[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: (OT) chicago

On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 08:34:41PM -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
| On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 08:03:10PM -0800, ben wrote:
| > On Thursday 21 February 2002 06:54 pm, Mark S. Reglewski wrote:
| > > about speed enforcement around here.
| > 
| > yeah, like who's running the show there? the nazi party? 55 sucks.
| > 65 sucks, for that matter, but, allegedly, it's the national
| > standard wherever local authorities haven't funded the highway
| > system. the worst of this year's models still rate themselves from
| > 0 to 60. dman, screw chicago--head for california, the last
| > enduring stronghold of the pretence that we are free.
| Illinois does have comparitively lower speed limits.  But the 55 mph
| limit is their own doing these days (has been for several years).  It's
| not the Fed's keeping the limit down.

The area around Rochester is 55 also.  In the city it is 45 (though I
don't drive downtown much).  If you take i390 south beyond the suburbs
it is 65.

| Besides, most of the interstates around Chicago are toll roads (ick,
| hopefully that don't catch on out West). 

Tolls are no fun.  Oh well.

| Note: supposedly trucker's are still limited to 55 mph in CA, a bad idea
| IMHO.  Better to have the trucks moving with the flow of traffic rather
| than holding it up.  I guess the idea is they can slow down a little
| quicker, but whether they're doing 55 or 65, if they're heavy, they
| ain't gonna be able to slow down quick enough if some dipshit does a
| stupid maneuver in front of them.  The other silly rule is the right
| two lane law -- most states don't have that.  Sure, lets line up all
| the trucks right next to merging traffic!

Yeah, that does sound really good!


"He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
        --Jim Elliot

Reply to: