55 MPH speed limit?

[nortonrt]

From the rumblings I've heard, it's possible that the 55 MPH speed limit may be re-enacted. For those of us used to 70+ on the slab, that will make for quite a change - apart from the cost savings.

How will this effect your long distance rides? Will you be more or less likely to take the 5K miles trip?

[Greenwald]

From the rumblings I've heard, it's possible that the 55 MPH speed limit may be re-enacted. For those of us used to 70+ on the slab, that will make for quite a change - apart from the cost savings.

How will this effect your long distance rides? Will you be more or less likely to
take the 5K miles trip?

Will ride slower......take more time........arrive alive.

The End.

[jdmetzger]

It's going to change the IBA - make hitting some of those distances impossible without seriously breaking the law.

[KGT1200]

I am not a stranger to 55, for there was a time, young man.....:p :gerg

Slowing to 55 would be like going back to 28K speeds on the net
Having sex in the front seat of a corvair (took some time and imagination)
Driving to Duluth in February with no defrost or heat (seemed to take FOREVER)
Watching your garden grow from seed when you are extremely hungrey and poor
running 50 miles with only one cylinder firing in a cold rain


I could go on but you get the drift

[HexST]

Try riding an 1150 gs at 55mph in 6th gear! That SUCKS.My 1200ST doesn't like to hang lower than 3 grand either.

[dancogan]

Hmmmm ... less reason to take the slab, more reason to enjoy the backroads. :p

[tommcgee]

I don't believe a 55MPH limit has any chance of working like it did 30 years ago. There are millions more vehicles on the road now and maybe 10% of the speed enforcement.

[flgoff]

Am I missing something? If there are 6 gears and 55mph is not compatible, is running in 5th going to cause damage?

Floyd

[drummer]

Whether 55 mph is instituted or not, does it matter? Right now the slab to work is 65 and everyday in both directions the traffic goes 75 plus. So will they enforce 55 mph better than 65 is currently? I doubt it ....

[ridewv]

A few months ago I was talking with a person that works for a company that either makes, or distributes, speed and stoplight cameras. They are working at full capacity to try to keep up with orders. He stated "get ready they are coming through out more and more of the country"
They'll work really well hand and hand with a 55 mph limit won't they?

[lamble]

Oooh are you lot in for it when the speed cameras come in. First they call them safety cameras, so that no one can object. They appear at junctions and stop lights, so people are caught if they jump them. Next they appear by schools...all good intentions, then in built up areas, still fine and acceptable by the majority. Then they pop in in less expected places, like straight roads with clear line of sight, just for those odd speed demons and of course not for the people who obey the law, hey we even build in a tolerance of 10% +2mph. Then that comes down and down and the cameras become more and more. Then they change from a one spot camera, to two or three cameras interlinked and they monitor your time between them. That stops the speeding up after you pass them brigade.
The revenues for the camera co operatives increase and they get bigger and need more cameras to feed the beast.

55mph and cameras, imagine the money they will make.

It can't happen here...wanna bet?
We all said that when the first safety camera went in in the UK. "Good idea. That'll catch those youths in fast cars and fast bikes". Now everyone is complaining.

A consequence?
Fewer police, less discretion. No way a camera can detect anything other than speed. Not drunks, not reckless, not asleep...just 2mph over the limit though and you my friends will become criminals. Speeding comes down, accidents go up.

Better start saving up.

[screwtop]

I remember a few trips as a young driver (cage) in the era of the "double nickel". I would keep my speed at 62 and usually got away with it, just like dad said. I think a long trip on the GS would be much less enjoyable if I could not keep up a brisk pace on the slab. As of late, I've been trying to use "E" alot more, and if you're not doing 80 or so, it's less than ideal.

[jdmetzger]

Oooh are you lot in for it when the speed cameras come in. First they call them safety cameras, so that no one can object. They appear at junctions and stop lights, so people are caught if they jump them. Next they appear by schools...all good intentions, then in built up areas, still fine and acceptable by the majority. Then they pop in in less expected places, like straight roads with clear line of sight, just for those odd speed demons and of course not for the people who obey the law, hey we even build in a tolerance of 10% +2mph. Then that comes down and down and the cameras become more and more. Then they change from a one spot camera, to two or three cameras interlinked and they monitor your time between them. That stops the speeding up after you pass them brigade.
The revenues for the camera co operatives increase and they get bigger and need more cameras to feed the beast.

55mph and cameras, imagine the money they will make.

It can't happen here...wanna bet?
We all said that when the first safety camera went in in the UK. "Good idea. That'll catch those youths in fast cars and fast bikes". Now everyone is complaining.

A consequence?
Fewer police, less discretion. No way a camera can detect anything other than speed. Not drunks, not reckless, not asleep...just 2mph over the limit though and you my friends will become criminals.

Better start saving up.

Toledo has those damn cameras at red lights. They claim they stop red-light runners and make things safer, even though the statistics don't show that. Now you get people hitting the brakes if they think it's going to turn yellow, or slamming on the brakes when they would have made it without issue, leading to a rear-end collision. Most people don't realize that it doesn't snap a photo as long as you are over the stop line with your front tires when it turns red. Note that when it snows or we get ice storms they REALLY rake in the cash if someone goes sliding through. I know, correct speed for conditions and all of that, but nobody is perfect. I have slid through a changing light in the past when I didn't realize the road went from acceptable to solid ice (ok, only once that I can recall, but still).

More bothersome is a HUGE percentage of revenue goes to the company installing and maintaining them, NOT to the city. What a crock. Some of the red light cameras also measure speed. The one ridiculous one is at a 3-way stop with clear lines of sight. I find it all very annoying, although I haven't been "caught" by one.

If they wanted to improve safety there is a FREE fix proven to work - put in a 1 or 2 second delay between "red" and "green" for the intersecting traffic. This clears out the morons who cause the problems in the first place. Of course, that doesn't make anyone any money, now does it?

[GlobalRider]

From the rumblings I've heard, it's possible that the 55 MPH speed limit may be re-enacted.

Whatever for?

All North America has to do is get with the times and switch to diesel. I was cruising in a BMW 5 series wagon at 190 KPH (118 MPH) and getting 32 MPG (US). And on top of that, I had an engine that actually went the minute you stepped on the pedal.

[GlobalRider]

Try riding an 1150 gs at 55mph in 6th gear!

So drop it into 5th!

[lamble]

More bothersome is a HUGE percentage of revenue goes to the company installing and maintaining them, NOT to the city. What a crock. Some of the red light cameras also measure speed. The one ridiculous one is at a 3-way stop with clear lines of sight. I find it all very annoying, although I haven't been "caught" by one.
If they wanted to improve safety there is a FREE fix proven to work - put in a 1 or 2 second delay between "red" and "green" for the intersecting traffic. This clears out the morons who cause the problems in the first place. Of course, that doesn't make anyone any money, now does it?

Just the tip of the iceburg. Believe me it gets better, I mean worse of course.

My cousin (the black sheep of the family) is a professor working on systems that use gps to control vehicle speeds. Only thing stopping it at the moment is...legal liabilities if the system gets it wrong and cause a crash, otherwise, it's there, waiting, tempting any political party wishing to take the next Safety step and with the statistics for the increase of accidents (in part due to their actions in installing speed cameras and reducing the police on the street) they will have sufficient evidence to say that the saving of lives warrant it. Sort of self fulfilling..and beautiful in its aparrent acceptance by the populace. Of course the same technology will be able to report where you are at any given moment, or have been.
Don't worry about that though, they've already come up with a populist answer.

By monitoring the use of vehicles, we can apply appropriate taxes to those that are high mileage users and reduce the costs for the majority of you that only use the car to get to work and at weekends...now doesn't that seem fair and reasonable.

Honest, you are in for such a shock. I can't wait to see your faces!
Personally, I'm heading elsewhere when that happens. South Africa I think.

Oh and it'll never happen!
In the UK young drivers who voluntarily opt to have the system installed, can get reduced insurance premiums...it's already happening.

Form an orderly line behind me when leaving the country, no pushing at the back.

[rocketman]

I think its one of those, "someone mentioned it to some else in passing in some dim gobbermint hallway, a reporter overhead it" and well.....headline time! (if that, even)

Since 55 is not the best speed for reaching the best MPG according what I've read of late, I doubt we have to worry about it coming back. I could be wrong, but untill I see it being discussed in ernest by the gobberment, I'm not going to worry over much.

RM

[jdmetzger]

Just the tip of the iceburg. Believe me it gets better, I mean worse of course.

My cousin (the black sheep of the family) is a professor working on systems that use gps to control vehicle speeds. Only thing stopping it at the moment is...legal liabilities if the system gets it wrong and cause a crash, otherwise, it's there, waiting, tempting any political party wishing to take the next Safety step and with the statistics for the increase of accidents (in part due to their actions in installing speed cameras and reducing the police on the street) they will have sufficient evidence to say that the saving of lives warrant it. Sort of self fulfilling..and beautiful in its aparrent acceptance by the populace. Of course the same technology will be able to report where you are at any given moment, or have been.
Don't worry about that though, they've already come up with a populist answer.

By monitoring the use of vehicles, we can apply appropriate taxes to those that are high mileage users and reduce the costs for the majority of you that only use the car to get to work and at weekends...now doesn't that seem fair and reasonable.

Honest, you are in for such a shock. I can't wait to see your faces!
Personally, I'm heading elsewhere when that happens. South Africa I think.

Oh and it'll never happen!
In the UK young drivers who voluntarily opt to have the system installed, can get reduced insurance premiums...it's already happening.

Form an orderly line behind me when leaving the country, no pushing at the back.

I guess it's good I like Airheads so much; I imagine it would to tough to retro-fit such a system, I mean, my charging system only puts out a mere 280 volts; there is very little to spare. :p I know: "install it or you can't get your plates".

I've been waiting for the GPS devices for a while now. They already have "black boxes" in most cars, and many people aren't even aware of them. Get into an accident and see the police pull the last 10 (or more) seconds of your driving before the crash. Hope you weren't speeding! I recall a story about a guy in jail (and someone else fighting the legal system) due to faulty information in the black box. I think the same could be an issue for GPS-equipped cars to watch for speed; I frequently see the GPS on my bike read 184mph (and no, my R80 doesn't go quite that fast). They'll get around that though- look for 3 or so samples in a row and take the average. it's so easy to predict these things. I don't see any of it being about safety; it's money and control. I'm not a tinfoil-hat type guy, but I have no interest in having my every move monitored. I felt odd when I visited London with all those cameras everywhere.

South Africa you say? I think there is some good riding down there. :p

[KGT1200]

I think its one of those, "someone mentioned it to some else in passing in some dim gobbermint hallway, a reporter overhead it" and well.....headline time! (if that, even)

Since 55 is not the best speed for reaching the best MPG according what I've read of late, I doubt we have to worry about it coming back. I could be wrong, but untill I see it being discussed in ernest by the gobberment, I'm going to worry over much.

RM

Sort of sounds like the new worry of laws allowing soccer moms to legally "move" bikes from their parking spots. Suddenly the panic around the water cooler (and campfire:stick ) state that "he said she said" are suddenly going to impact all of us motorcyclists across the country. Not going to happen. Unenforcable and downright a hazard to life to anyone trying to actually do it.

Granted, I am sure some wacko legislator somewhere may be shooting off his filabuster saying how this law is for any bike, but in reality, my guess is the original discussion was centered around scooters taking up parking spots NOT HD's weighing in just under a half a ton.

A law reinstatement mandating 55 speed limit OR having to worry than someone having the legal right to move my bike I find hilariously foolish to spend many brain cells worring about it.

Besides speed laws are mandated by the state as is helmet laws, so somewhere out there, maybe going to happen, but NOT across the whole country.

[hlothery]

Since 55 is not the best speed for reaching the best MPG according what I've read of late, I doubt we have to worry about it coming back. I could be wrong, but untill I see it being discussed in ernest by the gobberment, I'm going to worry over much.

RM

Hate to bear bad news, but two summers ago I rode to North Carolina, all on back roads. The second day, most of the day, we traversed the Natchez Trace Parkway at the speed limit, which was 50 MPH, in 5th gear. We got an almost unbelievable 60 MPG, two up on the 2005 RT. I don't want lower speed limits....love that 80 MPH in West Texas....but it is hard to debate whether lower speeds are more fuel efficient, IMO. :cry

[lamble]

Sort of sounds like the new worry of laws allowing soccer moms to legally "move" bikes from their parking spots. .

You know the part where you asked "Am I just stupid?"

I'll get this across to you one more time. The law already exists that allows people (not soccer moms necessarily, which seem to be some sort of obssession) to move your bike.

Today, people who thought nothing like it could ever happen are moving away from the water cooler, down to City Hall to fight for a law to stop them moving bikes.

They will probably be the same people who will have to fight against legislation that you say could never happen when it comes to 55mph or speed cameras.

Ignorance is bliss, assumption is just ignorance dressed up and both have a happy way of biting you in the bum.
I don't believe in crying wolf, however if I can cross the Atlantic, then as sure as damn it, so can a few bits of technology and a few laws.

What y'gonna do, stand on the beach and shoot at them, or because it's state laws, just put up barricades around your state?

At least try to quote the facts from one thread to another correctly. Today Seattle City Council debate a law to stop people moving bikes, not to pass one allowing it...that already exists!

[KGT1200]

You know the part where you asked "Am I just stupid?"

I'll get this across to you one more time. The law already exists that allows people (not soccer moms necessarily, which seem to be some sort of obssession) to move your bike.

Today, people who thought nothing like it could ever happen are moving away from the water cooler, down to City Hall to fight for a law to stop them moving bikes.

They will probably be the same people who will have to fight against legislation that you say could never happen when it comes to 55mph or speed cameras.

Ignorance is bliss, assumption is just ignorance dressed up and both have a happy way of biting you in the bum.
I don't believe in crying wolf, however if I can cross the Atlantic, then as sure as damn it, so can a few bits of technology and a few laws.

What y'gonna do, stand on the beach and shoot at them, or because it's state laws, just put up barricades around your state?

At least try to quote the facts from one thread to another correctly. Today Seattle City Council debate a law to stop people moving bikes, not to pass one allowing it...that already exists!

No lamble, nobody has to start calling names, but so far all you have presented is "a guy that runs a bike shop sent out an email" somewhere in Oregon. Duh!

What I am saying is many laws are initally proposed, are passed, but once they are found unenforcable, THEY ARE REPEALED for the red herring they are! That law is stupid, and may be true in Oregon, but no way is going to spread around this country like wildfire, because the whole law they way it was presented on the forum is stupid. Show me statute Lamble. Show me somthing other than gossup; show me somthing other than "a guy that runs a bike shop sent out an email" as a way of seeing the scope of the law.

Lamble, in theis country, calling someone stupid is not nice. You may get away with it in the land of crooked teeth across the pond, but not here.

All I am questioning is how long this law is going to be on the books in the land of Oregon, and stating my opinion that this entire counrty cannot be as stupid as Oregon's legislature.

As I stated, laws of tresspass and laws of possession TRUMP this new block of legislation, and that will be proven in time.

Don't get you English feathers ruffled; your beginning to resemble Margaret Thacher after a good trouncing in parliment!

[Motor31]

If the double nickle is instituted again the world will not end. It didn't during the Nixon era and we'll survive it again if necessary. You will either adapt of pay for the inability to control your vehicle according to the statute.

In the mean time you have the option to write your representatives and senators currently vacationing in the halls of congress and voice your opinion to the do nothings there. Perhaps yo might even decide to vote any who support the proposal out of office. That would really be a bit of that so called "change" being bandied about so much lately.

[Oldhway]

Mod mode on:

Let's keep this discuusion civil here gents. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we don't have to agree.


Mod mode off:

[lamble]

No lamble, nobody has to start calling names, but so far all you have presented is "a guy that runs a bike shop sent out an email" somewhere in Oregon. Duh!

What I am saying is many laws are initally proposed, are passed, but once they are found unenforcable, THEY ARE REPEALED for the red herring they are! That law is stupid, and may be true in Oregon, but no way is going to spread around this country like wildfire, because the whole law they way it was presented on the forum is stupid. Show me statute Lamble. Show me somthing other than gossup; show me somthing other than "a guy that runs a bike shop sent out an email" as a way of seeing the scope of the law.

Lamble, in theis country, calling someone stupid is not nice. You may get away with it in the land of crooked teeth across the pond, but not here.

All I am questioning is how long this law is going to be on the books in the land of Oregon, and stating my opinion that this entire counrty cannot be as stupid as Oregon's legislature.

As I stated, laws of tresspass and laws of possession TRUMP this new block of legislation, and that will be proven in time.

Don't get you English feathers ruffled; your beginning to resemble Margaret Thacher after a good trouncing in parliment!


What "I have" and you refuse to accept, for whatever reason, is: TODAY in Seattle, there is a session where the LAW THAT EXISTS, which ALLOWS folks to move bikes LEGALLY, from parking spaces, so that cars can be parked, is being challenged. Hopefully a LAW will be passed STOPPING people from moving bikes, which they ARE ALLOWED TO DO LEGALLY, irrespective of trespass or any other "implied" law that you know of, or assume will cover you and your bike.

How simple can I make this?

On the stupid thing...you asked the question?
I suppose beligerent would be just as bad, or inaccurate by choice perhaps. Miss informed seems friendlier...what suits you?

I can't see how you fail to grasp it, unless it's by choice, in an attempt to make a point which no longer has validity if you accept that the largest dealership/s in WA aren't a pack of liars, or that there isn't a legal action taking place today in Seattle to try and change a law that lets you move bikes into one that won't let you move bikes.

Is anyone else not getting this?

You currently can move a bike, legally, to park a car. If the Law being proposed today is accepted, then it will become illegal to do so.


I'll post the outcome of this meeting as soon as I know what has happened. Will that convince you?
Or log in to the proceeding yourself, you obviously don't believe anyone else.


Mrs T never got trounced in parliament, she always had a majority. And we have free dental care. Not everyone in the USA has Hollywood teeth, that's TV and movie land and not America in reality. Perhaps Brits rely on acting ability and not silicon implants and denture veneers. Reality is something you might have to get used to, sooner rather than later and just like a buck toothed person without health care insurance, sometimes it sucks.

[KGT1200]

What "I have" and you refuse to accept, for whatever reason, is: TODAY in Seattle, there is a session where the LAW THAT EXISTS, which ALLOWS folks to move bikes LEGALLY, from parking spaces, so that cars can be parked, is being challenged. Hopefully a LAW will be passed STOPPING people from moving bikes, which they ARE ALLOWED TO DO LEGALLY, irrespective of trespass or any other "implied" law that you know of, or assume will cover you and your bike.

How simple can I make this?

On the stupid thing...you asked the question?
I suppose beligerent would be just as bad, or inaccurate by choice perhaps. Miss informed seems friendlier...what suits you?

I can't see how you fail to grasp it, unless it's by choice, in an attempt to make a point which no longer has validity if you accept that the largest dealership/s in WA aren't a pack of liars, or that there isn't a legal action taking place today in Seattle to try and change a law that lets you move bikes into one that won't let you move bikes.

Is anyone else not getting this?

You currently can move a bike, legally, to park a car. If the Law being proposed today is accepted, then it will become illegal to do so.


I'll post the outcome of this meeting as soon as I know what has happened. Will that convince you?
Or log in to the proceeding yourself, you obviously don't believe anyone else.


Mrs T never get trounced in parliament, she always had a majority. And we have free dental care. Not everyone in the USA has Hollywood teeth, that's TV and movie land and not America in reality. Perhaps Brits rely on acting ability and not silicon implants and denture veneers. Reality is something you might have to get used to, sooner rather than later and just like a buck toothed person without health care insurance, sometimes it sucks.


Lamble,

As in England, we Americans get pissed and say things that cross the line; and, as I must assume they do in England, with a little nudge from someone with common sense (thanks Steve), we here in America offer up an apology of sort. even though you are still hedging your stupid remark by substituting an equally offensive term,

I will let that go and state for all to hear, I am sure your teeth are perfectly straight, AND for measure, I'll throw in I bet you floss the fish and chips out of your teeth, at least monthly! And Thatcher? All I know is all I every time I saw her on the telly, she looked as she was passing something big...Sorry, I will leave her out of the discussion henceforth.

Call me obstinate, and I will even kiss you. Hypothetically. Call me stupid, you are asking for more than you bargained, Lamble. The way I see it is we differ on our thoughts here, Neither one of us want to see this law, but you recognize it as an enforceable law because they told you so where I say bull shi$, repeal it because it is unenforceable, because it is constitutionally wrong.

Lastly my "joke" about a soccer mom is true; who in their right mind is going to attempt to move a big bike if they don't know how? Nobody! Who in their right mind will vote to NOT repeal a law when the evidence is laid in front of them that the law in unequal? Nobody! Who in their right mind will vote to continue the law that allows people to potentially damage themselves and the bike when a move is attempted? Nobody!
The law seemes to fit unlicensed Scooters, hell I would move a unlicensed scooter if it was taking up a legal parking area, but NOT a lisenced motor vehile!

With that being said settled my point, even though you fail to recognize it as a point is the law is wrong, and is in direct conflict with other laws. The issue is no one has tested the law in courts to show it is unconstitutional. Once that happens, the law will be repealed, thus my original comment that pissed you off is that there is no need to worry across America about this ever happening, because of a law that is unenforceable, and will be struck down before 2009 is half over.

Now unless you find what I have said stupid, I have said all I'm going to say, my part ends here. If you still want to cut my point in half like they did to the knight in Monty Python, I Sir Lamble, shall continue to struggle. For I aint stoopid, just an American who believes strongly in justice. And this law, will not be tolerated in America!

What you all do in Oregon will not happen anywhere else is because the law steps on two other laws in process of execution. If I do not authorize you to "take" possession of my property, and you do so in direct violation of my implied wishes, you then are trespassing at best, and stealing at worst!

If I pay a fee to the state/county/town to legally have my vehicle in public areas, then what's good for a car is no different than what is good for a bike. I am willing to bet the farm that no permission has been granted to move a car! They both are, under the laws a "motor vehicle" and what is good and legal for one is good and legal for the other.

Lastly, Lamble, you touch my bike, and I will hurt you. and I will do it in a way no one sees. Then I will sue you. So the lesson is when I go to Oregon, DON'T TOUCH MY BIKE

[From MARS]

Mod mode on:

Let's keep this discussion civil here gents. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we don't have to agree.


Mod mode off:

I'm with Steve on this. I like reading all of y'all's post and don't want to see this thing dog housed.

Back to the 55mph speed limit; now if I recall correctly from way back when, the Federal Govt controls the Interstate Highway System and mandated the lower speed on them. States were coerced into lowering their speed limits by having Federal highway funds withheld if they didn't. I don't see it happening again if we continue to reduce the number of miles we are driving as a nation. Back when, more were behind the move to 55mph because we were sitting in lines waiting for gas. Today, the gas is there if we have the means to purchase it. And, when we spend that much money on something we are going to want to enjoy it. Driving 55 because we are told to isn't what most of us call "enjoying it." Politically, I don't see it happening.

BTW, I had an awakening on my ride this past Sunday. It was my first time on the bike since returning from out West. I learned that my K12RS can be ridden at less than supersonic speeds without it being mandated by speed limits or other road conditions. I was amazed at the comfortable feeling as I cruised at 50mph in areas that I normally ride at 60+. I might actually like going a little slower, but I know, there may come a time, and 55 just ain't going to be fast enough. So, just like now, I'll trust my luck and twist the throttle. Meanwhile, I think I'm going to ride a little more relaxed.

Tom

[lamble]

Lamble,

As in England, we Americans get pissed and say things that cross the line; and, as I must assume they do in England, with a little nudge from someone with common sense (thanks Steve), we here in America offer up an apology of sort. even though you are still hedging your stupid remark by substituting an equally offensive term,

I will let that go and state for all to hear, I am sure your teeth are perfectly straight, AND for measure, I'll throw in I bet you floss the fish and chips out of your teeth, at least monthly! And Thatcher? All I know is all I every time I saw her on the telly, she looked as she was passing something big...Sorry, I will leave her out of the discussion henceforth.

Call me obstinate, and I will even kiss you. Hypothetically. Call me stupid, you are asking for more than you bargained, Lamble. The way I see it is we differ on our thoughts here, Neither one of us want to see this law, but you recognize it as an enforceable law because they told you so where I say bull shi$, repeal it because it is unenforceable, because it is constitutionally wrong.

Lastly my "joke" about a soccer mom is true; who in their right mind is going to attempt to move a big bike if they don't know how? Nobody! Who in their right mind will vote to NOT repeal a law when the evidence is laid in front of them that the law in unequal? Nobody! Who in their right mind will vote to continue the law that allows people to potentially damage themselves and the bike when a move is attempted? Nobody!
The law seemes to fit unlicensed Scooters, hell I would move a unlicensed scooter if it was taking up a legal parking area, but NOT a lisenced motor vehile!

With that being said settled my point, even though you fail to recognize it as a point is the law is wrong, and is in direct conflict with other laws. The issue is no one has tested the law in courts to show it is unconstitutional. Once that happens, the law will be repealed, thus my comment that no need to worry across America about this ever happening, because of a law that is unenforceable, and will be struck down before 2009 is half over.

Now unless you find what I have said stupid, I have said all I'm going to say, my part ends here. If you still want to cut my point in half like they did to the knight in Monty Python, I Sir Lamble, shall continue to struggle. For I aint stoopid, just an American who believes strongly in justice. And this law, will not be tolerated in America!

What you all do in Oregon will not happen anywhere else is because the law steps on two other laws in process of execution. If I do not authorize you to "take" possession of my property, and you do so in direct violation of my implied wishes, you then are trespassing at best, and stealing at worst!

If I pay a fee to the state/county/town to legally have my vehicle in public areas, then what's good for a car is no different than what is good for a bike. I am willing to bet the farm that no permission has been granted to move a car! They both are, under the laws a "motor vehicle" and what is good and legal for one is good and legal for the other.

Lastly, Lamble, you touch my bike, and I will hurt you. and I will do it in a way no one sees. Then I will sue you. So the lesson is when I go to Oregon, DON'T TOUCH MY BIKE


No, no. no.
There's no wayI can believe this. The law already exists where they can legally move your bike. It exists now, in reality, in Washington State (no idea about Oregon or where you got that from). It already exists and has been on the books for some time.

Today, okay with that? Today, there is a meeting to get a NEW LAW, preventing them from moving bikes. Stopping an old law letting bikes be moved, getting a new law stopping them being moved.

Can't you see? Where's the difficulty?

You have no point to answer, because you haven't grasped the fundamental issue.
TODAY it is legal in Washington to move your bike from a parking space so I can park my car there. Hopefully, after a new law which is being proposed about now, it won't be.

You've got it the wrong way around.

As an apology that sucked by the way. What we do in the UK is apologies without reiterating our point and trying to make the other guy look like a jerk.

Please, please try and understand. It really is so very simple and I feel that you do have the capability to grasp this, once you remove the red mist.
Plus this isn't the thread for this topic anyway.

Let's share the hope that Seattle/WA sees sense and brings in a new law that prevents anyone moving bikes, then you won't have to worry.


UK Version: Sorry we've got our lines crossed. I'll do my best to make everything as clear as possible in future, so as not to create confusion.

[KGT1200]

The dog house is for rule violators, NOT for strong commentary and direct disagreement.

If this thread gets doghoused, Lamble cause you keep calling me "stoopid" I personally am coming to Oregon on my BMW and am going to move your bike!:p , what is it, a triumph? BSA? :bikes And TOm I WILL NOT BE DOING 55MPH!!!:)

[KGT1200]

No, no. no.
There's no wayI can believe this. The law already exists where they can legally move your bike. It exists now, in reality, in Washington State (no idea about Oregon or where you got that from). It already exists and has been on the books for some time.Has the Law Been Tested In The Courts? Yes or No!

Today, okay with that? Today, there is a meeting to get a NEW LAW, preventing them from moving bikes. Stopping an old law letting bikes be moved, getting a new law stopping them being moved.

Can't you see? Where's the difficulty?

You have no point to answer, because you haven't grasped the fundamental issue. Bull Caca. Yiou just fail to get a grasp on what I am saying. This Law is in error, and unconstitutiuonal
TODAY it is legal in Washington to move your bike from a parking space so I can park my car there. Hopefully, after a new law which is being proposed about now, it won't be.

You've got it the wrong way around.

As an apology that sucked by the way. What we do in the UK is apologies without reiteratingReally!? I aplogised for calling out my "british have bad teeth comment, NOT my whole point! If you expected me to apologise for my point, you are further out in left field than I originally thought! our point and trying to make the other guy look like a jerk.

Please, please try and understand.Oh, I understand all to well Lamble. It really is so very simple and I feel that you do have the capability to grasp this, once you remove the red mist.No red mist buddy, just a difference of opinion.
Plus this isn't the thread for this topic anyway. Rules, sometimes as the brits found out years ago are made to be broken!Let's share the hope that Seattle/WA sees sense and brings in a new law that prevents anyone moving bikes, then you won't have to worry.This, we are in total agreement


UK Version: Sorry we've got our lines crossed. I'll do my best to make everything as clear as possible in future, so as not to create confusion.You are perfectly clear, just close minded in terms of following any other train of thought that I have brought up here.


I KNOW THE LAW EXISTS! I DONT AGREE WITH IT, JUST LIKE YOU. Why do you not even read my posts? I know it's a "law" and I like you think it's wrong. Tell me this, Mr. Washington State; has the law been taken to court? Or is this "repeal legislation" is in front of the legislation today because the lawmakers just woke up fro thsie rain induced coma?

Northwest, Washington, Oregon, it's all the same..The land of people who get rained on alot.

[lamble]

The dog house is for rule violators, NOT for strong commentary and direct disagreement.

If this thread gets doghoused, Lamble cause you keep calling me "stoopid" I personally am coming to Oregon on my BMW and am going to move your bike!:p , what is it, a triumph? BSA? :bikes And TOm I WILL NOT BE DOING 55MPH!!!:)


Just to get it clear, where did I call you stupid?
Even once...
Anywhere?
"Perhaps I'm stupid" you'll find that on your message as a header in a post you made on another thread. I assumed it was rhetorical?

Once again however, this isn't a thread that needs to hear any of this.

[lamble]

Sorry about that folks, please treat is as an advertisement break.

If emergency measures are called for, and I heard at least on edelegate saying now is a time of emergency, then anything becomes possible, for the greater good.
Fuel rationing would be just as good as lowering the speed perhaps. Stranger things have happened. In the early 1970's we had fuel rationing in the UK thanks to the war in the middle east. Car sales fell dramatically, haulage companies went broke, travel businesses had to cut back. Home fuel was depleted. We had schools open only one day per week and you had to go in and collect classwork.

Wouldn't take much for that to happen again.
The changes in rules were implemented under emergency legislation and enacted within days. No public votes, no majopr debates in the House of Commons, no House of Lords veto.
"But that was then and things have changed."

The UK entered the War in Iraq under the same emergency legislation. No public debate, no proposal brought to the Houses of Parliament. Signed, done and dusted.

Would the US Gov't act differently? Let's hope we don't have to find out, but emergency measures can really open up a whole raft of possibilites.

55mph, that would be just a blip.

[jdmetzger]

I'm going to play Switzerland here - neutral. I have no problem with either of you two (as far as I know! ;) ) ... this thread is about 55mph speed limits and enforcement of such limits (which is slightly OT, but not as OT as "discussing" the constitutionality of laws regarding moving someone's personal two-wheeled property. I know there was a separate thread for that around here somewhere... (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28022)

Now on topic:

As a benefit of 55mph speed limits, I'd probably find myself riding off-slab more as there would be less of a time-savings for riding the slab, and I could enjoy more scenery. That being said, do you think we might experience higher traffic volume overall on secondary roads for the same reason?

[lamble]

I'm going to play Switzerland here - neutral. I have no problem with either of you two (as far as I know! ;) ) ... this thread is about 55mph speed limits and enforcement of such limits (which is slightly OT, but not as OT as "discussing" the constitutionality of laws regarding moving someone's personal two-wheeled property. I know there was a separate thread for that around here somewhere... (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28022)

Now on topic:

As a benefit of 55mph speed limits, I'd probably find myself riding off-slab more as there would be less of a time-savings for riding the slab, and I could enjoy more scenery. That being said, do you think we might experience higher traffic volume overall on secondary roads for the same reason?

See that idea of backing up traffic on secondary roads was one reason the UK Gov't opted for fuel rationing...see the last post where I was back on track. As almost all roads in the UK are sort of secondary, the speed limit isn't, or rather wasn't the problem. It was the volume of traffic. Rationing ensured only "essential" journeys were made. Controlling the supply of fuel is far easier to accomplish than checking speeds.
I know which I'd implement if I were after a quick fix. And I don't know if it's a stoic British thing or not, but we accepted it as being in our interest. Perhaps we are just gullible and believed the propoganda at the time.
Could fuel rationing happen in the USA?
Of course.
Would you accept it? What choice would you have?
I don't mean would you like it, just what could you do, practically, not all the broohaha bravado tosh, that sounds big but achieves nothing?
55mph, you still have a choice don't you..you could speed and take the risk.

If you get a choice in the matter, opt for 55mph. Take it from me fuel rationing was horrible, even though I was a small kid, I can recall how inhibiting it was, and that was in a little country like ours.


This is hypothetical of course and not intended to be scaremongery.

[jdmetzger]

See that idea of backing up traffic on secondary roads was one reason the UK Gov't opted for fuel rationing...see the last post where I was back on track. As almost all roads in the UK are sort of secondary, the speed limit isn't, or rather wasn't the problem. It was the volume of traffic. Rationing ensured only "essential" journeys were made. Controlling the supply of fuel is far easier to accomplish than checking speeds.
I know which I'd implement if I were after a quick fix.

Looks like we posted at the same time, on that last one. You must have beat me by a few second. :)

Anyhow, I can't see them rationing fuel here unless supply was an actual problem (as opposed to price being the limiting factor). There is no money to be made in rationing fuel. Big oil would complain because they wouldn't be able to sell as much - they would then raise prices and cause additional problems. It sure would cut down on non-essential travel, though. In the meantime food prices was skyrocket. Due to the large area we have to cover in this country, we don't have a choice for that "last mile" aside from trucks. From there things would quickly tailspin out of control and ruin the economy (more). Some would benefit from rationing, though. Companies selling hybrid vehicles would make a killing because people could go further on less fuel. Alternative energy companies (and companies making parts supplying the hybrid vehicle market) would be in a good position as well. Electric vehicles would become more attractive.

Aside from all of that, rationing would mean less money going into the pockets of local municipalities for speeding tickets. They wouldn't like that, either.

[From MARS]

As a benefit of 55mph speed limits, I'd probably find myself riding off-slab more as there would be less of a time-savings for riding the slab, and I could enjoy more scenery. That being said, do you think we might experience higher traffic volume overall on secondary roads for the same reason?

Perhaps there would be a few more that think like you think, but overall, I don't see it as being "crowded".

My reasoning lies in that people like to proceed from point A to point B with minimal hassles. At 55, the slab would provide cruise-control monotony that could be uninterrupted for hours. On the back roads, there are interruptions like towns, tractors, and the occasional dog in their path. Most won't like the loss of control. In addition, everybody will be driving gas saving cars that can't pass without a running start. So, they're not going to risk getting caught behind a SMV and stay on the 4-lane. Having a few more "rabbits" on the back roads wouldn't bother me. In fact, until I break down and buy that Valentine 1, they'd even be welcomed.

Tom

[lamble]

Looks like we posted at the same time, on that last one. You must have beat me by a few second. :)

Anyhow, I can't see them rationing fuel here unless supply was an actual problem (as opposed to price being the limiting factor). There is no money to be made in rationing fuel. Big oil would complain because they wouldn't be able to sell as much - they would then raise prices and cause additional problems. It sure would cut down on non-essential travel, though. In the meantime food prices was skyrocket. Due to the large area we have to cover in this country, we don't have a choice for that "last mile" aside from trucks. From there things would quickly tailspin out of control and ruin the economy (more). Some would benefit from rationing, though. Companies selling hybrid vehicles would make a killing because people could go further on less fuel. Alternative energy companies (and companies making parts supplying the hybrid vehicle market) would be in a good position as well. Electric vehicles would become more attractive.

Aside from all of that, rationing would mean less money going into the pockets of local municipalities for speeding tickets. They wouldn't like that, either.

"Financial rationing"...I knew there would be an American way to deal with this.:stick
Current pricing is based on the supply being too little. It wouldn't require the USA to be the culprit either, India or China could be the bad guys on this one. Throw in a middle east conflict or two and the pipes are suddenly sputtering.
Shame it imaginable!

Trust me, rationing will be mentioned by someone soon.








Rationing!!


See told you.

[rocketman]

Hate to bear bad news, but two summers ago I rode to North Carolina, all on back roads. The second day, most of the day, we traversed the Natchez Trace Parkway at the speed limit, which was 50 MPH, in 5th gear. We got an almost unbelievable 60 MPG, two up on the 2005 RT. I don't want lower speed limits....love that 80 MPH in West Texas....but it is hard to debate whether lower speeds are more fuel efficient, IMO. :cry

that may well be in that case, but for the average car everything I've read says that 65 is about the speed that they get the best MPG, note this is on the slab, two lane back roads are another matter where there is a lots of speed changes going on, but since its not likely that all those major highways will get shut down or stop being used, we're talking two different beasts.

RM

[jdmetzger]

"Financial rationing"...I knew there would be an American way to deal with this.:stick
Current pricing is based on the supply being too little. It wouldn't require the USA to be the culprit either, India or China could be the bad guys on this one. Throw in a middle east conflict or two and the pipes are suddenly sputtering.
Shame it imaginable!

Trust me, rationing will be mentioned by someone soon.


Rationing!!


See told you.

Heh; "financial rationing". It's just the oil companies way of squeezing every last penny from consumers wallets. Raise prices until consumption drops, then reduce prices just enough that people will keep buying. They call this "supply and demand" to make it sound reasonable. Take a look at their record profits. If all they were doing is "passing the cost onto consumers", their earnings would be flat. They aren't. On top of that, their profits continue to rise as consumption has declined. In the end, OPEC and the oil companies are shotting themselves in the foot. While we'll be dependent on them for a while yet, it's making more people look at alternative energy sources. OPEC will be good for a while as countries like India and China (and other up-and-coming economies) will still be needing oil after we transition to something else, I imagine.

I still don't expect rationing, but I could see someone mentioning in an attempt to sway the majority opinion towards drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge and off of the coast.

[BeemerMike]

As we joke internally, "When solar power looks to be profitable, we'll just buy the Sun!" :D

[jdmetzger]

As we joke internally, "When solar power looks to be profitable, we'll just buy the Sun!" :D

I was wondering if you were going to jump in on this one. :)

I know a few of the "big oil" (now "energy") companies are advertising that they are investing in "alternative fuels". I expect much of the money to go into advanced battery technologies - some are planning ahead to keep in business although I realize it will be many years before they start really getting hit with declining profits from petroleum.

[DarrylRi]

As we joke internally, "When solar power looks to be profitable, we'll just buy the Sun!" :D

Solar power is already profitable, but just not on a quarter by quarter basis. One must have a longer outlook than that. However, that is not how business operates in this country.

I'm hoping to get at least 13 years of "free" electricity, but I have to wait another 6 (for a total of 12) before it's paid for. In the meantime, I have paid PG&E a total of $500 for electricity in the last 6 years.

http://cps.crafty-fox.com

[BeemerMike]

I'm hoping to get at least 13 years of "free" electricity, but I have to wait another 6 (for a total of 12) before it's paid for. In the meantime, I have paid PG&E a total of $500 for electricity in the last 6 years.

A capital investment with a projected 12-year payback is probably never going to be considered adequately "profitable" from a business standpoint to justify the investment. The ROCE would just be too low.

[BeemerMike]

I know a few of the "big oil" (now "energy") companies are advertising that they are investing in "alternative fuels". I expect much of the money to go into advanced battery technologies - some are planning ahead to keep in business although I realize it will be many years before they start really getting hit with declining profits from petroleum.

I realize that many people think that "big oil" is run by a bunch of dumb f*cks who can't plan ahead for the day (that never seems to come) when the crude oil will run out, and instead just just sit around smoking cigars and raking in the piles of money that come from the "big secret conspiracy" (that no one can ever prove) to control world oil and gasoline prices . . . and so be it. We're used to it. We have thick skins. Really.

BTW - We just developed a new thin battery film technology that will help make batteries smaller and more efficient, thus helping advance the day when there will be the marketable battery-powered car that every tree-hugger dreams about! Battery film . . . made from plastics . . . made from (uh-oh) crude oil. Get the connection? :heh

In the real world, companies have to invest their money wisely in things they have expertise in and that have a reasonble expectation of an acceptable return on that investment, because they cannot just "tax the rich" to get more money if some high-minded idea turns out to be a "dry hole". :)

[DarrylRi]

A capital investment with a projected 12-year payback is probably never going to be considered adequately "profitable" from a business standpoint to justify the investment. The ROCE would just be too low.

I think that's exactly what I said, in my simple minded way.

This is also partly why there are no new oil refineries built -- although in that case, it is in part due to the changing regulatory environment makes it difficult to predict future costs and profits. A lot of the coal power people are now asking for the government to make up its mind about carbon tax/cap and trade/etc. so that they can figure out what makes sense economically for them to do. They know something is coming, but can't say what.

Because I expect to live in this house for more than the next 6 years, and also because I think it entirely reasonable to predict that electricity prices will rise, and probably significantly, rather than fall, I was willing to take the risk. I also believe that my payoff time will in fact shorten up, as it already has done so -- when we installed the system, the payoff time was just under 15 years. But this is the kind of decision that can only be made by an entity that doesn't answer to Wall Street's quarterly profit call.

I have read that many businesses might consider adding solar power if the payoff time got under 10 years from the time of purchase. Looks like that could be getting closer.

[KGT1200]

I was under the assumtion that the two most popular forms of alternative power of active solar and wind had two distinct issues which took away a large portion of the energy savings; wind power is mechanical, and required repair and replacement of parts, which factored into the "savings" reduced the overall gain to the point, unfortunately, the gain you made was hardly worth it. If you dump the energy into the main frame, no storage issues came up, but if you were using a stand alone windmill(s), then you had the issue of batteries. Then there is sun energy. Storage batteries is the issue I am questioning.. If you have active solar, you have to have storage. when you factor in the cost and energy to make/create the battery, then buy new batteries when these wear out. is a reducer of any gain. Then the biggy loss in active solar is the cost to dispose of said burned out batteries, you have just negated out your original gain in the first place.

Passive gain, using trombe walls and absorbtion techniques is at current the best utilization on the market.

For all the experts out there, is this the case, or have things improved since going back to school to learn this while working on my Masters in Construction Management at CSU?

[DarrylRi]

BTW - We just developed a new thin battery film technology that will help make batteries smaller and more efficient, thus helping advance the day when there will be the marketable battery-powered car that every tree-hugger dreams about! Battery film . . . made from plastics . . . made from (uh-oh) crude oil. Get the connection? :heh

Yes, it makes a lot more sense to make things out of hydrocarbons rather than to burn them, just as it makes a lot more sense to grow food for food rather than to burn it. The ethanol for fuel idea is a complete waste of time (and energy ;-).

Looks like there's some advances coming on the fuel cells for small applications front, too ("batteries" for cell phones and laptops, rechargable with the equivalent of a can of butane). I'm hoping that competing technologies will make this happen sooner...

[jdmetzger]

I have read that many businesses might consider adding solar power if the payoff time got under 10 years from the time of purchase. Looks like that could be getting closer.

One thing I've been seeing more of is new churches being built with solar panels. Not houses or business, but I've seen a number of churches investing in them. I wonder if the idea will trickle down to the congregation.

I'm not staying in my current house much longer, so no solar cells for me. On top of that, I have too much tree coverage and a small lot. I'm hoping to install them on my next home, as well as looking into rainwater reclamation. If I live in a windy area I'd even consider putting in a small windmill; assuming space is available and zoning rules would allow it. The good thing about making your own power is you can sell it back to the power company if you're not using all of it at the time. :)

[jdmetzger]

I was under the assumtion that the two most popular forms of alternative power of active solar and wind had two distinct issues which took away a large portion of the energy savings; wind power is mechanical, and required repair and replacement of parts, which factored into the "savings" reduced the overall gain to the point, unfortunately, the gain you made was hardly worth it. If you dump the energy into the main frame, no storage issues came up, but if you were using a stand alone windmill(s), then you had the issue of batteries. Then there is sun energy. Batteries. If you have active solar, you have to have storage. when you factor in the cost and energy to make the battery, to buy new batteries when these wear out , then the biggy the cost to dispose of said burned out batteries, you have just negated out your original gain in the first place.

Passive gain, using trombe walls and absorbtion techniques is at current the best utilization on the market.

For all the experts out there, is this the case, or have things improved since going back to school to learn this while working on my Masters in Construction Management at CSU?

There are no issues of storage generally because regardless of wind or solar, you still need to be able to pull power off the grid if it's really cloudy or you suddenly have a huge demand. Because of this, you feed the "unused" power from solar/wind back into the grid (and get paid for it). With solar you just use an inverter to get from DC to AC. There is some loss, but not enough to make it not be a cost savings.

Now if you were totally off the grid, then there would be some issues with storage, although that would be no issue since you wouldn't have any other choice aside from buying lots of candles. :)

I think efficiencies on windmills have increased, or else you wouldn't see so much wind generation going on. I've been to lots of places (along the southern shore of Lake Huron in Ontario) where they have been installing large windmills. On a flight along the Dutch coast, I saw MANY windmills producing power (and no, not the "old kind" the tourists look for). :)

[rocketman]

I realize that many people think that "big oil" is run by a bunch of dumb f*cks who can't plan ahead for the day (that never seems to come) when the crude oil will run out, and instead just just sit around smoking cigars and raking in the piles of money that come from the "big secret conspiracy" (that no one can ever prove) to control world oil and gasoline prices . . . and so be it. We're used to it. We have thick skins. Really.

BTW - We just developed a new thin battery film technology that will help make batteries smaller and more efficient, thus helping advance the day when there will be the marketable battery-powered car that every tree-hugger dreams about! Battery film . . . made from plastics . . . made from (uh-oh) crude oil. Get the connection? :heh

In the real world, companies have to invest their money wisely in things they have expertise in and that have a reasonble expectation of an acceptable return on that investment, because they cannot just "tax the rich" to get more money if some high-minded idea turns out to be a "dry hole". :)

Wow, now that's the most insulting thing I've read for quite a while! Ha Ha!

If you really think that most people are that stupid and ignorart and really think that big is a bunch of dummies, why bother posting at all since we (the collective we) are obviously to dumb to be able to see the turth!?

If you want me to listen to you and accept your ideas, starting out with a sweeping insult sure as hell ain't the way to do it! Ha Ha!

RM

RM

[rocketman]

Yes, it makes a lot more sense to make things out of hydrocarbons rather than to burn them, just as it makes a lot more sense to grow food for food rather than to burn it. The ethanol for fuel idea is a complete waste of time (and energy ;-).

Looks like there's some advances coming on the fuel cells for small applications front, too ("batteries" for cell phones and laptops, rechargable with the equivalent of a can of butane). I'm hoping that competing technologies will make this happen sooner...

not so, check out the idea of using grasses, it has been shown that, unlike corn, you do in fact get more energy out than you put in to the growing (it grows wild for pete's sake!) and processing of it, plus many areas of the country have gov. requlations providing a certain percentage of land be used for growing parrie grasses to protect the soil provide enviornments and habits, plus you can get 2 yeilds a year. So it not that bio-fuels are bad in whole just the current practice of using corn.

RM

[DarrylRi]

I was under the assumtion that the two most popular forms of alternative power of active solar and wind had two distinct issues which took away a large portion of the energy savings; wind power is mechanical, and required repair and replacement of parts, which factored into the "savings" reduced the overall gain to the point, unfortunately, the gain you made was hardly worth it.

Wind power has been under constant improvement over the last two decades, and current wind generators are far more reliable and efficient than those of even 10 years ago. The biggest problem for wind is that it is often best where there are few people, and so transmission infrastructure needs upgrading. This is another issue that requires power companies to be able to predict potential profits reliably, and the current on again/off again subsidies that Congress adds and removes keeps this situation unstable. If wind and solar got a reliable pass on subsidies the way coal and oil always do, this would greatly increase the amount of wind energy in use here.

If you dump the energy into the main frame, no storage issues came up, but if you were using a stand alone windmill(s), then you had the issue of batteries. Then there is sun energy. Storage batteries is the issue I am questioning.. If you have active solar, you have to have storage. when you factor in the cost and energy to make/create the battery, then buy new batteries when these wear out. is a reducer of any gain. Then the biggy loss in active solar is the cost to dispose of said burned out batteries, you have just negated out your original gain in the first place.

Not at all. First of all, for smaller installations, batteries can last 8-10 years with the smart cycling programs already in use in most of the battery chargers. Then, nearly 100% of used batteries are recycled, because they are the deep cycle "marine" type batteries, for which there is already a recycling infrastructure.

No serious student of the energy situation expects renewables to completely replace coal and oil any time in the reasonable future. If we can, however, relieve our total dependency on them, the market pressure will be relieved and the prices on those commodities will come down. Further, with a consistent policy of investing in renewables, we will control our own energy destiny, which will enable us to choose more rational ways of interacting with the rest of the world.

Passive gain, using trombe walls and absorbtion techniques is at current the best utilization on the market.

For all the experts out there, is this the case, or have things improved since going back to school to learn this while working on my Masters in Construction Management at CSU?

(Which CSU are you talking about? I graduated from CSU -- Cal State Uni -- Northridge, for example.)

Passive ideas like that are also good. Our house has a some ideas like that built into it (overhanging eaves with a 6" deep concrete slab on the south facing side; in the summer, with the sun overhead, the eaves shade the concrete and it tends to cool the house while in winter, with the sun low in the sky, it heats the concrete and thus the house). We have no air conditioning, but again, we are on the California coast and have a relatively mild set of extremes to deal with.

For many years now in Israel, all new construction has had to include passive hot water heating (fairly easy to do in the desert, of course). There are some examples like this that work even in New England, but they require architects and builders who are well versed in the techniques to make it work.

We are about to make another investment in solar hot water. We are on propane, which follows the cost of oil, and in the 9+ years we have lived here, propane has more than tripled in cost. We are hoping to cut 70% of the propane we use for heating water (should be a reduction in the neighborhood of 40% overall of our propane costs). Again, this is a long term investment, with a payoff in the neighborhood of about 8 years.

[DarrylRi]

not so, check out the idea of using grasses, it has been shown that, unlike corn, you do in fact get more energy out than you put in to the growing (it grows wild for pete's sake!) and processing of it, plus many areas of the country have gov. requlations providing a certain percentage of land be used for growing parrie grasses to protect the soil provide enviornments and habits, plus you can get 2 yeilds a year. So it not that bio-fuels are bad in whole just the current practice of using corn.

RM

You have me, RM, I've made a statement that was too sweeping. What I really should have said was that biofuels from foodstuffs is a really bad idea. Although switchgrass has a huge potential, it is not yet a feasible alternative, but if it ever does achieve its potential, it will be another energy source that will allow us to control our own future rather than being unendingly involved in the politics and wars of the middle east.

[rocketman]

You have me, RM, I've made a statement that was too sweeping. What I really should have said was that biofuels from foodstuffs is a really bad idea. Although switchgrass has a huge potential, it is not yet a feasible alternative, but if it ever does achieve its potential, it will be another energy source that will allow us to control our own future rather than being unendingly involved in the politics and wars of the middle east.

agreed, food stuff are needed for food! Its a common misstatement, people often lump all bio-fuels together when in fact there are viable options.

One thing that gets me about the whole corn issue was that business of paying farmers NOT to grow it, not sure if that is still being done today, but when I read about that back in school (in the 60's) and thought of all the poeple I saw starving overseas while growing up, I couldn't help but wonder??????why??? But that's a whole other issue....

RM

[BeemerMike]

If you really think that most people are that stupid and ignorart and really think that big is a bunch of dummies, why bother posting at all since we (the collective we) are obviously to dumb to be able to see the turth!?

I did not say "most" people, I said "many" people.

At the ExxonMobil annual shareholder meeting in May, members of the Rockefeller family (decendents of John D.) brought forth a shareholder resolution to split the CEO and COB jobs because they felt this resulted in the company being too focused on crude oil and not able to foresee and plan for alternatives, and in essence to try to force the corporation to spend money on things other than what the current management feels is prudent. They brought a similar resolution forward last year. The resolution failed both times. And, in the past year when crude and gasoline prices have risen so much, there have been many calls (usually, but not exclusively, by Democrats) to adopt a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, so that if the oil companies did not start spending more money on alternative energy ideas, then the government would just take (excuse me, "tax") the money away and then spend it on alternatives. Bill O'Reilly, and many others, insist there is a big oil conspiracy to raise crude oil and gasoline prices, even though experts and economists tell them that it is not true.

So, you think my statement is completely unfounded? :whistle

[BeemerMike]

I think that's exactly what I said, in my simple minded way.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know exactly how you did your economic analysis.

My point was that a 12-year payback probably did not generate an adequate ROCE to be "business" profitable. Business profitable is not just picking an alternative that spends less over time than another alternative. And I don't think it is really a "quarter-by-quarter basis" profitability issue either, otherwise big oil would never spend the huge amounts of money to explore offshore.

It really comes down to a complicated analysis of how much capital does the company have to invest (and when), how much revenue is generated (and when), and what is the "return" on that invested capital for a specific "project" compared to all the other "projects" that the capital could be invested in. No one is going to spend $100 today to get $200 back 20 years from today.

Even in your situation, the choices are not really just 1) pay the monthly bill to the electric company compared to 2) building your solar system to reduce your monthly bill to the electric company, and see which one pays out the fewest dollars over time. In addition to looking at the net present value of all those paments (solar and electric company), you should also compare other choices, such as investing the money you would spend on the solar system in something else (such as the stock market or T-bills or something else) and then paying the electric bill with the income.

For a personal choice such as your house, you can assign some intangible value to the "good feeling" you get by helping the environment. Unfortunately, most companies cannot stay in business on good feelings. And currently, it does not appear that solar power has the investment/return ratio that makes it attractive to much investment. Maybe someday.

[jdmetzger]

For a personal choice such as your house, you can assign some intangible value to the "good feeling" you get by helping the environment. Unfortunately, most companies cannot stay in business on good feelings. And currently, it does not appear that solar power has the investment/return ratio that makes it attractive to much investment. Maybe someday.

I think many people would disagree with your assessment that solar power doesn't have the investment/return ratio to make it attractive to much investment. Let's look at the stock prices for "First Solar" (below). I happen to know a few employees for said company. Orders are flowing in; they have orders to keep them busy for years. Apparently investors are comfortable with their business plan, as well.

http://www.jdmetzger.com/img/forum/fs-stock.jpg

Solar IS profitable, even for your house. You'll save more that way over investing the money as long as you wait a few years. Especially when you consider the quickly increasing energy prices.

[hlothery]

I was under the assumtion that the two most popular forms of alternative power of active solar and wind had two distinct issues which took away a large portion of the energy savings; wind power is mechanical, and required repair and replacement of parts, which factored into the "savings" reduced the overall gain to the point, unfortunately, the gain you made was hardly worth it. If you dump the energy into the main frame, no storage issues came up, but if you were using a stand alone windmill(s), then you had the issue of batteries. Then there is sun energy. Storage batteries is the issue I am questioning.. If you have active solar, you have to have storage. when you factor in the cost and energy to make/create the battery, then buy new batteries when these wear out. is a reducer of any gain. Then the biggy loss in active solar is the cost to dispose of said burned out batteries, you have just negated out your original gain in the first place.

Passive gain, using trombe walls and absorbtion techniques is at current the best utilization on the market.

For all the experts out there, is this the case, or have things improved since going back to school to learn this while working on my Masters in Construction Management at CSU?

I would relate my experience with this, admittedly small as it is. Used to be a sailor....had a nice O'Day 25. The battery, of course, kept going dead. I looked for several options, without having to leave the boat plugged in to shore power all the time. I was repeatedly told there were no alternatives. I purchased a small solar panel, and installed it near the stern, in the floor of the cockpit (a most disadvantagous position I was told). I never, ever again had a dead battery, and the new battery I had purchased lasted almost 7 years. I had several friends who had wind generators who told similar tales. True, I had to purchase the storage device, but wind and solar really work in some applications. I'll bet we could develop more if we really tried.

[rocketman]

I did not say "most" people, I said "many" people.

At the ExxonMobil annual shareholder meeting in May, members of the Rockefeller family (decendents of John D.) brought forth a shareholder resolution to split the CEO and COB jobs because they felt this resulted in the company being too focused on crude oil and not able to foresee and plan for alternatives, and in essence to try to force the corporation to spend money on things other than what the current management feels is prudent. They brought a similar resolution forward last year. The resolution failed both times. And, in the past year when crude and gasoline prices have risen so much, there have been many calls (usually, but not exclusively, by Democrats) to adopt a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, so that if the oil companies did not start spending more money on alternative energy ideas, then the government would just take (excuse me, "tax") the money away and then spend it on alternatives. Bill O'Reilly, and many others, insist there is a big oil conspiracy to raise crude oil and gasoline prices, even though experts and economists tell them that it is not true.

So, you think my statement is completely unfounded? :whistle

unfortuneately that would get us into politics....

as for Mr. O'Reilly's opinions, well lets just say that after a reading a study done on him and his methods by the Indiana University, I tend to distrust the verasity of his statements on such matters, (can you say Adjenda?)

So, are you, perchance, whistling "Dixie"? Ha Ha!

RM

[rocketman]

On the issue of solar energy use by corp. America, Whole Foods stores have had a quite successful transition to use of solar panels to power some of their stores and its been found to be very cost effective by a collaboration with the installer. See the link below, basically it just takes a commitment and foresight on the part of the company and falls well within financial feasibility.


http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/greenaction/solarpower.html

RM

[From MARS]

I have really enjoyed reading what you guys have written because a lot of my mental energy has been directed towards this very subject; Do I go solar, wind, or remain on the grid.

During one 5 year period in my past, I lived aboard and cruised my 31 ft. sailboat. Since I had to support myself along the way, we stayed pretty much within 300 miles of the States. There was one period where the boat did not touch a dock for 18 months. We were off the grid, for sure. We were set-up with all 12vdc systems from stereo to freezer. Even had a little 12 volt color tv/vcr. The main source of charging our battery bank was a wind gen. mounted on the stern. If the wind was light, we'd fire up the main engine which had a high output alternator on it. We chose wind over solar as our main charging system because of initial $/watt expense.


Now, I live in Kansas with room enough to lay out a nice solar array or to erect a wind turbine tower. I'm a pretty simple guy, and so my first inclination is to return to the simple system we had on the boat, with expanded storage capacity, of course. The inverters I worked with on yachts were like 99% efficient and could be mounted at the base of the turbine, in with the batteries, and 220VAC sent underground to the house to reduce line losses (not a big issue on a small boat). Part of my reasoning is the freedom it gives me from price increases, but also, we have a lot of power outages out here in the middle of nowhere, and I find it a little frustrating sitting in the dark not knowing if it is going to be 30 minutes or week before we get power back. Having done this before, I know that there will be times that power will have to be conserved, but if I have to, the Jeep has a high output alternator on it. Any thoughts?

Tom

[BeemerMike]

I think many people would disagree with your assessment that solar power doesn't have the investment/return ratio to make it attractive to much investment. Let's look at the stock prices for "First Solar" (below).

Leaving aside the fact that stock price of a solar company and capital investment in the underlying technology are two different things, if solar power (i.e., actually building the solar power systems) did indeed have an attractive investment/return ratio, then then those "many people" (other than T. Boone) would be rushing to invest their capital in building the systems so they could make all of this money. Is that happening to any large extent?

[BeemerMike]

unfortuneately that would get us into politics....

No, it would not get us into politics. They are just examples to support my statement about what "many people" feel about oil companies.

[DarrylRi]

My point was that a 12-year payback probably did not generate an adequate ROCE to be "business" profitable. Business profitable is not just picking an alternative that spends less over time than another alternative. And I don't think it is really a "quarter-by-quarter basis" profitability issue either, otherwise big oil would never spend the huge amounts of money to explore offshore.

I understand this. However, businesses, especially publicly held businesses, must have next quarter's numbers foremost in their minds. They cannot long put off the shareholders on a longer term investment. That's why you see a lot of solar and wind going in on private homes, government buildings, and in privately held businesses.

The numbers do make sense, especially if you do a bit of analysis of past trends in costs and then look at the political and economic environment. After the system is paid off, there is 10-15 years of "free" electricity (panels have a 25 year warranty), with the likelihood of actually getting 20-25 years of free electricity as the panels tend to degrade gradually rather than fail completely. With energy prices rising far faster than inflation or the stock market, and my payoff time shortening up, I have more and more to gain by owning my own electricity. The future value of my system is actually increasing, not depreciating.

For a personal choice such as your house, you can assign some intangible value to the "good feeling" you get by helping the environment. Unfortunately, most companies cannot stay in business on good feelings. And currently, it does not appear that solar power has the investment/return ratio that makes it attractive to much investment. Maybe someday.

I DO like the good feeling, but it's also the case that, because I can take a longer viewpoint on it than most businesses can, I can reap substantial rewards by planning for the longer term future.

Here's another example:
-----
2 years ago we bought a Prius. Typical Californian feel-good thing, right? At the time there was some discussion about whether a Prius actually saved money over its lifetime compared to a less expensive, similar conventional car. Consumer Reports eventually said a Prius might save its owner $3k (after first saying it was a losing proposition and then having to make a public turnabout). But that was when gas cost $2.50 a gallon. Now it costs $4.50, here in California, and it has been over $5 for a while this year.

Here's a little math. Let's assume a 150,000 mile lifetime for the Prius (that's the warranty period for its battery pack) and compare it to a conventional 5 person sedan that gets, let's say, 25 mpg. Our Prius routinely returns over 40mpg, so

150,000 miles / 40 mpg = 3750 gallons of gas
150,000 miles / 25 mpg = 6000 gallons of gas

6000 - 3750 = 2250 gallons of gas saved * $4.50/gallon = $10,125 saved

If one could have predicted a rise in gas costs 2 years ago, one could already be saving significant money on their transportation costs. I don't think it took a crystal ball to do that, but a lot of Americans were still buying SUVs and Hummers then, so perhaps I'm prescient. ;) If the cost of gas goes up more -- not unlikely in my book, as big oil has every reason to see that happen, the dollar is likely to get weaker before it gets stronger, and other observations -- then we will be saving even more money.
-----
And another:
-----
As I mentioned, where we live, we are on propane. We use that for cooking, heating and hot water, and buy about 1,200 gallons of propane a year. Propane follows the cost of oil. When we moved here 9 years ago, propane was right at $1/gallon. Now it's $3.40/gallon. I predict, for the same reasons above, that it will not likely go down soon and in fact will probably continue to rise.

On average, I am probably using half of my propane to heat water. With a little research, I've found that, for heating water, I can completely eliminate my propane use in the summer and cut it in half in the winter by installing a solar hot water system at a cost of, say $9k.

So,

1200 gallons propane/year * 50% for heating water = 600 gallons propane

I save 75% of that, or 450 gallons, by moving to solar hot water.

450 gallons * $3.40/gallon = $1530 saved/year.

$9000 initial cost / $1530 saved per year = 5.88 years to pay off.

So, in 6 years -- or less if my propane costs continue to rise, what do you think? -- I will then begin to save $1530/year in propane costs.

If the system has a 10 year lifetime (it should last longer), it will still save me over $6,000. If it lasts 15 years, then it will save over $14,000. That's on a $9k investment, so it will actually become more valuable over time, and should actually be a better investment than T Bills.

And, I get to feel good about it, too.
-----

[rocketman]

I understand this. However, businesses, especially publicly held businesses, must have next quarter's numbers foremost in their minds. They cannot long put off the shareholders on a longer term investment. That's why you see a lot of solar and wind going in on private homes, government buildings, and in privately held businesses.

The numbers do make sense, especially if you do a bit of analysis of past trends in costs and then look at the political and economic environment. After the system is paid off, there is 10-15 years of "free" electricity (panels have a 25 year warranty), with the likelihood of actually getting 20-25 years of free electricity as the panels tend to degrade gradually rather than fail completely. With energy prices rising far faster than inflation or the stock market, and my payoff time shortening up, I have more and more to gain by owning my own electricity. The future value of my system is actually increasing, not depreciating.


<snip>
And, I get to feel good about it, too.
-----

At least untill the gobbermint institutes a "feel good" tax! :laugh

RM

[DarrylRi]

At least untill the gobbermint institutes a "feel good" tax! :laugh

RM

Good point, Rocketman, but the IRS will have already thrown me in jail over the taxes on riding my BMWs.

[DarrylRi]

I have really enjoyed reading what you guys have written because a lot of my mental energy has been directed towards this very subject; Do I go solar, wind, or remain on the grid.

I've been meaning to comment on this. This is not an either/or proposition. Although my photovoltaic system is a total "grid-tie" system, I could have installed a battery storage system as well and then been immune to power outages.

(Odd though it may seem, even with a PV system, when there's a power outage, I have no power. The system, which feeds electricity back into the utility's lines, must stop generating immediately when it senses a power failure, for the safety of the utility's workers.)

I did not choose to go that way for a couple reasons. One is that California offers a substantial rebate to people that install these systems, but a factor in the rebate amount is the "generating efficiency" of the system, and for battery-backed systems the nominal efficiency is about 10% lower than for a grid-tie system. Another is that, while a nuisance, a power outage isn't terrible, and I weighed the annoyance factor vs. the effort to store and maintain a set of batteries. Finally, a battery-backed system is more expensive to install, because of the initial expense of the batteries and the cost to build a place to store them.

Now, I live in Kansas with room enough to lay out a nice solar array or to erect a wind turbine tower. I'm a pretty simple guy, and so my first inclination is to return to the simple system we had on the boat, with expanded storage capacity, of course. The inverters I worked with on yachts were like 99% efficient and could be mounted at the base of the turbine, in with the batteries, and 220VAC sent underground to the house to reduce line losses (not a big issue on a small boat). Part of my reasoning is the freedom it gives me from price increases, but also, we have a lot of power outages out here in the middle of nowhere, and I find it a little frustrating sitting in the dark not knowing if it is going to be 30 minutes or week before we get power back. Having done this before, I know that there will be times that power will have to be conserved, but if I have to, the Jeep has a high output alternator on it. Any thoughts?

Tom

If you have the right conditions for a wind generator, that will be a far better investment. Wind systems, in the right environment, can produce electricity for under $0.08/kwh (solar PV is probably double that). The generators like constant winds in the 8-20 mph kind of region. Gusty winds are not good for them (which is why I had to stop considering one myself).

Regarding the batteries, you need to figure out your electricity consumption (average over a year's worth of electiricity bills, for example) and then decide how long you want to be able to go when the grid is down and the wind isn't blowing. That will give you the basis for figuring out how many batteries you need.

[nortonrt]

Damned interesting and informed discussion about this solar vs. wind, etc. business, but as it relates to my original question (the effect of 55mph speed limit on motorcycling), should I use wind or solar panels on my RT?

Just kidding. A good discussion, not too overheated. Obviously there are some interested and thoughtful folks in our community. Bodes well for our future.

[rocketman]

Damned interesting and informed discussion about this solar vs. wind, etc. business, but as it relates to my original question (the effect of 55mph speed limit on motorcycling), should I use wind or solar panels on my RT?

Just kidding. A good discussion, not too overheated. Obviously there are some interested and thoughtful folks in our community. Bodes well for our future.


deffinately wind power, I mean think about it, once you get moving you're generating your own power source! :laugh

Such an obvious solution I can't beleive you even had to ask! :stick

RM

[rocketman]

I've been meaning to comment on this. This is not an either/or proposition. Although my photovoltaic system is a total "grid-tie" system, I could have installed a battery storage system as well and then been immune to power outages.

(Odd though it may seem, even with a PV system, when there's a power outage, I have no power. The system, which feeds electricity back into the utility's lines, must stop generating immediately when it senses a power failure, for the safety of the utility's workers.)

I did not choose to go that way for a couple reasons. One is that California offers a substantial rebate to people that install these systems, but a factor in the rebate amount is the "generating efficiency" of the system, and for battery-backed systems the nominal efficiency is about 10% lower than for a grid-tie system. Another is that, while a nuisance, a power outage isn't terrible, and I weighed the annoyance factor vs. the effort to store and maintain a set of batteries. Finally, a battery-backed system is more expensive to install, because of the initial expense of the batteries and the cost to build a place to store them.



If you have the right conditions for a wind generator, that will be a far better investment. Wind systems, in the right environment, can produce electricity for under $0.08/kwh (solar PV is probably double that). The generators like constant winds in the 8-20 mph kind of region. Gusty winds are not good for them (which is why I had to stop considering one myself).

Regarding the batteries, you need to figure out your electricity consumption (average over a year's worth of electiricity bills, for example) and then decide how long you want to be able to go when the grid is down and the wind isn't blowing. That will give you the basis for figuring out how many batteries you need.

One other factor to consider is that wind power could be viewed as an "active" system in that you have moving parts that wear, whereas solar is "passive" without any moving parts thus esentually no maintenance issues (except for possible damage to the panels from storms throwing objects around, not likely but a consideration).

RM

[The_Veg]

One other factor to consider is that wind power could be viewed as an "active" system in that you have moving parts that wear, whereas solar is "passive" without any moving parts thus esentually no maintenance issues (except for possible damage to the panels from storms throwing objects around, not likely but a consideration).

RM

Wind can also be noisy. Our local news recently had a story about a neighbourhood in which somebody put up their own turbine and make an air-raid-like howl that none of the nighbours can stand. But then this IS TexSux, where they think you're some kinda weenie-wussy type if you're not making pollution.

[From MARS]

One other factor to consider is that wind power could be viewed as an "active" system in that you have moving parts that wear, whereas solar is "passive" without any moving parts thus esentually no maintenance issues (except for possible damage to the panels from storms throwing objects around, not likely but a consideration).

RM

Good point! I had to replace brushes on my marine system every 12-18 months. While that wouldn't be a problem for the next few years if my health holds out, someday I hope to be too old to go climbing around on mast or towers. Not being able to fix it myself would add drastically to my cost of maintenance. We do have perfect winds, and physical location, for either system. That's one of the reasons making the decision is taking so long. I only want to do this once.

+1 for the wind generator on the RT. Not only can he get extra DC to power all the farkles, but he could use it as a fan on those balmy nights to keep the bugs away.

Tom

[nortonrt]

To get back to the original gist of this thread, Spain is reducing speed-limits, and taking other actions, to address their energy problems (cost, availability, waste, etc.). It's a socialist approach, by a socialist government, but whether it will succeed may be in doubt. The last paragraph in the following article is of interest:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-cuts-speed-limit-and--turns-out-lights-to-save-fuel-881401.html

[DarrylRi]

Although I have not yet received my September ON, I did get my October Consumers Reports. And in it is an article titled Which hybrids save you money?, with a tag line: Despite their higher price, many models pay off after only a year.

Six of the 12 hybrids we looked at can save you from about $500 to $4,250, even without tax credits, and pay back their price premium after only one year. They are the Toyota Prius and hybrid version of the Chevrolet Malibu and Tahoe, Ford Escape, Saturn Vue, and Toyota Camry. For several, you can save even more by taking advantage of federal tax credits.

The report assumes $4/gal. gas, which is what it is right now near me (SF bay area, probably one of the most expensive areas in the country).

[GregFeeler]

From the rumblings I've heard, it's possible that the 55 MPH speed limit may be re-enacted. For those of us used to 70+ on the slab, that will make for quite a change - apart from the cost savings.

How will this effect your long distance rides? Will you be more or less likely to take the 5K miles trip?

I would expect a change like this will depend on the outcome of the next U.S. elections - not before. Also, I expect there will be a LOT of resistance based on the experience of so many from the last time this was tried. I know I would fight it tooth and toenail. "Out west" where I live, it wouldn't likely make a lot of difference because of the large expanses of wide open (and lightly patrolled) spaces.

I just came through the south-eastern corner of Oregon yesterday, and they have a 55mph limit already, even in the open country. Everyone was driving 85... :bolt

[tonkandy]

I hope to be too old to go climbing around on mast or towers. Not being able to fix it myself would add drastically to my cost of maintenance.

Tom

For a domestic size system you don't need to climb up the tower. If you buy a hinged tower you can raise and lower it with a small pick-up truck, as long as you have room to lay it down.