Lower Speed Limit Proposed In Kansas

Save

Reporter: Associated Press
Email Address: news@kake.com

32 comments

Poll

A | A | A

State officials are considering lowering the
speed limit on Kansas highways from 70 miles per hour to 65 mph as
a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

What do you think of a plan to lower Kansas' speed limit to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions?

I support it

I oppose it

Lowering the speed limit
was recommended by the Kansas Energy Council' Greenhouse Gas Policy Committee. The committee's work will be considered by the full KEC on August 13th.

More Stories
Parkinson Tours NW Kansas Wheat Harvest

Uighur Leader Denies Inciting Fatal Riots In China

Usher, Mariah Carey To Attend Jackson Memorial

Man Pleads Not Guilty To Killing Iowa Coach

Judge Denies New Sex Assault Trial For Designer

Wichita Police Issue Several Tickets In Traffic Operation

Microsoft Warns Of Serious Computer Security Hole

SC Police At NC Shooting Near Serial Killings

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: Alex on Aug 28, 2008 at 01:35 AM
It seems to me that everyone in favor of reducing the speed limit is forgetting a very crucial part of the issue- a speed limit is exactly that: a limit. Those who are willing to sacrifice time for a (minimally) smaller gas bill can do just that with the laws in place now. Those who want to reduce emissions with a lower speed limit need to consider the number and efficiency of cars this would effect relative to the millions of cars in countries with no emissions regulations. While I do believe we need to be environmentally conscious, I also believe there are much more relevant issues that merit attention. The development and implementation of new energy technologies and sources (especially in the private sector) would be a much more worthy cause for our time and tax dollars as opposed to a 5mph speed limit decrease on a limited number of Kansas highways. Perhaps my conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but perhaps the proposed change is a bit inconsequential.

Posted by: Ck the facts Location: Wichita on Jul 31, 2008 at 03:23 PM
VD maybe you should do a little research. The reason the Governor vetoed it in the first place was because Kansas wasn't the one getting most of the power from it. Colorado was! Colorado couldn't put another one in that area (Kansas Colorado line) because they are already at their limits with emissions. Thus the push to put one in Kansas. Come on people read up. That's what's really wrong with this country. Everyone OUT for themselves and forget about everyone else. That and the need to be there RIGHT now instead of a few minutes later!

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on Jul 31, 2008 at 08:22 AM
vd, I know the legislature voted for the coal plants, the best legislature money can buy spent lots of your tax money backing a carbon and other polutant belching plant that would be to provide power to colorado because they are already at their polution limits. why regulate my car so snowbunnies can have big fires in their hotels?

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 31, 2008 at 04:21 AM
I just wish that they would enforce the speed limits we already have and fix things like the stop lights so that we don't sit so long.

Posted by: dem25 Location: worthless kansas on Jul 31, 2008 at 02:53 AM
to all right wing nuts please kill your self,family,

Posted by: Robert Location: Mission, KS on Jul 30, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Fix the stupid stop lights. Ever wonder how much fuel is wasted stopping and starting at one red light after another? Now multiply that number by millions of cars at thousands of intersections hundreds of times a day. Of course, that would require government workers to solve a problem - taxes and regulation are much easier.

Posted by: vd Location: kansas on Jul 30, 2008 at 07:15 PM
cliff, the legislature voted for coal fired plants. The governor vetoed it. Don't blame the legislative branch of our government, blame kathy (Algore) sebillius.You get what you vote for.

Posted by: Megan Location: El Dorado on Jul 30, 2008 at 04:16 PM
I don't think that it should be lowered because it's goin to cause to much traffic clutter and some people drive slow enough for the ones who don't and if it is lowered more people will be getting speeding tickets but i guess that's what the cops want so they can get more money.

Posted by: Becky Location: Overland park on Jul 30, 2008 at 01:16 PM
I don't know about anyone else's car but mine gets much better mileage when I am going faster, NOT slower! We need to vote out anyone who goes for this pandering.

Posted by: Juan Location: Hell on Jul 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Make it unlimited. The faster one can get out of this wretched state,the better.Screw the warmers Kansas needs a huge asteroid impact

Posted by: William Location: Lenexa on Jul 30, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Lower it? HELL NO! Raise that puppy to 75 like it is in Colorado. If you want to lower emissions in Kansas see if there is anyway to magically eliminate that vast void of desert that exists beyond Wilson and lasts till the Colorado border. Fact is, that stretch should be 100mph. Cripes amighty! Clean

Posted by: Loren Mach Location: Belleville, Ks on Jul 30, 2008 at 09:25 AM
From the comments, all things in Kansas must revolve around Wichita.You people are part of the problem because you keep voting in the liberal politicans that keep coming up with type of people control that is driving our state and country into third world status. Think about it. Most all large cities in Kansas vote liberal and it is killing our state and economy because the people want all the FREE stuff from our government.FREE healthcare, FREE education, FREE money, FREE this, FREE that. Remember, anything the government gives, it will take away at some point in time.When your lights go out, thank a liberal because we have to save the planet because coal powerplants are bad for your planet but it is ok to stumble around in the dark and eat rotten food because your freezer won't work.Think about it the next time you vote. All things have a price, your freedom or FREE stuff with people control. Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: John Location: Atlanta, GA on Jul 30, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Those ignorant of history are doomed to relive the worst parts of it. I really do not wish to relive the '70s, and yet it appears that we're going to be forced to. The energy savings will be marginal, and the "safety" argument was debunked 20 years ago. If you want to go slower, go ahead. (Just stay in the right lane) But please stop forcing your political vanity on the rest of us.

Posted by: Steve Location: Europe on Jul 30, 2008 at 09:14 AM
65 is too slow. For that matter, 70 is too slow. I remember driving on the Kansas Turnpike 50 years ago at 80 in a car that was neolithic compared to today's cars with their stronger, but lighter construction using disc brakes, independent suspensions and radial tires-- none of which were available on US produced cars then. I admit that US drivers have not improved in that time; but that is a licensing problem, not a speed limit problem. Modern high speed roads with artificially low limits that are exceeded by most drivers are more dangerous, not less. And, with the constant speeding up and slowing down; cause average gas consumption to increase, not decline. It causes clumping of cars in congested groups, bumper to bumper with long empty stretches of road in between; and, in those portable parking lots, where the most are desperately trying to get around the few, the constant and abrupt changing of speeds and lanes creates dangerous and unpleasant conditions for all.

Posted by: ken Location: tennessee on Jul 30, 2008 at 08:46 AM
start by raising the mpg on cars it dont cause traffic jams.

Posted by: Bruno Location: Former Wichita Resident on Jul 30, 2008 at 07:59 AM
When will people open their eyes and see the truth - so called greenhouse gases do not cause global warming. We should not be wasting government money or time on trying to reduce them. This is an attack on freedom and the free-market. We are now in a cycle of global cooling and have been for the last 5 years. Do the research and do not believe all the hype!

Posted by: John Location: Wichita on Jul 30, 2008 at 07:54 AM
I will be voting against any politician supporting this measure. In fact, I will vote against any politician that doesn't oppose this measure.

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on Jul 30, 2008 at 07:33 AM
do the math, they are talking about lowering from 70 to 65, what does 60 to 80 have to do with it? what is the difference in drag for 5 mph difference between 65 and 70 mph work out to? logarithmic changes get bigger with bigger differences.

Posted by: joe Location: pratt on Jul 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I say these greenies should put up or shut up! they want to lower the speed limit? but they dont want nuclear power? let them spend the next 30 years getting permits and doing enviromental impact studies! then make them pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the new signs, because we the people of kansas are tired of paying for their scheems!!!!

Posted by: do the math Location: Wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 07:41 PM
When your car is moving, the motor is moving not only the weight of the car and passengers, it has to push itself through the air. The affect that air has on a moving object is called drag. The faster you go, the more drag affects your car and the increase is not just '10' more at 75 than at 65 or even 15% more. The increase in drag is logarithmic. Soooo resistance goes up 77 percent between 60 and 80 mph, and that could drop your fuel economy by four to eight miles per gallon!! As far as staying on the left? I'll stay on the left when the drivers in Wichita realize what a "YIELD" sign really means.....

Posted by: ken Location: wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 04:28 PM
For those that wish to drive slower please do just stay out of the left lane because I do not wish to go slower. Leave as our on decision, not our legislatures

Posted by: Don Location: East entral Kansas on Jul 29, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Why should just cars and trucks targeted. We are suppost to have laws that are equal for all. When all sources are reduced, then I might be infavor of it. Such as, farm equipment, aircraft, boates, and so on.

Posted by: Dennis Location: Wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Leave the darn speed limit alone, noboby follows it anyway and all it will do will give the state opportunity to make more income from speeding tickets. Save Gas? HA! I'd rather get to my destination as quickly as I can and pay for the gas to get there than have to drive longer and still use the gas. Somebody do the math, how much do you really conserve by lowering the speed limit and driving longer to get from point A to B?

Posted by: Kathleen Location: Manhattan on Jul 29, 2008 at 01:18 PM
To help conserve gasoline and help save lives--yes, excellent idea! Hardly ANYONE obeys the 70 mile speed limit--going more like 80. There is NO way those people will be in favor of this change.

Posted by: Peggy Location: Wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 01:13 PM
I support it. Not so much for the emissions, but the cost savings in gas as well as safety issues! It either won't work or won't pass tho! Too many people can't abide by the speed limits now! On Kellogg through the work zone it's 35. I drive 37 and I get passed and dirty looks from other drivers because I won't drive "faster." Same when on I-235 and driving 65 and cars zooming by me at 70 or better!

Posted by: Don Location: Wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 01:09 PM
I support the charge only to reduce the consumption of oil therefore reduce the cost of gasoline to the consumer. Still, there is no hard evidence that proves that man-made carbon emmisions have an effect on the weather.

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Since colorado was already up to their limit, Kansas was selected to build power plants for colorado t move the carbon here. now we are going to have to change speed limits and get other changes just so colorado dont have to. thank you paid off legislators.

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 29, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Why whine about a 5 mph difference?

Posted by: Anonymous Location: Wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM
James, you might want to check your facts. You're wrong, that's all there is to it. If they were considering it for safety reasons, the change might fly with me. But to do it because of false "science" is a complete different story. The earth warms, the earth cools, it's a long-running cycle. It's the height of vanity to think that man has anything to do with it. To use James' analogy (with correct facts) -- one volcano eruption generates more greenhouse gases than all that man has produced since fire was discovered.

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM
this is ridiculous, people are just going to keep driving 70 anyways so whats the difference? don't they have something better to work on?

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on Jul 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM
there arent many highways at 70 mph, especially in wichita where the ozone is measured.

Posted by: James Location: w on Jul 29, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Why make people slow down to reduce CO2 when the coal plant will produce far more than the cars in Kansas

Offbeat News Headlines
Wallet Stolen In 1982 Found In NYC Tree; $20 Gone Money doesn't grow on trees, but a tree-care supervisor in New York City's Central Park found an old wallet inside a dead one. (Full Story)
Sea Turtle Named After President Gains His Freedom There have been a lot of things named after Barack Obama since he was elected president. Including a sea turtle. (Full Story)
Annual Wife Carrying Race Teams from 13 countries competed last weekend for the World Wife Carrying Championship. (Full Story)
Irish Pub Happy As Clam, Wins Massachusetts Chowder Prize The manager of an Irish pub in Boston is as happy as a clam. (Full Story)
Maine Pound Shows Off Rare Orange, Live Lobsters Two orange lobsters that look as though they've just emerged from a steamer pot are definitely alive and pinching in Maine. (Full Story)
Inmate Sentenced For Stealing Jail’s Computer Judge quoted as telling the Michigan resident that stealing from a jail was "the dumbest crime" he'd heard that day. (Full Story)
Mite Crossing: Slick Roads Ahead There were so many insects on the roadway that it looks as though the ground was moving. (Full Story)
New Laws In Effect Around U.S., Eyeball Tattooing Out All kinds of new laws went into effect July 1st around the country. In Oklahoma, there's a ban on the tattooing of eyeballs. (Full Story)
More Headlines