Yes - take the safest, most experienced drivers off of the road. Great idea. Question: How does the freight get from the trains stations and river barge depots to its destination with trucks off of the road?

In any case, car crash standards aren't written to save cars from trucks. They're to save occupants who crash with other cars and stationary objects.

Right, so as long as whatever object being thrown or swung at the camera-watching camera does not exceed the posted speed limit, the perpetrator will not be recorded. ;)

...and Germany has a lower fatality rate than the US by any measure. Speed limits do not save lives. There is absolutely no scientific or statistical basis for this.

It's not speed that kills. It's rapid deceleration that kills. What is more appropriate for your argument would be the wrong speed at the wrong time that kills - and really, we're talking about poor judgment, not just speed.

In any case, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) made this argument when the national 55 MPH speed limit was lifted by congress in 1988. NHTSA released a statement that said something along the lines of "history will never forgive congress for their disregard of the sanctity of human life" (I'm not making this up). Know what happened? Highway fatalities continued to fall by any measure: total fatalities, total per registered vehicle, and (this is the most important statistic, IMO) fatalities per million vehicle miles travelled. Speed limits are going up and fatalities are going down in the US. I wrote a research paper about this in college way back in the 90's (which this ./ post isn't), but I've been knee deep in the statistics on this. Raising speed limits does not increase highway fatalities.

It has been shown over and over again that people drive at the speed that they are comfortable at. Raising or lowering speed limits by 10 MPH has little effect on the average speeds travelled (we're talking 1-2 mph average speed, not really statistically significant). Of course, we're safer at zero MPH, but I still want to get to where I'm going. Get into a collision at 20 MPH - and the forces involved are quite serious. The solution is not to set a maximum speed of 19 MPH. Modern interstate highways were originally designed for speeds of 85 MPH. The highway speed limits were introduced in the early 70's as a fuel efficiency measure in response to the Arab oil embargo. There was a correlation of reduced highway deaths, so the speed limits remained until the late 80's. Again, when the federally mandated speed limit was lifted, fatalities continued to fall. This attitude is a relic of the 70's.

It's pretty easy when you use your Jump to Conclusions Mat.

So how are unreasonably low speed limits going to resolve the issue of your grandmother driving when she shouldn't be? Why is it that countries with no speed limits on highways through unpopulated areas have significantly lower highway fatalities than the United States? The facts don't support the argument that lower speed limits equal lower highway fatalities by any measure.

A massive rail system...great! Who pays for it?

Very good points that I hadn't considered. Certainly, highway funding is how the federal government is able to apply political pressure and force state's hands on creating certain laws outside the scope of what the federal government is allowed to do. However, our road infrastructure is vast. Isn't maintenance outside the scope of what state and local governments can afford at current tax rates? Would it not take a monumental effort to change the balance of taxation from federal to state to account for this?

They were very polite in Vancouver, and even apologetic. They were just backed up, and horribly slow. I remember watching the officer x-ray my bag and scratch her head. She got someone else to come over and look at the screen as it was x-rayed again. Then, her supervisor came over (x-ray again). Finally, their shift manager (x-ray again), all were scratching their heads while looking at it. Each time, I suggested that they manually examine the bag. After the forth x-ray, they apologized again and suggested that they manually search the bag. To their credit, each piece of clothing that was removed was carefully folded better than I had originally done so.

I do quite a bit of domestic air travel in the US, and the TSA is usually impolite in large airports. I don't care much for the people who complain in line, and/or in front of TSA officers. It's not their policy. However, when they are impolite or unprofessional, it bothers me. I do not like having commands repeatedly yelled in my direction. One time, I actually did forget to remove my belt. A TSA officer gave me a stern look and said "remove the belt, now." It was a weak moment for me, I must have been having a really bad day. I returned his stern look with a similar dominance and suggested "I believe that you meant to add the words 'sir' and 'please' to that". He straightened up, apologized, and added the suggested words.

This poll indicates that that there is something seriously wrong with your entire family, friends, and co-workers.

I kid, I kid.

Are you serious? In my experience, security in Canadian airports is even worse than in American airports, if the comparison metric is the time spent waiting in line to get screened. My carry-on was scanned four times, and then subject to a detailed manual search to identify an electric toothbrush. This all explained the 90 minute wait to get through Vancouver security.

Internet tough guy says what? Seriously, lighten up, Francis. Threatening violence or using bold tends to have an effect inverse to your intention to be more right or earn additional credibility. Didn't they teach this in internet school before you received your license to post?

Yeah, I saw the same thing...and realized that it was all meaningless, too. :)

I'm not sure what one has to do with another in this instance - especially given that I did not condone the federal government's actions.