphia. A professional bootlegger had set up several large stainless steel stills inside of an abandoned building and was churning out illegal booze. 

Again, my problem (ethically, not professionally) is that unregulated materiels such as this could be a danger to the people who consume it and the people who produce it under unsafe conditions. Government agencies exist to ensure safe product and safe working conditions. The taxation aspect is a whole different argument. lol


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Immolatus said:


> I mean, thats it, Im driving to Annapolis, and were gonna duke it out!


Instead of duking it out, can I just buy you a beer, instead? :beercheer: lol


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> Tickets are a scam, because the speed limits are way too low. 55mph on the highway is a joke. If everyone in the DC metro did this, traffic would be waaay worse than it already is.
> On a major thouroughfare leading into DC, there are 2 speed cameras in 3 blocks, owned by the 'city' of Chevy Chase, MD. They are not there to protect people, they exist to make money.
> I like to drive pretty fast. I have driven on the Autobahn at 125 in a rental car with a governor. I got a ticket in Utah for going 97 in a 75, and the ticket was $200, I almost laughed. Beating the limit by that much here would get you a huge fine, and in VA, maybe 1k for an out of state driver (someone verify this, they changed the laws around recently and it created quite an uproar).
> If 'they' were actually more concerned for your safety, every road would have speedbumps. Those cameras generate tons of cash for the municipality, and are split with the camra manufacturer.
> ...


Speed limits are set to keep people safe. I'm sick of idiots going by me at 85 when I'm going 65 and I didn't even know they were there. If I decided to change lanes right then I might be dead now.

Drugs are for losers. Potheads become lazy and apathetic. Other users get hooked and commit crimes to support their habits. They neglect and/or abuse their children. The societal cost for people using drugs can't be overestimated.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

BillS said:


> Speed limits are set to keep people safe. I'm sick of idiots going by me at 85 when I'm going 65 and I didn't even know they were there. If I decided to change lanes right then I might be dead now.
> 
> Drugs are for losers. Potheads become lazy and apathetic. Other users get hooked and commit crimes to support their habits. They neglect and/or abuse their children. The societal cost for people using drugs can't be overestimated.


I'll assume the speed limit was 65? I've been on highways in the US where the speed limit is 55-75. I dont see the difference. Why the discrepancy? I guess in the interest of public safety, its 55 where theres more traffic. I personally think 55 is just way too slow on a highway, and nobody does it anyway.

As for drugs, I'll agree that drugs are bad. I will say that the societal cost for people using drugs could be perfectly estimated, in the cost for the police, prisons, justice system, military training and funding for combatting drugs in foreign countries. A quick wiki search says weve given billions to Columbia alone.
My point is twofold. 
1)We spend a fortune trying to stop something that cant be stopped. 
2)The gubt has no right to tell you what you can do with yourself.
I'll go back to alcohol and tobacco. Both are drugs, and both are legal. We tried prohibition, and it didnt work.

I was listening to a story about the Tour de France and steriods, and someone brought up the idea that if performance enhancing drugs were made lega/acceptable, it would no longer be cheating.
A caller said that it was a rediculous notion, that if someone is using _"performance enhancing drugs"_, they are cheating. I was wondering how many cups of coffee that guy had consumed that day. Couldnt needing/taking caffeine everyday (I dont drink coffee but my girl drinks a pot a day) be viewed as a 'performance enhancing drug'? I know many people that do not function well before they have had their morning fix of caffeine, and assumedly this 'enhances their performance'. I see no difference. It is a drug, period, and that cannot be disputed. Because it is legal and has been used for millenia, it is not viewed the same way. That does not change the fact that it is a drug, and changes peoples behavior. Taking a stimulant every day is probably not good for you (your heart). If a currently illegal stimulant (I hate to use meth as an example, but I had to look up 'illegal stimulants' cause I dont know anything about them) had the same effect as caffeine, then the only difference is the legality.
I will always fall back on my argument that alcohol and tobacco are legal, heavily taxed and regulated, and I dont know of anyone who would want to make them illegal. They are both drugs, and have tons of harmful personal and societal effects. Whats the difference?


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Immolatus said:


> I'll assume the speed limit was 65? I've been on highways in the US where the speed limit is 55-75. I dont see the difference. Why the discrepancy? I guess in the interest of public safety, its 55 where theres more traffic. I personally think 55 is just way too slow on a highway, and nobody does it anyway.


"Fuel efficiency sometimes affects speed limit selection. The United States instituted a National Maximum Speed Law of 55 mph (89 km/h) as part of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in response to the 1973 oil crisis to reduce fuel consumption.[60] According to a report published in 1986 by The Heritage Foundation, a Conservative advocacy group, the law was widely disregarded by motorists and hardly reduced consumption at all.[61] In 2009 The American Trucking Associations called for a 65 mph speed limit and also national fuel economy standards claiming that the lower speed limit was not effective at saving fuel.[62]" ... from Wikipedia. Speed limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Tested: Speed vs. Fuel Economy - MSN Autos take a look at the chart.

Some excerpts show that the Acura TSX at 55mph gets 39.9mpg byt at 75mph is down to 30.7mpg

Camary goes from 40.3 to 29.8 and a Mountaineer goes from 23.8 to 17.8


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Good post, Culex. One would expect that that sort of logic would be common sense and easily observed in real-life situations.

I know that my Jeep goes from 14mpg at 55mph to 12 mpg at 65mph.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Yes, yes, I'll concede the economic impact. To me, its more about the time saved.
Riding a bike would save you from having a gasoline bill. A horse could provide other functions as well. You could walk. I do most of my driving to and from work. Time spent on the way to work is 'work' time I aint being paid for. With gas at $3.50, its worth the gas for my time.
As I get older, my time is more valuable, because I have less of it. Time spent commuting, anywhere, is time (life) wasted.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Immolatus.... I'm not advocating for or against 55, just sharing the reasoning behind it. Truth be told, over the years I've have my share of rides that for some reason just couldn't stick to 55.  Although over the years I've also tempered that streak too.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

CulexPipiens said:


> Immolatus.... I'm not advocating for or against 55, just sharing the reasoning behind it. Truth be told, over the years I've have my share of rides that for some reason just couldn't stick to 55.  Although over the years I've also tempered that streak too.


I've found that driving a Jeep which has trouble doing 70mph without being in third gear helps with that. 
About a year ago I had a Mustang convertible... I kept looking down at the speedo on the highway and realizing that I was doing 85mph. Whooops! Some vehicles just like to speed, I suppose. Getting back in the Jeep cured me of that. Now I look down and realize that I am going ten miles UNDER the limit.


----------

